Mr PETER BESSELING (Port Macquarie) [9.44 p.m.]: I speak on the Coastal Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 (No. 2). It is important when considering this legislation that we take into account two main factors: first, that the State Government takes an active role in planning for and implementing measures that deal with the impacts of coastal erosion in consultation with local communities, local councils and those who have demonstrated experience in coastal processes; and, second, that people whose homes are affected by coastal erosion and imminent threat of storm damage have the opportunity and ability to put in place measures that will protect their property, so long as those protections do not have a negative impact upon neighbouring properties or public access to our coastline.

It is very important that the Government, together with councils, delivers coastal zone management plans to provide confidence in the process. I understand that in a recent interview the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment said that since legislation was introduced in 1990 not one single approved coastal management plan has been delivered. Port Macquarie-Hastings Council, one of two councils in my electorate, has done some work in that regard. But the State has had 20 years without a coastal management plan approved by the Minister. Many communities in our State are under constant threat of coastal erosion, which has been identified by these hot spots.

People's homes are affected by notations on 149 certificates, which affect their house prices. This, in turn, affects the equity in their homes and their mortgages. Retirement plans are affected because of the reduced value of houses. When people sell their homes, they have to sell at a reduced rate because of these notations. There is no confidence in the process because management plans have not been put in place. Existing retirees are also concerned. People and properties are in limbo. We cannot continue to put this off. We must deal with coastal erosion now. It has a significant impact upon many communities, mine included. Local government alone cannot deal with this issue. I would welcome the Federal Government's involvement in these processes, but I am glad that the State Government has finally taken the step to get involved. This issue will not go away.

On 9 September 2009 I asked a question of the then environment Minister, Ms Carmel Tebbutt, about the measures taken by the State Government to support local councils trying to deal with the effects of coastal erosion. It is, therefore, pleasing—although it has taken some time—that 13 months later we now are being asked to consider an historic piece of legislation that formally identifies the State Government as a stakeholder in the major environmental, economic and social challenge facing coastal communities. I welcome the establishment of a New South Wales Coastal Panel, which requires experience in the field. Panel members must have qualifications and experience relevant to coastal planning, coastal engineering, coastal geomorphology, coastal environmental management or estuary management. I particularly note estuary management. The only hot spot that has been identified in my electorate is at Lake Cathie. The estuary is right next to that coastal erosion hot spot. We cannot pick and choose locations where coastal management plans are put in place. These plans must also take into account those estuaries that have an impact upon our coastline.

People must be provided with the ability to protect their homes. The emergency measures within this bill which are designed to protect properties allow those who wish to protect their properties to apply for a certificate, so long as they are included in the emergency action sub-plan. We do not want people who have the ability to protect their homes through emergency measures not being able to get through the bureaucratic red tape that we all so often hear about in the banging on in this place. By its very nature, it is an emergency, so people need to be able to apply for the certificates quickly and it is good to see that that has been provided for in the bill.

People also need the ability to apply longer-term measures to protect their home, subject to developmental approval. We do not want to have people building massive retaining walls without having to go through the same processes as you and I and everyone else in the State have to go through when dealing with such issues. We also need—and it is good to see that it has been noted—flexibility to come up with local solutions that will work for local residents or property owners and councils, if they are in agreement—not saying that that is always going to be the case. It remains to be seen how that will play out in a practical sense, but we need to provide flexibility in all legislation and it is good to see that it has come up in this legislation. What we do not want to see is the blocking of public access, dangerous or temporary measures, such as non-engineered retaining walls and non-appropriate fill material. In the past we have seen people putting all sorts of things onto the beach to try to protect their property, and I understand even old used cars have been dumped there to try to protect property. That is not what the community wants or deserves and we need to make sure that there is no effect on neighbouring properties or other properties or beaches further along the coast. I note that the Local Government Association of New South Wales and the Shires Association of New South Wales have put out a few dot points, including the following:

The bill has been significantly amended from the Consultation Draft that was released early in 2010. The early draft gave landowners an unfettered right to repeatedly protect their own properties (with no consideration of longer term impacts or impacts on their neighbours) ...

While consultation did occur leading up to the tabling of a revised Bill in June, there were still lingering concerns about the workability of some provisions of the Bill, particularly those relating to emergency works.

The Associations called for a deferral of consideration of the Bill, so that these concerns, held by many member councils, could be further discussed and addressed.

The associations also noted:

This deferral provided the associations with an eight-week window to further consult with member councils, and in July, workshops were conducted at 7 locations along the coast (Ballina, Coffs Harbour, Port Macquarie, Newcastle, Sydney, Shellharbour and Moruya). DECCW [Department of Climate Change and Water] participated in this consultation. It was important that they (DECCW) be able to hear the concerns of member councils "first hand".

There are a number of dot points, including:

LGSA believes that the current emergency works provisions are reactive, in that they require landowners to wait until erosion is imminent (or likely to be imminent). Given that there are only 200 properties involved in the short to medium term, LGSA believes that it would be better to work proactively with those landowners to develop longer term strategies to address the impact of wave erosion. This might include protective works or planned retreat.

There are issues that require further work and need to be addressed. The Port Macquarie-Hastings Council advises that the idea of a coastal panel comprised of individuals with relevant qualifications and experience to advise on and deal with coastal issues is supported; however, the delegations for the panel to deal with development consents should not be used by the Government as a method of removing the decision-making responsibilities of local councils. In addition, the Minister can seek the advice of the panel on a coastal management plan prepared by a council and then, on the advice of the panel, direct the council to make changes to the plan. This essentially gives the Minister a right to ride roughshod over the local decision-making process. Perhaps the Minister can address that in his speech in reply. It is important to note that in my electorate the major issue for the people of Lake Cathie is not direct and imminent danger to homes but direct and imminent danger to Crown land and to roads, specifically Illaroo Road. I have a letter from Carolyn Lucas which sums up exactly what most people are concerned about. It reads:

Dear Mr Besseling,

My name is Carolyn Lucas and I am the owner of [a property in Chepana Street].

Firstly let me congratulate you on raising the issue of Coastal Erosion in Parliament with Carmel Tebbutt. We need a voice in this matter.

I would be grateful if you would raise the issue with Tony Kelly—Minister for Lands. In particular I would like you to ask him what are his Government's plans to protect their own land. As you are no doubt aware the area in imminent danger is Illaroo Road. However, little attention has been drawn to the fact that between the ocean and houses on the seaward side of Chepana Street there is a stretch of "littoral rainforest" which is Crown Land owned by the State Government. I and others are of the understanding that this stretch of land is now "rare and precious" and needs protecting (hence the funding for weeding and plant re-generation from Government) which has been given and the work undertaken. If the Government consider it appropriate and a wise investment to spend tax payers money on weeding and replanting to regenerate this "littoral rainforest" surely it stands to reason that it would also be appropriate and a wise investment to PROTECT it from coastal erosion. If not the money has been unwisely invested in a vain endeavour—with the "littoral rainforest" subsequently being allowed to fall into the ocean!

So I request you to ask the Minister this question "IS THE STATE GOVERNMENT PREPARED TO PROVIDE FUNDING IN THE NEAR FUTURE TO PROTECT THE CROWN LAND THEY OWN AND HOLD IN TRUST ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE"?

In the bill, there is no compulsion upon public authorities to protect public lands and assets. This needs to be addressed by the Minister, particularly in relation to section 6 of the Roads Act 1993, which states:

(1) The owner of land adjoining a public road is entitled, as of right, to access (whether on foot, in a vehicle or otherwise) across the boundary between the land and the public road.

(2) The right conferred by this section does not derogate from any right of access that is conferred by the common law, but those rights are subject to such restrictions as are imposed by or under this or any other Act or law.

This needs to be addressed by the Government. How is it going to protect public lands particularly when there is a road between the coastal erosion hotspot and private properties. Within the development of coastal zone management plans the future action of State and local governments relative to public assets needs to be addressed. The impact of coastal erosion on New South Wales communities is directly upon us and the time to act is now. Given that I have approached the Government on many occasions to involve itself in coastal erosion issues, it would be hypocritical of me to reject this attempt and to reject the bill. Therefore, I commend the bill to the House.
 

[Full Transcript]