HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-08-21 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Harbors and Navigation (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 20 August 2025.)

Clause 10 passed.

Clause 11.

Mr WHETSTONE: Regarding the declaration and the constitution of harbours and ports, minister, can you please give me an understanding of whether the River Murray is still declared a harbour?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, it is not on our list of harbours.

Mr WHETSTONE: We have been talking about issues on the River Murray. Does that mean that the questions I have asked about that really are not part of this act?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We have jurisdiction over navigable waters, so they are relevant.

Mr WHETSTONE: This might overlay with clause 9. As far as a declaration of a harbour or a waterway, there may be a vessel—I think we talked about this yesterday—that has sunk in the main channel and has been declared by your department as safe. I have an ex-government ferry that has sunk in the river channel that has been declared safe. My concern is that we have weir pool manipulation in the main channel now, so we have a lot of variation in river height.

In a normal pool level situation, a vessel that is sitting on the bottom of the river is deemed safe, but under a weir pool manipulation—for want of a better term—the water level is raised and lowered. When it is lowered, it becomes a safety concern for river users, particularly anything that does draw water. Some of the bigger ski boats now do draw a lot of water. So there is this vessel that has sunk at a low pool level that is also leaking hydrocarbons: I wonder whether you could make some comment on that, please.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I think in your preamble you said that while it is underwater it is safe. It is not a safety issue. If it became a safety issue, then we would act. We do not think it is a safety issue, but if there is evidence that it is a safety issue, that would trigger a course of action by the agency.

Mr WHETSTONE: Just for clarification, minister: as I said in the preamble, at pool level or normal operating river height it is not a safety issue, but when the Department for Environment and Water are weir pool manipulating, raising and lowering the river level, for environmental benefit and they lower the pool level, that vessel will become a safety issue. I have constituents who have land adjacent to that sunken vessel and they are concerned that at pool level it is safe but, when there is a reduction in river height, it becomes a safety issue.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We would liaise with DEW about the weir manipulation, and if we thought it was a safety issue at a lower level we would either alert river users or act, and I would take advice from the agency on what the best course of action is.

Mr WHETSTONE: With regard to this vessel leaking hydrocarbons, is there a mandate on how that would be addressed or how it would need to be rectified?

The CHAIR: I just draw to the member's attention that that was your fourth question.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: As I said to you last night, this is a multi-agency jurisdiction, so if the EPA or DEW felt that hydrocarbons were indeed being leaked into the river system and they exceeded an amount that was acceptable, then orders would be placed by the relevant agency on the owner of the vessel.

The system works, but I am not sure what the member is asking me to do. Are you asking me if there are automatic triggers along the way for a course of action to occur, or are you asking me who is responsible? If you are asking me who is responsible, I would say that there is a multi-agency response. If it is about pollution into the river, it would be either the EPA or DEW. If it is about navigation and safety hazards, it is DIT. If it is something relating to the ports and harbours navigation act, it is DIT. It is not one agency. It is not one rule to govern everything.

I suppose the question you have given me is: there is a government ferry that has been submerged and you say it is leaking hydrocarbons, so whose responsibility is it if the weir manipulation lowers the levels and there are still hydrocarbons being released? The hydrocarbons are a matter for the EPA. The navigation is a matter for DIT. The subfloor of the river is a matter for DEW. There is not one agency that governs the entire aspect of all of this. We cooperate amongst ourselves because the South Australian government as a whole is responsible.

If the EPA told DEW and DIT that those hydrocarbons being released—if there are hydrocarbons being released—are a hazard, we would have to act, but I have not received that notification. I do not know the ferry that you are talking about. I do not know the location you are talking about. I am happy to look into it and get back to you.

As I said, the framework is multi-agency, it is not one agency. What this bill does is give a framework for harbours and navigation, about applying rules to harbours, how we deal with shipwrecks, how this act interacts with other pieces of legislation. I am not trying to usurp DEW or the EPA. This is not DIT saying that it is now running all these measures. It is no different from the scenario I gave you earlier about a prison: Corrections are responsible for the maintenance of prisons, police respond to incidents, MFS respond to fires, ambulance responds to injuries. It is a multi-agency response within one jurisdictional facility. It is no different from the river, it is no different from any other form of government response. It is not one agency that does everything: we liaise with each other.

Is this dealing with hydrocarbons leaking into the system? No, but what we are dealing with is wrecks, safety navigational rules, declarations we can make. It is a framework. I think that answers your question. If you want better clarity about who deals with that ferry, if DEW is manipulating the ferry, the weir levels, and they create a hazard, I would expect them to notify DIT and we would make a decision about what to do next.

Mr WHETSTONE: Finally, to clarify, this ferry wreck is at a community called Younghusband. It has no known owner, so there is no responsible person. Is it up to me or the community to notify you where it is, to assess where that ferry is and what risk it will have for river users, or is it up to the community to assess the wreck, the water height, so they can give you a clearer picture of what safety issues the vessel that has sunk potentially will raise?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The advice I have is that we generally monitor and we respond to reports. We do general monitoring and we also respond to reports. I suspect from the preamble you have given that the department is aware of this ferry, aware that it is a hazard. Is there a buoy?

Mr Whetstone: No.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: There is not? That would indicate that the department does not think it is a hazard.

Clause passed.

Clause 12 passed.

Clause 13.

Mr PEDERICK: The minister's second reading speech states that harbour rules will not be created for all 33 harbours around the state and that harbour rules are likely to be developed particularly for harbours where ferry services operate. We note the new service that will come into play extremely shortly at Penneshaw and Cape Jervis. Can the government clarify exactly to which harbours it is proposed these new harbour rules will apply?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, I cannot. This is not making the new harbour rules: this is giving us the ability to make harbour rules. The department will do an assessment about where we need to have the harbour rules. I think you can safely assume it is Penneshaw and Cape Jervis. So, obviously, there need to be rules in place. But again, I go back to the foundation: this legislation gives us a framework to go out and do these things. This is not a prescriptive bill that is saying, 'These are the harbours and ports where we will place rules.' What we are doing is giving ourselves a platform to do that, and the department, in an administrative way, will then decide into which ports and harbours to place the rules.

Mr PEDERICK: It is noted that, under the Harbors and Navigation Act, authorised officers may be appointed who are also local government employees. The minister's colleague, the Attorney-General, was asked—through the truncated debate on the Biodiversity Bill that passed this parliament on 18 June 2025—about liability protections for authorised officers. In that debate the government declined to support amendments proposed by the Hon. Nicola Centofanti to include a new clause 106A, in the Biodiversity Act, which would have addressed the issue of liability coverage to council-employed authorised officers appointed under that act. The proposed amendment to the Biodiversity Bill was:

An authorised officer who takes action under this Act in good faith does not incur any civil or criminal liability for taking that action.

At the time, the Attorney-General declined to address this issue in a piecemeal way, and committed to addressing the wider issues of liability protections for council-employed authorised officers through a review of section 74 of the Public Sector Act.

In circumstances where the minister has already appointed authorised officers or intends to appoint authorised officers who are also local government employees, to assist in enforcement of the new rules and directives proposed under the Harbors and Navigation (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill, what liabilities and protections are provided to council officers under the Harbors and Navigation Act?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I think it is very unlikely that we would ask council officers to enforce measures under this legislation. I think you answered your own question in your preamble, where the Attorney-General told the Hon. Nicola Centofanti that he would review this holistically rather than piecemeal. I think that is your answer.

In terms of who would be liable, they are questions for individual councils rather than me, as the minister. The government has already told the opposition, through the debate on the Biodiversity Bill in the upper house, that there will not be a piecemeal solution to this, it will be a holistic approach by the government. That answers the first part of your question.

The second part of your question is: who is liable? The advice I have received is that we are very unlikely to be engaging council officers to do this work for us. This is just a general provision that is put in place in most legislative instruments that allow for us to delegate authorised officers to councils. We will deal with it holistically rather than piecemeal legislation by legislation.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you for that answer. Notwithstanding that it might be a very rare event, will the minister commit to referring this matter to the Attorney-General for additional consideration under the Public Sector Act for remedy of liability protections for all council-employed authorised officers appointed under this and many other South Australian acts?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, because he has already agreed to undertake that work previously, so there is no need for me to do that. We have already publicly said that we will deal with this holistically. However, I just want to give you some comfort, if I can. If you go to section 89 of the current act it says:

An authorised person incurs no civil liability under this Act for an honest act or omission in the exercise or purported exercise of powers under this Act.

Mr WHETSTONE: Minister, can you give me some clarification: under the Harbors and Navigation (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill, when was the river no longer defined a harbour?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: My advice is it never has been.

Clause passed.

Clause 14.

Mr WHETSTONE: I think I am in the right space, but with the navigable channel on the river there have been a number of underlying issues potentially post-flood with infrastructure; not so much damage to infrastructure but infrastructure that has been affected by the high flows. We have scouring around wharves, we have boat ramps that have lost all the material underpinning a concrete slab and what we are now seeing is boat ramps breaking off and falling into the channel. We have boats being damaged due to putting boats in and out on broken boat ramps and infrastructure. Who is responsible for the remediation of that infrastructure?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am a bit confused. Section 14 changes the name of the act, that is all it does, but you are asking a more general question about who is liable for those works in case of a flood?

Mr WHETSTONE: Yes. I might be in the wrong space.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That is okay, it does not matter because the bill is open so we might as well answer this. The advice I have is that the owners of the infrastructure are the ones who are liable for repair and remediation of those works. My guess is it is insured, much like our jetties are in a storm event. It is no different. If a council has jetties, there is insurance on those jetties. If there is a storm event and debris is caused, the insurance claim clears that debris. It is no different for infrastructure on the river.

Mr WHETSTONE: Just a little more clarification: are there rules around ownership of that infrastructure? Is it a state government asset? Is it a local government asset? Is it something that has been handed over? It is a public asset?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It depends entirely on who made the application to build it. If councils made the application to build infrastructure to improve tourism or amenity in their local communities, then they own the infrastructure. If the state has built a ferry crossing, we own the infrastructure. Potentially, a privateer could put things in if they have development approval, then they are responsible for it. It is no different from any other piece of public infrastructure.

Clause passed.

Clauses 15 and 16 passed.

Clause 17.

Mr WHETSTONE: I put some preamble out there yesterday with regard to abandoned boats and the requirements for operators of hire and drive vessels. What I am witnessing at the moment is people travelling from interstate, bringing vessels into South Australia and parking them on a riverbank or parking them in parks, mooring them and then leaving, with no accountability.

For example, a houseboat owner comes out of Victoria, where they are charged mooring fees. They come to South Australia, they park the boat and they leave. They might come back in six months' or 12 months' time and then occupy that boat, but in the meantime that boat is sitting there, banging on the bank, causing degradation, with no accountability. I am wondering who is responsible for the policing of that boat or, if it falls under a permit, which they currently pay no money for and they do not pay mooring fees, do they just come down free of charge because it is an opportunity there to be taken?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You raise an excellent point, because the current framework is that it depends on whose infrastructure it is they are moored against and what the permit results are. I think you raise an excellent point, as that is a cost. The problem that we will have to contemplate, given the query you have raised, is whether or not we do impose costs on interstate travellers who just dump a houseboat in the river, rent free for all intents and purposes, unless the owner of the private infrastructure charges for it, which I imagine they would. If it is public infrastructure, it depends on who owns the public infrastructure and whether they have permitting or charging.

If you have evidence of people taking advantage of South Australia as a low-cost jurisdiction and taking up space and doing damage to our infrastructure without contributing to it, I would like to know about it. I would be more than happy to work with the local member to try to come up with something that is not punitive on locals but also stops those types of people taking advantage of local infrastructure, free of charge.

Mr WHETSTONE: Just to go on a little bit further from there, if there is a boat in that situation—dump and run, or they just moored it and moved away—on Crown land, does it then become the responsibility of the Department for Environment or is it still under the auspice of the Department for Infrastructure and Transport?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I cannot give you an answer to that question. I would have to liaise with the multi agencies to work out the response, so I cannot give you a definitive answer. But we would liaise with the other agencies and come up with a solution.

Mr WHETSTONE: Just finally, if there is a houseboat moored on public property and a tree falls on that houseboat, who is liable for the damage?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I cannot answer that question. Why does a tree fall in the forest? Why did the tree fall over? Was it because of a natural disaster? Was it because of a storm? Was it mismanagement of the riverbank? I do not know. Who owns the tree? Who owns the public infrastructure? Is it the council? Did you pay a permit to be there? Are you insured? I cannot answer that question.

Mr WHETSTONE: If it were a tree on Crown land and it was deemed that the weir pool manipulation by the Department for Environment undermined that tree and then the tree fell down on private property or on private assets, would there be a determination then?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: My instincts are that the Crown would say that they have no liability, and the person who has the houseboat could take their case to a court and the court would adjudicate whether or not the state was liable.

Clause passed.

Clauses 18 to 21 passed.

Clause 22.

Mr PEDERICK: The minister's second reading speech states that the safety direction will prevail over any council by-laws. Given that these directions may be temporary and put in place within a very short period to respond to emerging issues, how does the minister propose that adequate consultation with councils will occur to ensure that inconsistencies do not arise in any conflicts between a council by-law and the safety direction?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: There cannot be an inconsistency because our safety directions will prevail.

Mr PEDERICK: If a safety direction overrides a council by-law, once the period of the operation of the direction has expired, will the council by-law return fully in its force?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes.

Mr PEDERICK: The minister's second reading speech states that the safety direction will be used to ensure safety and can impose restrictions—for example, prohibit swimming or limit vessel speed. What enforcement activities are proposed to be undertaken by the state government under the safety direction to ensure public safety?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Marine officers would enforce the safety directions, but I do not expect anyone operating in a harbour to breach these rules. It is no different from any other law we pass. We have officers who enforce them.

Mr PEDERICK: What assurance can the minister give that these enforcement functions will not be cost shifted to local government through specific actions or activities?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I just remind the member he is a member of this place, and the state's interests are our interests, not councils', and councils are a creation of this place. We do not mean to cost shift, but we make laws for the good order and governance of the state, and we expect our creations of this parliament to abide by laws we pass.

Mr PEDERICK: Local councils are often subject to Crown vesting land management arrangements for assets and infrastructure within harbours and navigable waters. They already have obligations to ensure safety and amenity for local communities under these arrangements. What assurance can the minister provide that local government entities would not be subject to punitive measures under the safety directions for infrastructure that is already maintained for community benefit?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I think you are misunderstanding what we are attempting to do here. We are not giving ourselves powers for them to build infrastructure. What we are trying to do here is give us powers to stop activity if we think it is not safe, so there is a difference. I think you are probably misinterpreting things.

Mr PEDERICK: So what assurances can the minister provide that he will not use these safety directives to compel councils to address historical asset conditions of leased assets?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The bill does not give me the power to do what the shadow minister is asking me.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (23 and 24) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister for Energy and Mining) (12:34): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:34): Just quickly, I would like to thank the minister for making his officers available to give us a briefing and thank them for their work during the committee stage. I think it has been quite productive and we look forward to the full operation of the act when it comes into order.

Bill read a third time and passed.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT