gold coast waterways authority bill 2012 · 1.3 gold coast waterways authority bill 2012 2 1.3.1...

Gold Coast Waterways Authority Bill 2012

Report No. 12Transport, Housing and Local Government Committ ee November 2012

Parliamentary

Gold Coast Waterways Authority Bill 2012

Report No. 12 Transport, Housing and Local Government Committee November 2012

Transport, Housing and Local Government Committee

Chair Mr Howard Hobbs MP, Member for Warrego

Deputy Chair Mrs Desley Scott MP, Member for Woodridge

Members Mr John Grant MP, Member for Springwood

Mr Bill Byrne MP, Member for Rockhampton

Mr Darren Grimwade MP, Member for Morayfield

Mr Trevor Ruthenberg MP, Member for Kallangur

Mrs Tarnya Smith MP, Member Mount Ommaney

Mr Anthony Shorten MP, Member for Algester

Staff Ms Kate McGuckin, Research Director

Ms Danielle Cooper, Principal Research Officer

Ms Rachelle Stacey, Principal Research Officer

Ms Susan Moran, Executive Assistant

Ms Lisa Van Der Kley, Executive Assistant

Technical Scrutiny Secretariat

Ms Renee Easten, Research Director

Ms Marissa Ker, Principal Research Officer

Ms Tamara Vitale, Executive Assistant

Contact details Transport, Housing and Local Government Committee

Parliament House

George Street

Brisbane Qld 4000

Telephone +61 7 3406 7486

Fax +61 7 3406 7070

Email [email protected]

Web www.parliament.qld.gov.au/thlgc

Acknowledgements

The Committee thanks those who briefed the committee, made submissions and participated in its inquiry. In particular the committee acknowledges the assistance provided by the Department of Transport and Main Roads.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/thlgc

Contents

Contents v

Abbreviations iii

Glossary iii

Chair’s foreword iv

Recommendation v

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Role of the committee 1

1.1.1 Referral 1

1.1.2 Inquiry process 1

1.2 Policy objectives of the Gold Coast Waterways Authority Bill 2012 1

1.3 Gold Coast Waterways Authority Bill 2012 2

1.3.1 Economic, social and environmental values of the Gold Coast waterways 2

1.3.2 Growth in waterways use 3

1.3.3 Optimal structural solution 3

1.3.4 Gold Coast Waterways Authority proposed structure 3

1.3.5 Estimated cost for implementation of the Bill 4

1.3.6 Power-assisted bicycles 4

2 Examination of the Gold Coast Waterways Authority Bill 2012 5

2.1 Should the Bill be passed? 5

2.2 Relationship between the proposed shipping terminal and the GCWA 5

2.3 Board composition 6

2.4 Gold Coast Waterways 10-year management strategy and program 7

2.4.1 Public consultation obligations 7

2.4.2 10-year Planning Horizon 8

2.4.3 Statement of specific objectives 9

2.4.4 Public submissions on the management program 9

2.4.5 Strategic Planning function 10

2.5 Sand Management 10

2.5.1 Sand Management Plan continuation 10

2.5.2 Sand Bypass costs 11

2.6 Role in development assessments and approvals 11

2.7 Sources of Revenue 11

2.8 Other Issues considered by the Committee 13

2.8.1 Comparison with the last waterways authority 13

2.8.2 Transfer of staff from Marine Safety Queensland 13

2.8.3 Intention to streamline costs and red tape 13

2.8.4 Role of the Harbourmaster and relationship with GCWA 14

2.8.5 Meeting Minutes 14

2.8.6 Regulatory functions in relation to recreational activities 15

2.8.7 Climate change 15

2.8.8 Abandonment of property 15

3 Fundamental legislative principles 16

3.1 Rights and liberties of individuals 16

3.1.1 Rights and liberties of individuals 16

3.1.2 Delegation of administrative power 17

3.1.3 Immunity from proceedings or prosecution without adequate justification 17

3.1.4 Compulsory acquisition of property 17

3.1.5 Clear and unambiguous drafting 18

3.2 The institution of parliament 19

3.2.1 Delegated legislative power subject to scrutiny by the Legislative Assembly 19

3.3 Explanatory Notes 19

Appendices 20

Appendix A – Witnesses at public briefing – Friday 2 November 2012 20

Appendix B – List of Submissions 20

Appendix C – TMR advice on issues raised in submissions received by the Committee 21

Gold Coast Waterways Authority Bill 2012 Abbreviations and Glossary

Transport, Housing and Local Government Committee iii

Abbreviations

GCCC Gold Coast City Council

GC waterways Gold Coast waterways

GCWA Gold Coast Waterways Authority

Gecko Gold Coast and Hinterland Environment Council Association Inc.

MSQ Marine Safety Queensland

TMR Department of Transport and Main Roads

Glossary

Concurrence Agency

Regarding planning and development applications: There are two different types of referral agencies: concurrence agencies and advice agencies. A concurrence agency can direct the assessment manager to refuse the application, approve the application in its entirety or in part and impose conditions on any approval. 1

Waterways management program

A management program to be submitted by the GCWA Board to the Minister outlining management of the waterways for the coming year and following 3 years

1 http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/development-applications/development-application-referrals.html; accessed 16 November 2012

http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/development-applications/development-application-referrals.html

Chair’s Foreword Gold Coast Waterways Authority Bill 2012

iv Transport, Housing and Local Government Committee

Chair’s foreword

This report presents a summary of the Committee’s examination of the Gold Coast Waterways Authority Bill 2012. The Committee’s task was to consider the policy outcomes to be achieved by the legislation, as well as the application of fundamental legislative principles – that is, whether it has sufficient regard to rights and liberties of individuals and to the institution of Parliament. The public examination process allows the Parliament to hear views from the public and stakeholders they may not have otherwise heard from, which should make for better policy and legislation in Queensland. On behalf of the committee I thank those individuals and organisations who lodged written submissions on this Bill, and others who have informed the committee’s deliberations: the Committee’s secretariat, officials from the Department of Transport and Main Roads and the Technical Scrutiny of Legislation secretariat. I commend the report to the House.

Mr Howard Hobbs MP Chair November 2012

Gold Coast Waterways Authority Bill 2012 Recommendation

Transport, Housing and Local Government Committee v

Recommendation

Recommendation 1 5

The Committee recommends that the Gold Coast Waterways Authority Bill 2012 be passed.

Gold Coast Waterways Authority Bill 2012 Introduction

Transport, Housing and Local Government Committee 1

1 Introduction

1.1 Role of the committee

The Transport, Housing and Local Government Committee (the Committee) was established by resolution of the Queensland Legislative Assembly (the Assembly) on 18 May 2012. The Committee consists of both government and non-government members and its primary areas of responsibility include transport, main roads, housing, public works and local government.2

Section 93 of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 provides that a portfolio committee is responsible for considering:

the policy to be given effect by the Bill, and

the application of the fundamental legislative principles to the Bill.

1.1.1 Referral

The Assembly referred the Gold Coast Waterways Authority Bill 2012 (the Bill) to the Committee on 30 October 2012. The Committee is required to report to the Legislative Assembly by 22 November 2012.

1.1.2 Inquiry process

The Committee held a public briefing by the Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) on Friday 2 November 2012 (see Appendix A for a list of witnesses), and received 2 submissions from stakeholders (see Appendix B for a list of submissions). The Committee invited submissions by emailing 461 subscribers on the Transport, Housing and Local Government Committee’s email subscriber list and emailing a further 26 identified stakeholders on Wednesday, 31 October 2012.

The transcript of the public briefing by TMR and submissions received by the Committee are published on the committee’s webpage at: http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/work-of-committees/committees/THLGC.

1.2 Policy objectives of the Gold Coast Waterways Authority Bill 2012

The Minister for Transport and Main Roads in introducing the Gold Coast Waterways Authority Bill 2012 in Parliament on Tuesday, 30 October 2012 stated:

This bill will re-establish a Gold Coast Waterways Authority, which was abolished in 1990. Its re-establishment will deliver on the government’s commitment to return control back to the local community… The Newman government will act to improve access to Gold Coast waterways by investing $30 million to re-establish the Gold Coast Waterways Authority. The overarching goal is to help restore the Broadwater and surrounding Gold Coast waterways as a hub for recreational and tourist activity…The purpose of re-establishing the Gold Coast Waterways Authority is to provide the best possible navigational access, boating infrastructure and waterways management for the people in the area. 3

The principal policy objective of the Bill is to re-establish the Gold Coast Waterways Authority (GCWA) in order to:

promote partnerships between government and the Gold Coast community to improve access and infrastructure for Gold Coast waterways

provide for localised decision making and control of Gold Coast waterways to ensure government programs are aligned with community needs and expectations

2 Schedule 6 – Portfolio Committees, Standing Rules and Orders of the Legislative Assembly as amended 14 September 2012.

3 Hon. Scott Emerson MP, Hansard Transcript, 30 October 2012, p.2186.

http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/work-of-committees/committees/THLGC

Introduction Gold Coast Waterways Authority Bill 2012

2 Transport, Housing and Local Government Committee

ensure the Gold Coast community is represented in determining the priorities for delivery of navigational access and boating infrastructure projects and the development of waterways management policies and legislation and

promote the sustainable use and development of Gold Coast waterways for a range of maritime industries, tourism and recreational activities.

The Bill will also:

repeal two obsolete Acts:

- the Australian Shipping Commission Authorisation Act 1977 and - the Brisbane River Tidal Lands Improvement Act 1927, and

enable regulations to specify types of power-assisted bicycles which are approved or prohibited in Queensland.4

1.3 Gold Coast Waterways Authority Bill 20125

At the public briefing on the Bill held on 2 November 2012 TMR provided the following summary of the government’s objectives in introducing the Gold Coast Waterways Authority Bill 2012.

This bill basically achieves three objectives for this government. The first is the reintroduction of the Gold Coast Waterways Authority. Members of the committee who will have been down to the Gold Coast will know that the Gold Coast has something like 260 kilometers of waterways that need looking after. It also has roughly 17 per cent of the state’s recreational vessel registrations, so there are about 40,000 recreational vessels on the Gold Coast.

This bill really meets the government’s commitment to re-establish the authority to look after the long-term interests of the waterways of the Gold Coast, and it will do that in a number of ways. One is by establishing the authority, which will have a CEO and a fully staffed office and will also be oversighted by a seven-member board. The authority will look after setting a 10-year strategy and direction for management and use of the waterways, and this will cover a number of areas. This will cover issues to do with dredging. It will cover issues to do with management and use of navigational aids. It will importantly also have to do with matters around access and use of the waterways. So the authority will have a key role both in direction setting for the management of the waterways but also some of the key aspects around day-to-day operation, and that will be, as I mentioned, anything from operating a sand bypass system around the dredging to collection of certain fees and levies and management of access and use. So that is the first and key objective of this bill.6

1.3.1 Economic, social and environmental values of the Gold Coast waterways

The Gold Coast waterways are economically, socially and environmentally important to the Gold Coast Community and to the State. There is no existing mechanism to engage the varying community, industry and tourism interests around a single approach to managing the long term future of Gold Coast waterways and support decision making. Since the Gold Coast Seaway was constructed in 1986, the stability of the main entrance to the Gold Coast has seen an increase in aquatic activity, including:

luxury yacht construction in the Coomera precinct

world-class Sanctuary Cove Boat Show 4 Gold Coast Waterways Authority Bill 2012 Explanatory Notes, p.1.

5 Unless otherwise referenced, the material in section 1.3 has been taken from the Gold Coast Waterways Authority Bill 2012 Explanatory Notes, pp.1-4.

6 Mr Fraine (TMR) Public Briefing held on 2 November 2012 Transcript p.1.

Gold Coast Waterways Authority Bill 2012 Introduction


marine-based tourism, such as personal water craft hire, fishing charters and jet boat ‘thrill’ rides

access to the southern areas of the pristine Moreton Bay Marine Park and

a dramatic increase in recreational boat ownership and use in the Gold Coast region.

1.3.2 Growth in waterways use

Growth in waterways use is expected to continue. As Marine Queensland has stated:

The demands on the waterways are increasing and the incidence of conflicting uses is dramatically on the rise. The impact of conflicting uses often carries with it safety risks that can result in death, injury, property loss and damage to local environments. There is an urgent need for a planned and coordinated strategy and plan for Gold Coast waters.7

The Explanatory Notes to the Bill point out that growth pressures need to be balanced with a range of amenity and environmental considerations to ensure that Gold Coast’s waterways continue to support a range of important economic and social activities on the Gold Coast. However, Gecko is concerned that, while:

It is (also) noted that the 10 year strategy must consider the community, environment and economic needs of the Gold Coast. This statement fails to recognise that the economic and community needs are dependent on a healthy environment of all waterways and this should be clearly stated in the Bill.8

The Explanatory Notes state that the required balance will be achieved by underpinning the 10 year management strategy for Gold Coast waterways and the GCWA’s implementation programs with localised advice and input. The Government has committed to involving the local community in decision making to ensure Gold Coast waterways are managed for the benefit of locals, boaties, fishers and tourists in a sustainable and environmentally sensitive manner.

At the moment, there is no single community sector, organisation or peak body that represents the range of community, industry or tourism interests associated with Gold Coast’s waterways. The waterways are vital infrastructure, akin to roads and bridges that are used by and underpin all sectors of the Gold Coast maritime community, including recreational and commercial vessel users. The Gold Coast City Council’s (GCCC) jurisdiction does not extend to the management of waterways.

1.3.3 Optimal structural solution

The Explanatory Notes state that the re-established GCWA is best placed to improve access to provision of marine infrastructure and management of Gold Coast waterways and activities, when properly advised by a board of local community, tourism and industry representatives, which will also be established by the proposed legislation.

It is clear that the most effective proposal is to establish a statutory entity reporting to the Minister for Transport and Main Roads with its operations and functions separate from the Department of Transport and Main Roads9.

1.3.4 Gold Coast Waterways Authority proposed structure

The re-established GCWA will have a chief executive officer reporting to a decision making board to ensure localised input and control in managing Gold Coast waterways. The GCWA Board will be able to make decisions on its own initiative and can also be directed by the Minister for Transport and Main Roads. It will be guided in its work by both the proposed GCWA Act and the GCWA Board’s terms of reference.

7 Marine Queensland, Submission No. 2, p.6.

8 Gold Coast and Hinterland Environment Council Inc. (Gecko), Submission No. 1, p.2.

9 Gold Coast Waterways Authority Bill 2012 Explanatory Notes, p.3.

Introduction Gold Coast Waterways Authority Bill 2012


It is proposed that the GCWA Board will have seven members made up of:

a chairperson (appointed member)

the mayor of the GCCC (or delegate) and

five other persons (also appointed members).

The Bill provides that appointed members must be people with knowledge and expertise in the marine, coastal or waterways areas for planning, development, infrastructure, engineering and environmental sciences or have other knowledge and experience the Minister considers appropriate.10 The Explanatory Notes indicate that members of the local community, industry organisations and interest groups would also be desirable.

1.3.5 Estimated cost for implementation of the Bill

The table below summarises all additional costs to re-establish a GCWA.

Cost Element Year 1

2012-13

Year 2

2013-14

Year 3

2014-15

Year 4

2015-16

Total

(4 Years)

Establishment costs 220,000 0 0 0 220,000

Additional GCWA

operating costs

656,527 661,259 666,094 671,036 2,654,916

Additional sand

bypass costs

171,000 171,000 171,000 171,000 684,000

Total 1,047,527 832,259 837,094 842,036 3,558,916

1.3.6 Power-assisted bicycles

The Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 contains limitations on the types of power-assisted bicycles that can be used in Queensland through the definition of a ‘bicycle. The Bill amends this Act to amend the definition of ‘bicycle’ and insert a new definition of ‘power-assisted bicycle’ to allow regulations to prescribe types of power-assisted bicycles which are approved or prohibited in Queensland. The Explanatory Notes state that the purpose of the amendments are to ensure that Queensland’s legislation can be changed in a timely manner in line with emerging technologies for power-assisted bicycles.

After the Bill is passed, it is proposed that a regulation will be made to allow bicycles meeting European Standard EN 15194 to be used in Queensland. These bicycles are referred to as ‘pedalecs’ in the Australian Design Rules and are also commonly referred to as ‘pedelecs’. TMR clarified the term at the Public Briefing held on 2 November 2012:

[A pedelec]—is basically a power assisted bicycle where there is a motor that kicks in to help get the cycle up to a certain speed and then once it reaches about 25 kilometers per hour the motor cuts out. So it is not a powered bicycle as such in that it does not have an engine that is permanently running. It is something that operates to basically help get a bit of speed up and then cuts out at a certain speed.11

The regulation will also continue to prohibit bicycles with internal combustion engines and allow those with electric motors with a maximum power output of 200 watts.

10

Gold Coast Waterways Authority Bill 2012, Clause 45, pp.30-31. 11

Mr Fraine (TMR) Public Briefing held on 2 November 2012 Transcript p.2.

Gold Coast Waterways Authority Bill 2012 Examination of the Bill


2 Examination of the Gold Coast Waterways Authority Bill 2012

2.1 Should the Bill be passed?

Standing Order 132(1) requires the Committee to recommend whether the Bill should be passed. The Committee considered the policy intent of the Bill which seeks to re-establish the Gold Coast Waterways Authority, repeal two obsolete Acts (the Australian Shipping Commission Authorisation Act 1977 and the Brisbane River Tidal Lands Improvement Act 1927) and allow regulations to specify types of power-assisted bicycles which are approved or prohibited in Queensland. After the Committee’s examination of the Bill, the Committee determined that the Bill be passed.

Recommendation 1

The Committee recommends that the Gold Coast Waterways Authority Bill 2012 be passed.

2.2 Relationship between the proposed shipping terminal and the GCWA

The Premier, the Hon. Campbell Newman, in his 29 August 2012 ‘Waterway authority to cut red tape’ Media Release suggested that the GCWA would be involved in the planning for the cruise ship terminal, stating that:

We are working to deliver better Gold Coast waterways...That means improving access to Gold Coast waterways whether it's planning for the council's proposed cruise ship terminal, making it a hub for tourists or for the 40,700 registered boats that use the waterway.12

However, the Gold Coast and Hinterland Environment Council Assoc. Inc. (Gecko) has questioned the nature of the relationship between the proposed Gold Coast cruise ship terminal and the role and functions of the GCWA. Specifically, the submission questions the relationship between the GCWA (which will submit its ten year management strategy in December 2013) and the current Expression of Interest process for the cruise ship terminal development which is already underway.13 The Deputy Premier and Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning, the Hon. Jeff Seeney MP, stated on 2 November 2012:

The State Government, in conjunction with the Gold Coast City Council, will call for Expressions of Interest (EOI) to develop an international cruise ship terminal and associated development on the Gold Coast…We will give interested parties until early 2013 to put forward their expressions of interest…out intention is to then determine a shortlist and move to a Request for Proposal phase with the announcement of a successful bidder by mid-2013.14

The Gecko submission further questions the logic of requiring the GCWA to produce a ten year management strategy by December 2013 when the cruise ship terminal, which will be central to any Gold Coast Waterways plan, will still be in development. Finally, the submission questions how a Board which only meets four times a year can oversee the management of such a significant development and recommends that the cruise ship terminal have a direct line of management into the State Government (rather than through a statutory body).15

12

The Hon. Campbell Newman, Waterway authority to cut red tape Media Release, p.1. 13

The Hon. Jeff Seeney MP, Gold Coast Council and State Government to examine cruise ship terminal Media Release, 2 November 2012

14 The Hon. Jeff Seeney MP, Gold Coast Council and State Government to examine cruise ship terminal Media

Release, 2 November 2012 15

Gold Coast and Hinterland Environment Council Inc. (Gecko), Submission No. 1, p.1.

Examination of the Bill Gold Coast Waterways Authority Bill 2012


TMR advised that:

The Authority would not initially have an active role in the establishment of a cruise ship terminal as it will be a concurrence agency (this will occur through an amendment to the Sustainable Planning Regulation 2009 that is programmed to occur in due course). As such the Authority will be able to provide input into the development process without displacing existing planning and environmental responsibilities across State and Local Government. Under the current system, the Broadwater Marine Project, which includes the potential for a Gold Coast Cruise Ship Terminal, could be declared a ‘significant project’ by the Coordinator-General (Department of State Development Infrastructure and Planning) under the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 (SDPWO Act). The significant project status may (in all likelihood) result in the need for an environmental impact statement to be prepared. The environmental impact statement is evaluated by the Coordinator-General with input provided by relevant concurrence agencies (for example, the Authority).16

Committee comment

The Committee is satisfied that the GCWA will not carry the primary responsibility for the planning and/or management of the cruise ship terminal and that the GCWA is to be a concurrence agency in relation to this development on the Gold Coast waterways. Further, the Committee is satisfied that the GCWA will be able to satisfactorily incorporate the cruise ship terminal development project into its own vision, planning processes and documents in an ongoing way.

2.3 Board composition

Section 44 of the Bill (Gold Coast Waterways Authority Board Membership) provides that the GCWA Board will consist of 7 persons made up of:

(a) a chairperson (an appointed member); and

(b) the mayor of the Gold Coast City Council; and

(c) 5 other persons (each also an appoint member).17

Gecko has raised concerns about the absence of a designated TMR officer on the GCWA Board18 and also about potential ‘vested interests’ on the GCWA Board, stating that:

Since the composition of the…GCWA is as yet unknown, it is impossible to assess the level of local input especially from the general community rather than more vested interests.19

While Gecko acknowledges that the GCWA Board will be accountable to the Minister for Transport and Main Roads, it questions how the Bill will:

Provide for an accountability mechanism to the people of the Gold Coast they purport to represent.20

Regarding a designated TMR position on the GCWA Board, the Explanatory Notes state that:

Usually, statutory entities include the relevant departmental chief executive on the board to ensure maximum value for money outcomes. However, the proposed composition of the

16

TMR, Advice on issues raised in submissions received by the Committee, p.4. 17

Section 44, Gold Coast Waterways Authority Bill 2012 18

Gold Coast and Hinterland Environment Council Inc. (Gecko), Submission No. 1, p.3. 19





GCWA Board does not include the chief executive of TMR in accordance with Government’s advice that the GCWA should make decisions and function autonomously from TMR.21

TMR also advised that:

…the level of input from all sectors of the community will receive the same level of attention. As noted in clause 19(3), the authority is required to take reasonable steps to consult with the Gold Coast City Council, the community of the Gold Coast city local government area and sectors of the maritime industry (and that) As outlined in clauses 44 and 45, the Board will, by necessity, have strong links to the ‘the people of the Gold Coast they purport to represent’ with a membership consisting of a chairperson that is an ex-Gold Coast mayor and city councillor, the current mayor of the Gold Coast City Council; and five other persons that have knowledge of and experience in (an area of expertise) relevant to the Gold Coast waterways. 22

Committee comment

The Committee is satisfied that the proposed membership of the GCWA Board, as detailed in the Bill, is duly representative of the interests of the community and that autonomy from the Department of Transport and Main Roads is appropriate for this statutory body.

2.4 Gold Coast Waterways 10-year management strategy and program

2.4.1 Public consultation obligations

Clause 16(2)(c) of the Bill, Development of waterways management strategy, requires the GCWA to take reasonable steps to engage in public consultation. Marine Queensland points out in its submission that:

...the community interest and expectations…(are) is very high…This means that from both the community and industry perspectives sophisticated governance of our waters and associated infrastructure is essential. 23

The implication appears to be that a reasonably sophisticated approach to public consultation will also be required given this heightened community interest and expectation.

Gecko expresses concerns about the precise requirements for public consultation, stating that:

It is (also) impossible to gauge from the Bill (S.16.2c) what types of community consultation the members of the GCWA will engage in to determine community views on particular development proposals, since this section only states that GCWA will “take reasonable steps to engage in public consultation”.24

TMR advised that the Bill outlines specific provisions to ensure that consultation is comprehensive, stating that:

(s.)16(2) states that a waterways management strategy must be developed having regard to ‘the purposes of this Act’ which include to:

1. Deliver the best possible management of the Gold Coast waterways

21

Explanatory Notes, Gold Coast Waterways Authority Bill 2012, p.3. 22


Marine Queensland, Submission No. 2, p.4. 24




2. Plan for and facilitate the development of the Gold Coast waterways over the long term in a way that is sustainable and considers the impact of development on the environment.

Additionally, the Authority is required to ‘consult with, and consider the views of, the Gold Coast City Council as well as to engage in public consultation within the Gold Coast City local government area. The legislation does not specify the exact form of the consultation, this will be determined by the Board.25

In regard to this clause (section 19(2)), Marine Queensland requests that the word ‘industry’ also be added to compel the GCWA to engage in industry consultation as well as public consultation.26 However, TMR advised that:

There is no reason to include the additional text as consultation with industry is implicit in the ‘public consultation’ process.27

Committee comment

The Committee is satisfied that the Bill makes sufficient provision for consultation with the public (including industry) by the GCWA in carrying out its planning and management functions.

2.4.2 10-year Planning Horizon

Clause 15.1 provides that a waterways management strategy “is a 10-year management strategy about the long-term sustainable use, management and development of the Gold Coast waterways”.28 Marine Queensland recommends that the Bill provide for a ‘minimum 10-year planning horizon’ rather than a ’10-year management strategy’:

To ensure that the planning horizon is always at a minimum 10 years at any given time and also facilitate longer planning horizons where a longer term approach is necessary, for example, long term maintenance dredging contracts and associated procurement requirements.29

TMR advised that:

The subtle changes to the wording of the phrase will not provide any greater assurances than what is currently stated…further, use of the suggested wording would not be supported by the Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel (OQPC) in keeping with current drafting practices and language…It should also be noted that the implication of the ’10-year management strategy’ is that there will always be a 10-year outlook for the management of Gold Coast waterways. This will be complemented by the requirements for a ‘waterways management program’ outlined in Division 2, whereby the authority must develop a waterways management program for the year and the following 3 years that must include the policies and financial measures for implementing the waterways management strategy.30

Committee comment

The Committee is satisfied that it is the intention of the Bill that there will always be a 10-year planning outlook for the management of Gold Coast waterways.

25




S.15(1), Gold Coast Waterways Authority Bill 2012 29


TMR, Advice on issues raised in submissions received by the Committee, p.1.



2.4.3 Statement of specific objectives

Marine Queensland has also recommended that Clause 17(1)(a), which requires the strategy to include “a statement of the specific objectives sought to be achieved in relation to the Gold Coast Waterways”, be replaced with the following clause:

…a statement of the specific objectives sought to be achieved in relation to the Gold Coast waterways generally and specifically having due regard for:

1. Improving accessibility throughout Gold Coast waterways and to adjacent inland waterways and coastal waters;

2. Recognised environmental values, coastal processes and amenity; 3. Contributing to a sustainable community and healthy lifestyle by providing

waterway access to natural open space areas and recreational facilities; 4. Contributing to continued economic prosperity of the Gold Coast and Queensland by

supporting employment within the marine, tourism and development sectors.31

TMR advised that:

There is no reason to include the additional text as the intent of the suggested amendment is implicit in the overall purposes of the Act (as stated in clause 3) which include to:

Deliver the best possible management of the Gold Coast waterways

Plan for and facilitate the development of the Gold Coast waterways over the long term in a way that is sustainable and considers the impact of development on the environment

Improve and maintain navigational access to the Gold Coast waterways

Develop and improve public marine facilities relating to the Gold Coast waterways

Promote and manage the sustainable use of the Gold Coast waterways for marine industries, tourism and recreation.32

Committee comment

The Committee is satisfied with TMR’s view that there is no need to include the additional text.

2.4.4 Public submissions on the management program

Section19(4)(a) and (b) provide that the waterways management program must be published on the authority’s website and available for inspection at the authority’s office during normal business hours. Gecko has questioned why there is no mechanism provided for in the Bill for the public to make submissions on the management program. 33 TMR advised that section 19(3) provides that:

In developing a waterways management program, the authority must take reasonable steps to consult with the Gold Coast City Council, the community of the Gold Coast city local government area and sectors of the maritime industry that, in the authority’s opinion, would be affected by the program.34

31







Committee comment

The Committee does not believe that it is necessary to seek public submissions on the waterways management program given that the legislation requires that public consultation be undertaken in the development of the program.

2.4.5 Strategic Planning function

At the public briefing, Mr Bill Byrne MP questioned the proposed staffing structure that would be implemented to support the planning functions of the GCWA.

Capt. Quirk from TMR responded that:

Prior to the government’s decision to re-establish the waterways authority, there was the Gold Coast waterways steering committee, of which I was the chairperson. It had a membership of local councils, the Gold Coast City Council, some industry representation and government departments. It had a wide-ranging agenda. Some of that was short-term and longer term planning. So there are staff going across to the authority who have skills and experience and competence in strategic planning.

The waterways steering committee, when it was there, was in the initial planning to do a 10-year strat [strategic] plan. So there is some base work that has already been done. That will require both in-house and outside expertise as well as extensive community consultation. So in many ways it is a continuation of a program, but much more focused in terms of the Gold Coast.35

2.5 Sand Management

While the Gold Coast Waterways Authority Bill 2012 makes no specific mention of sand management, the Bill provides, in section 12, Powers relating to navigational access, that:

(1) For the purposes of improving or maintaining navigational access to the Gold Coast waterways, the authority may—

(a) dredge and otherwise improve and maintain navigational channels for the Gold Coast waterways; and

(b) reduce or remove a shoal, bank or accumulation in Gold Coast waters that impedes navigation.36

2.5.1 Sand Management Plan continuation

Marine Queensland suggests that:

The work previously initiated by the GC Waterways Steering Committee for the development of a Sand Management Plan should continue and is strongly supported by the marine industry.37

Committee comment

The Committee expects that, in situations such as these (i.e. where the GCWA will assume and build upon the work of the Gold Coast Waterways Steering Committee), the GCWA will identify and progress any legacy work determined to be of value to the new remit of the GCWA.

35

Capt. Quirk (TMR) Public Briefing held on 2 November 2012 Transcript p.4. 36

S.12, Gold Coast Waterways Authority Bill 2012 37

Marine Queensland, Submission No. 2, p.6.



2.5.2 Sand Bypass costs

The Chair of the Committee, Mr Howard Hobbs, MP, asked for information regarding the cost of additional sand bypassing and what the sand was to be used for.

TMR responded: The sand bypass system is integral to the whole stabilisation of the bar, as you know, at Wave Break Island. The clause that I think you are referring to is an issue about funding reorganisation. There was set funding for the sand bypass electricity bills. Over time, bills go up. There was not a full accounting for that extra cost in terms of the local regional cost centres, and that has been corrected in terms of the new structure to allow full funding for the operation of the sand bypassing system to be on the books of the waterways authority and also to be funded appropriately….. There is no new sand being pumped; it is the old

sand.38

2.6 Role in development assessments and approvals

Marine Queensland has recommended that GCWA should take a lead role in the approvals processes for waters and lands adjacent to foreshores.39 TMR advised however that:

The re-established GCWA will not be responsible for development assessments which was a role undertaken by the former Authority. This role will remain with the GCCC and the Coordinator-General in accordance with the current State Government planning framework. However, the Authority will have a concurrence agency role for planning and development matters to implement the 10 year management strategy and advise on the future use and development of Gold Coast waterways. This will ensure that the GCWA has influence in these matters but the existing planning and environmental responsibilities across state and local government are not displaced. TMR continues its regulatory responsibilities for marine safety and marine pollution, as these responsibilities are to remain a state-wide function.40

Committee comment

The Committee is satisfied that the concurrence agency role (proposed for the GCWA in the Explanatory Notes) is the appropriate role for the GCWA in planning and development projects affecting the Gold Coast waterways.

2.7 Sources of Revenue

Part 7 of the Bill (Financial Provisions) provides that the GCWA must pay amounts received under this or another Act (e.g. Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 or Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994) into the consolidated fund and outlines the various monies that the GCWA may receive.

At the Public Briefing on 2 November 2012, Mr John Grant, MP asked about the range and type of fees that will be levied by the authority and whether they are new fees. TMR responded that:

There are two classifications of fees that the waterways authority will be able to collect: regulatory fees and non-regulatory fees. The regulatory fees primarily relate to buoy moorings, applications for aquatic events and there is a marina owner levy which applies to boat owners in a recognised marina. That is an existing levy and it has just been translated across to the new authority. In the non-regulatory areas we have casual mooring fees, hiring of land, rent income from a seaway kiosk and applications to use the seaway wharf.

38



Explanatory Notes, Gold Coast Waterways Authority Bill 2012, p.10-11.



They are non-regulatory fees. There are no new fees. These are just being translated across to the new authority. In that regard it is a neutral sort of transfer.41

At the same Briefing, Mr Trevor Ruthenberg, MP asked for clarification about whether the authority would be able to adjust fees. Capt. Quirk (TMR) responded that:

There is provision in the bill for the authority to set new fees through established government processes.42

Mr Fraine (TMR) further added that: They will certainly be able to make recommendations through our minister to government on that.43

Marine Queensland has stated its’ opposition to marinas being the primary and/or sole source of revenue to cover the operational costs of the GCWA.

The marine industry acknowledges the need for industry contributions – such as a marina levy, however this should not be the sole revenue source…our view is broadening the scope of levy proposals reduces the impost and burden on one sector of the community which has very limited capacity to bear the current levies little [sic] alone be subject to further increases.44

Marine Queensland has suggested that the Bill impose levies on:

1. The GCCC for waterfront residential properties with marine infrastructure such as pontoons and jetties

2. Marine industry businesses 3. Marine tourism operators45

TMR has advised that:

Firstly, the ‘marina owner levy’ provision is a grandfather clause carried over from the existing requirements of the Transport Infrastructure (Gold Coast Waterways) Management Plan 2000 and simply maintains the status quo. Secondly, there is scope within the current framework of the legislation for the Authority to seek the introduction of additional fees and charges. However, this would have to be undertaken with the support of the Board and the Minister and, depending upon the scale of the proposed amendments, be undertaken as part of a comprehensive regulatory review process which would include a public consultation state.46

Committee comment

The Committee is satisfied that the fee structure for the GCWA is a translation across from other pieces of existing legislation which is, in effect, no change from current arrangements. Further, the Committee is satisfied that, should the GCWA wish to increase or create new fees, it must comply with a rigorous government process.

41

Capt. Quirk (TMR) Public Briefing held on 2 November 2012 Transcript pp.5-6. 42


Fraine (TMR) Public Briefing held on 2 November 2012 Transcript p.5. 44






2.8 Other Issues considered by the Committee

2.8.1 Comparison with the last waterways authority

At the public briefing on Friday 2 November 2012, Mr Trevor Ruthenberg, MP asked about the differences between the old authority and the new one.

TMR responded:

I would say there are probably two key differences that strike me. The previous authority had more extensive powers in the development and land-planning space than the current one will. The proposed authority will certainly have a role as a concurrence agency around development assessments, but it will not be the development assessor as such….With the second, I think there are tighter provisions in this piece of legislation in terms of the authority’s ability to raise its own revenue source in that sense. So certainly, there are some powers in there and they will collect levies on behalf of the government, but they are more constrained than the previous iteration of the authority.47

2.8.2 Transfer of staff from Marine Safety Queensland

At the Public Briefing, Mr Bill Byrne, MP asked for clarification about which parts of Marine Safety Queensland were going to be transferred to the Board.

TMR responded that:

In terms of the split-up of the staff, we have around 23 or 22 staff on the Gold Coast now. Sixteen of those will be translated into the waterways authority. MSQ will be maintaining six of those staff to look after core safety activities such as marine licensing, monitoring of safety standards, auditing and the occasional restricted-use flag, which is the special permit flag we use for unusual craft.48

2.8.3 Intention to streamline costs and red tape

Gecko raised a concern that the Explanatory Notes suggest that the GCWA will:

Streamline costs and bureaucratic red tape without actually defining what these are. However later in the reading it is noted that the Authority will operate using the existing laws and regulations and the same assessment processes in the event of a dredging or other application.49

TMR responded that the GCWA will have no direct links to TMR and that:

It is important to note that, for reasons of accountability and adherence to statutory requirements, already in place, such as environmental protection under the Environmental Protection Act 1994, that the Authority continues to operate within the existing legal framework of the State.50

Committee comment

The Committee is satisfied with TMR’s response.

47

Mr Fraine (TMR) Public Briefing held on 2 November 2012 Transcript p.4. 48






2.8.4 Role of the Harbourmaster and relationship with GCWA

At the public briefing Mr Bill Byrne MP requested clarification about harbourmaster responsibilities for the Gold Coast waterways and the relationship between the harbourmaster and the GCWA Board, particularly in areas of dredging and safety provisions.

TMR responded that:

The functions of the harbourmaster, the responsibilities of the original harbourmaster based in Brisbane and on the Gold Coast, will not be impacted. He already exercises at the appropriate time powers and responsibilities and duties, and that will continue unimpeded. There is a requirement in the bill for the harbourmaster to consult with the waterways authority in exercising those powers. That simply replicates the practices that the harbourmasters use now in facilitating safety outcomes in port corporations up and down the coast, all the way from Brisbane to Karumba. So the powers of the harbourmaster will not be impacted at all.51

Further:

In terms of dredging, the harbourmaster’s role is purely safety. There are two aspects of dredging: safety and access. In terms of safety, the harbourmaster can declare depths of channels or declare all vessels to stay in certain channels because of obstructions, but in terms of access that is an economic issue about how much a developer or a government wishes to spend in a certain area. If they want to deepen channels, that is fine. Then we will go and survey them and declare them at a deeper depth. But the harbourmaster himself or herself does not have a direct role in determining what dredging will go on. That is more a local economic decision.52

Committee comment


2.8.5 Meeting Minutes

Section 58 provides that the Board must keep minutes of its meetings and a record of any decisions under section 57 (Decisions outside meetings). Gecko has questions why the Bill fails to require the minutes of GCWA Board meetings to be made public. 53 TMR advised that:

The Authority is a public office hence the minutes of the meetings that must be recorded will come part of the public record. These will be available to the public in the same way that all public records are currently available.54

Committee comment

The Committee is satisfied that, as a public office, the records of the meeting minutes will be publicly available (as with all other public offices).

51







2.8.6 Regulatory functions in relation to recreational activities

At the public briefing Mr John Grant, MP asked about whether the Board would have any regulatory functions in relation to recreational activities.

TMR responded:

The general standards for recreational safety are state-wide in terms of safety equipment. The waterways authority will have the ability to declare local speed limits. It will have the ability to set and establish navigational aids and it will also have the authority to allow some buoy moorings. It will have a limited role in recreational boating, including infrastructure—boat ramps and jetties. The overarching safety requirement will still be a state responsibility but there will be provision for the authority at a regional level to make variations to those rules.55

2.8.7 Climate change

Gecko has expressed concern that the Bill does not require the GCWA to address the impacts of climate change in the strategy.56 TMR advised that:

It should also be noted that no specific impacts (environmental or otherwise) are explicitly stated in the waterways management strategy. The potential impacts of climate change will receive the same reasonable consideration as will all potential impacts. This is clearly implied in clause 15 which states that the strategy is ‘about the long-term sustainable use, management and development of the gold Coast waterways’.57

Committee comment


2.8.8 Abandonment of property

At the public briefing Mr John Grant, MP asked for clarification about clauses relating to abandoned property.

TMR responded:

Within the Transport Infrastructure Act, particularly in relation to ports, there is extensive provision for handling abandoned material, whether it is ships or stuff on the wharfs owned by the port corporations. That has been translated across to the waterways authority because they may need similar powers in the future. They are powers that do not go outside accepted legal principles. If anything, it is belt and braces to make sure that the ports or the waterways authority are doing the right thing with other people’s property.58

55




Capt. Quirk (TMR) Public Briefing held on 2 November 2012 Transcript p.5.

Fundamental legislative principles Gold Coast Waterways Authority Bill 2012


3 Fundamental legislative principles

Section 4 of the Legislative Standards Act 1992 states that ‘fundamental legislative principles’ are the ‘principles relating to legislation that underlie a parliamentary democracy based on the rule of law’. The principles include that legislation has sufficient regard to:

the rights and liberties of individuals and

the institution of parliament. The Committee considered the fundamental legislative principles issues stemming from the Local Government and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 and identified several potential departures from these principles which are explored below.

3.1 Rights and liberties of individuals

3.1.1 Rights and liberties of individuals

Clause 49(5) defines ‘misconduct’ for an appointed member of the GCWA Board as meaning:

inappropriate or improper conduct in performing the member’s duties or

inappropriate or improper conduct in a private capacity that reflects seriously or adversely on the Board.

The Committee notes that it is likely that this provision has been drafted to be deliberately vague to cover myriad situations and scenarios of potentially inappropriate or improper conduct and presumably does not contain examples of inappropriate or improper conduct lest these are construed as setting the parameters for the section and restricting its reach.

Determining inappropriate or improper conduct in performing the member’s duties may be relatively straightforward given the conduct must be linked to the way that the Board member has performed their duties as a member. However, by virtue of its inherently ambiguous nature, the Committee raised a concern that there is scope for private conduct which might be legal/lawful but of questionable morality (also inherently subjective) to be the catalyst for a Board member’s suspension. When vague and subjective terms set the parameters between what is acceptable and unacceptable conduct there is broad scope for persons to unwittingly breach the ‘unwritten rules’ despite their best intentions. Further, the Committee raised a concern that, where sanctions for non-compliance exist (in this Bill, suspension or removal from office), laws should be clearly set out so that a person knows what conduct is expected from them and can adjust their behavior accordingly. The Committee noted that section 49 has a built-in protection in that the Minister must consider it necessary in the public interest for the member to be suspended pending further consideration of the matter (subsection 49(1)(c)).

The Committee noted that, whilst the potential reach of this provision could be perceived as somewhat draconian, the suspension has to be in the public interest and, in any event, proposed section 50 gives the Governor in Council broad power to at any time, remove an appointed member from office for any reason or none, with removal from office having far graver repercussions than mere suspension.

TMR advised that:

The provision has been drafted widely to extend its potential reach to cover myriad situations and scenarios of allegedly inappropriate or improper conduct and agrees that this has to be in the public interest.59

59


Gold Coast Waterways Authority Bill 2012 Fundamental legislative principles


Committee comment

The Committee notes TMR’s advice on this matter. 3.1.2 Delegation of administrative power

Proposed clause 63 allows the chief executive officer to delegate his or her functions under an Act to any appropriately qualified person (subsection 63(1). The Committee noted that subsection 63(2) will allow a delegation of a function to permit the subdelegation of the function. Subsection 63(3) provides that if the function is performed under another Act, the power to delegate or subdelegate is subject to the other Act. While the initial delegation under subsection 63(1) requires delegation be made to an appropriately qualified person, there is no such requirement specified under subsection 63(2) in relation to the subdelegation. TMR advised that:

…delegations are only made when and where required. A sub-delegation will:

Only be made when it is absolutely necessary for the efficient management of the Gold Coast Waterways Authority

Be issued with any necessary restrictions on its usage.60

Committee comment

The Committee notes TMR’s advice on this matter.

3.1.3 Immunity from proceedings or prosecution without adequate justification

Proposed subsection 59(1) provides that a member is not civilly liable to someone for an act done, or omission made, honestly and without negligence under this Act. Subsection 59(2) states that if subsection (1) prevents a civil liability attaching to the member, the liability attaches instead to the State. The Committee is aware that while this does confer some limited immunity from prosecution (technically an FLP concern) it is a fairly standard provision designed to allow officers to undertake their statutory duties without fear of personal liability. Attaching civil liability to the State preserves an appropriate remedy for aggrieved persons.

TMR advised that: This is a fairly standard provision designed to allow officers to undertake their statutory duties without fear of personal liability (absent dishonesty and negligence). Attaching civil liability to the State preserves an appropriate remedy for aggrieved persons.61

Committee comment


3.1.4 Compulsory acquisition of property

Proposed section 31 provides that the GCWA may sell abandoned property that remains unclaimed 28 days after the authority has given or published a notice about the property or where the property is perishable and it is impracticable for the authority to keep it having regard to its nature and condition. Subsection 31(2) sets out the order of disposition of the proceeds of sale of the abandoned property (with any balance, after selling expenses etc., paid into the consolidated fund).

60





Subsection 31(4) provides that compensation may not be recovered against the GCWA in relation to a payment under this section. This provision prohibits a person who owned the ‘abandoned’ property or who had another interest in it from seeking compensation from the authority for any shortfall between the money they received from the proceeds of sale and the value of the property or their interest in it.

TMR advised that:

This section should not be read in isolation. Proposed section 29 states that unless the property is of insufficient value or perishable, the Gold Coast Waterways Authority must take reasonable steps to locate the property owner. Further, proposed section 29 requires the Authority to place a notice in a Gold Coast newspaper advertising it is holding the property. Pursuant to proposed section 30, the Authority must return the abandoned property to its owner, when satisfied as that person’s ownership.62

Committee comment


3.1.5 Clear and unambiguous drafting

Clause 16 is concerned with development of a waterways management strategy. The wording of proposed subsection 16(1) is arguably ambiguous as it requires the Gold Coast Waterways Authority (the Authority) to ‘from time to time develop for the Minister’s approval a waterways management strategy.’ The Committee raised a concern that the phrase ‘from time to time’ may be inherently vague and imprecise but noted that new subsection 16(3) allows the Minister to, at any time, direct the GCWA to prepare a new waterways management strategy or to amend an existing strategy in the way the Minister directs. Thus, although the wording is imprecise, the absence of strict timeframes allows for greater flexibility and potentially greater efficiencies.

TMR advised that proposed section 16 has been drafted to allow for greater flexibility and potentially greater efficiencies.63 Clause 19 requires the GCWA to develop annually for the Minister’s approval a Gold Coast waterways management program that covers that year and the following 3 years (subsection 19(1)). The only timeframe set for compliance by the Authority is that the program must be developed ‘before the start of each financial year’. While the Committee noted that such a provision allows maximum flexibility, it raised a concern that the clause provides little guidance to the GCWA as to when to prepare the program (other than sometime before 1 July of each year).

TMR advised that proposed section 19 has been drafted to allow for flexibility in preparing the Gold Coast waterways management program.64 Committee comment

The Committee notes TMR’s advice on these matters.

Subclause 78(4), Transfer of particular State assets and liabilities to Gold Coast Waterways Authority, states that this section does not limit or otherwise affect sections 78(2)(b) or 80(2)(b). The Committee noted that there is no proposed section 78(2)(b) in this Bill.

62




Gold Coast Waterways Authority Bill 2012 Fundamental legislative principles


Committee comment

The Committee is satisfied that the Minister has referred this issue to the Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel for its advice.

3.2 The institution of parliament

3.2.1 Delegated legislative power subject to scrutiny by the Legislative Assembly

Clause 129 inserts a new section 206AA into the Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994 which will allow the Gold Coast Waterways Authority to, for Gold Coast waters, fix speed limits for ships by gazette notice (206AA(1)). Under subsection 206AA(2) ‘the gazette notice is not subordinate legislation’. There is however power under subsection 206AA(6) for a regulation to be made that sets speed limits and, pursuant to subsection 206AA(7), if there is an inconsistency between a regulation and a gazette notice, the regulation prevails to the extent of the inconsistency. The maximum penalty for operating a ship at a speed of more than the speed limits fixed under section 206AA is considerable, being 200 penalty units ($22,000).

The fact that the subsection 206AA gazette notice is not subordinate legislation means it is not subject to review by the Parliament.

TMR advised that:

The new section 206AA is in similar terms to the existing section 206A. Section 206A will continue to apply to the remainder of Queensland. The proposed section means the speed limit can be changed fairly quickly if the need occurs.65

Committee comment


3.3 Explanatory Notes

Subsection 22(1) of the Legislative Standards Act 1992 states that when introducing a bill in the Legislative Assembly, a member must circulate to members an explanatory note for the bill. Section 23 requires an explanatory note for a bill to be in clear and precise language and to include the bill’s short title and a brief statement providing certain information. Explanatory notes were tabled with the introduction of the Bill.

Committee comment

The Committee notes that the Explanatory Notes attached to the Bill are fairly detailed and contain the information required i.e. a reasonable level of background information and commentary to facilitate understanding of the Bill’s aims and origins.

65




Appendices

Appendix A – Witnesses at public briefing – Friday 2 November 2012

Witnesses

Mr Graham Fraine, Deputy Director-General, Customer Services, Safety and Regulation, Department of Transport and Main Roads

Captain Patrick Quirk, Executive Director, Maritime Safety Queensland, Department of Transport and Main Roads

Mr Matthew Johnson, Director (Cycling), Department of Transport and Main Roads

Mr Russell Witt, Regional Director (Gold Coast), Maritime Safety Queensland, Department of Transport and Main Roads

Mr Michael Brown, Principal Project Officer (Legislation), Department of Transport and Main Roads

Appendix B – List of Submissions

Sub # Submitter

1 Gecko – Gold Coast and Hinterland Environment Council Inc.

2 Marine Queensland

Appendix C – TMR advice on issues raised in submissions received by the Committee

Gold Coast Waterways Authority Bill

Submitter Comments Recommendations in response to submissions and reasons for the recommendations

Clause 15.1 (Section 15(1)) provides that ‘(1) A waterways management strategy is a 10-year management strategy about the long-term sustainable use, management and development of the Gold Coast waterways’.

Don Jones (Marine Queensland)

Conditional Support based on the following: ‘Substitute “10-year management strategy” with “a minimum 10-year planning horizon”. This will ensure that the planning horizon is always at a minimum 10 years at any given time and also facilitate longer planning horizons where a longer term approach is necessary, for example, long term maintenance dredging contracts and associated procurement requirements. Our view is the current wording may in fact restrict the operational purview to a fixed 10-year timeframe.

Apart from this issue, the proposed clause is unconditionally supported’.

Comments noted but amendment not supported, as outlined below.

The subtle changes to the wording of the phrase will not provide any greater assurances than what is currently stated. Additionally, the suggested wording is ‘conceptual’ rather than ‘explicit’. Further, use of the suggested wording would not be supported by the Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel (OQPC) in keeping with current drafting practices and language.

It should also be noted that the implication of the ‘10-year management strategy’ is that there will always be a 10-year outlook for the management of Gold Coast waterways. This will be complemented by the requirements for a ‘waterways management program’ outlined in Division 2, whereby the authority must develop a waterways management program for the year and the following 3 years that must include the policies and financial measures for implementing the waterways management strategy.

Clause 16 (Section 16(1) and (2)) provides that ‘(1) The authority must, from time to time, develop for the Minister’s approval a waterways management strategy. (2) In developing a waterways management strategy, the authority must—(a) have regard to the purposes of this Act; and (b) consult with, and consider the views of, the Gold Coast City Council; and (c) within the Gold Coast City local government area, take reasonable steps to engage in public consultation’.


Conditional Support based on the following: ‘It is proposed that “industry” also be included in clause 16 (2) (c). Unconditionally supported in all other respects’.


There is no reason to include the additional text (i.e. the word ‘industry’)

as consultation with industry is implicit in the ‘public consultation’ process.

Clause 15 and 16 (Section 15(2)(a) and (b) and 16(2)(c)) provides that ‘15(2) The purposes of a waterways management strategy are to—(a) establish a clear direction for the sustainable use, management and development of the Gold Coast waterways for a 10-year period; and (b) identify the needs and priorities for the sustainable use, management and development of the Gold Coast waterways into the future, having regard to the benefits for and impacts on the community, environment and economy of the Gold Coast City local government area’ and ‘16(2) In developing a waterways management strategy, the authority must—(c) within the Gold Coast City local government area, take reasonable steps to engage in public consultation’.

Rose Adams (GECKO)

‘It is recognised that a long term management strategy for the waterways is preferable to the current ad hoc decision making on matters affecting the waterways and it is preferable that the strategy should reflect the needs of sustainable use (Part 15.2.a,b.). However it is not clear from the wording of the Bill how these needs and priorities will be determined and whether the community will be consulted.

It is also impossible to gauge from the Bill (Section 16.2c ) what type of community consultation the members of the GCWA will engage in to determine community views on particular development proposals, since this section only states that GCWA will “take reasonable steps to engage in public consultation”.’.

Comments noted. There are specific provisions in place to ensure that a comprehensive consultation process is undertaken so that all views are represented. For example, 16(2) states that a waterways management strategy must be developed having regard to ‘to the purposes of this Act’, which includes to:

o deliver the best possible management of the Gold Coast waterways

o plan for and facilitate the development of the Gold Coast waterways over the long term in a way that is sustainable and considers the impact of development on the environment

Additionally, the Authority is required to ‘consult with, and consider the views of, the Gold Coast City Council’ as well as to engage in public consultation within the Gold Coast City local government area. The legislation does not specify the exact form of the consultation, this will be determined by the Board.

Clause 17 (Section 17(1)(a)) provides that ‘(1) A waterways management strategy must include the following—(a) a statement of the specific objectives sought to be achieved in relation to the Gold Coast waterways;’.


Conditional Support based on the following: ‘It is proposed adding the following context to 17(1)(a): “A statement of the specific objectives sought to be achieved in relation to the Gold Coast waterways generally and specifically having due regard for:

– improving accessibility throughout Gold Coast waterways and to adjacent inland waterways and coastal waters;

– recognised environmental values, coastal processes and amenity;


There is no reason to include the additional text as the intent of the suggested amendment is implicit in the overall purposes of the Act (as stated in clause 3 and summarised below), which must be considered when developing a ‘waterways management strategy’.

– contributing to a sustainable community and healthy lifestyle by providing waterway access to natural open space areas and recreational facilities;

– contributing to continued economic prosperity of the Gold Coast and Queensland by supporting employment within the marine, tourism, and development sectors.”

In all other regards, supported unconditionally’.

The overall purposes of the Act includes to:

o deliver the best possible management of the Gold Coast waterways

o plan for and facilitate the development of the Gold Coast waterways over the long term in a way that is sustainable and considers the impact of development on the environment

o improve and maintain navigational access to the Gold Coast waterways

o develop and improve public marine facilities relating to the Gold Coast waterways

o promote and manage the sustainable use of the Gold Coast waterways for marine industries, tourism and recreation.

Clause 19 (Section 19(4)(a) and (b)) provides that ‘(4) A waterways management program must be—(a) published on the authority’s website; and (b) available for inspection at the authority’s office during normal business hours’.

Rose Adams (GECKO)

‘…there is no mention of a mechanism for the public to make submissions on the management plans’.

Comment noted, however, input from the public is provided for in 19(3), i.e. ‘In developing a waterways management program, the authority must take reasonable steps to consult with the Gold Coast City Council, the community of the Gold Coast City local government area and sectors of the maritime industry that, in the authority’s opinion, would be affected by the program’.

Clause 42 (Section 42(1) to (4)) provides that ‘(1) The owner of a marina must pay an annual levy to the authority as a contribution towards providing and maintaining public marine facilities. (2) The levy must be paid within 30 days after the authority gives written notice of the levy to the owner of the marina. (3) The amount of the levy is the amount prescribed under a regulation. (4) In this section—marina means a jetty, mooring, pontoon or berth, or combination of them, that can be used to moor at least 3 watercraft. owner, of a marina, includes a person who—(a) exercises or purports to exercise the powers of the owner; and (b) operates the marina or causes or allows the marina to be operated by someone else’.


‘Opposed’ based on the following: ‘Industry is opposed to marinas being the primary and/or sole basis of raising revenue for operational costs of the authority. The marine industry acknowledges the need for industry contributions – such as a marina levy, however this should not be the sole revenue source.


Firstly, the ‘marina owner levy’ provision is a grandfather clause carried over from the existing requirements of the Transport Infrastructure (Gold Coast Waterways) Management Plan 2000 (refer Part 9) and simply

We propose the wording and intent be changed to enable the Authority to impose relevant levies on:

a) the Gold Coast City Council for waterfront residential properties with marine infrastructure such as pontoons and jetties;

b) Marine industry businesses;

c) Marine tourism operators.

Our view is broadening the scope of levy proposals reduces the impost and burden on one sector of the community which has very limited capacity to bear the current levies little alone be subject to further increases. This will directly impact the viability and sustainability of marinas.

A broad revenue base with low cost impost is fairer, more equitable and more sustainable. Further the direct beneficiaries of the work and activity of the Authority with a broader funding base then become the primary contributors – i.e. users pay’.

maintains the status quo.

Secondly, there is scope within the current framework of the legislation for the Authority to seek the introduction of additional fees and charges. However, this would have to be undertaken with the support of the Board and the Minister and, depending upon the scale of the proposed amendments, be undertaken as part of a comprehensive regulatory review process which would include a public consultation stage.

Clause 58 (Section 58(1) and (2)) provides that ‘(1) The board must keep—(a) minutes of its meetings; and (b) a record of any decisions under section 57. (2) The minutes of a meeting or record of a decision must record that a member abstained from casting a vote on a matter’.

Rose Adams (GECKO)

‘Section 58 states that the minutes of the meetings of the GCWA and its decisions must be recorded, but it does not state whether these are available for public scrutiny’.

Comments noted. The Authority is a public office; hence the minutes of the meetings that must be recorded will become part of the public record. These will be available to the public in the same way that all public records are currently available. Certain information, such as sensitive commercial in –confidence, may not be publicly available, again in keeping with current requirements with how information of this nature must be treated.

General Comments (i.e. not Clause/Section Specific)

General Comment 1 (pages 1–2, paragraphs 1–3)

Rose Adams (GECKO)

Comments related to the proposed cruise ship terminal development.

Since this Bill was prepared the Government has announced an intention to seek expressions of interest (EOI) from developers for the construction of a major development consisting of a shipping terminal and associated development such as a casino, commercial premises, hotels, marinas, but this is not mentioned in this Bill. It would appear from the wording of the Bill that while the GCWA is to be responsible for development on Gold Coast waterways and their foreshores (Part 3.1), it is to undertake this role through the development of a 10 year management strategy (10.2.a). Since the management strategy is not required to be developed until December 2013 (75) and the full complement of personnel of the GCWA have yet to be announced, it is difficult to see how the GCWA would be capable of managing a proposed shipping terminal and associated development’.

‘It is Gecko’s opinion that a proposed development of this magnitude with such major environmental, social and economic impacts could not be managed by the GCWA as currently envisioned and that this should be made clear in the Bill. The GCWA is only required to meet four times per year and, while they may meet more often, the shipping terminal development would, if proceeded with, require constant oversight, beyond the capacity of such a board. Such a development proposal, which is likely to become a project of state significance, should be expressly excluded from the GCWA management to ensure that there are sufficient opportunities for full community input into any proposal which might eventuate from the EOI. This would include input into Terms of Reference for the development proposal as well as a full Environmental Impact Assessment based on ground-truthed investigations, not just desk top studies. There should also be a more direct line of accountability for any such development to the Government rather than via a statutory body such as the GCWA’.

‘It is also difficult to see how the new GCWA can proceed with the development of a 10 year strategy until the issue of a shipping terminal is resolved, a process which involves an EIS and which will take a minimum of 18 months to complete if an EOI is accepted’.

Comment noted. The Authority would not initially have an active role in the establishment of a cruise ship terminal as it will be a concurrence agency (this will occur through an amendment to the Sustainable Planning Regulation 2009 that is programmed to occur in due course). As such the Authority will be able to provide input into the development process without displacing existing planning and environmental responsibilities across State and Local Government.

Under the current system, the Broadwater Marine Project, which includes the potential for a Gold Coast Cruise Ship Terminal could be declared a ‘significant project’ by the Coordinator-General (Department of State Development Infrastructure and Planning) under the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 (SDPWO Act). The significant project status may (in all likelihood) result in the need for an environmental impact statement to be prepared. The environmental impact statement is evaluated by the Coordinator-General with input provided by relevant concurrence agencies (for example, the Authority).

The SDPWO Act is one of three pieces of legislation in Queensland under which the environmental impacts of development projects can be assessed; the other two are the Environmental Protection Act 1994 and Sustainable Planning Act 2009.

General Comment 2 (page 2, paragraph 4)

Rose Adams (GECKO)

Comments related to the environmental responsibilities of the Authority.

‘The purpose of the Bill in Part 3.2.a states that the GCWA will consider the impact of development on the waterways, not that the impact will be avoided or minimised. There is scant information about the environmental responsibilities of the GCWA other than a statement that it is responsible for the sustainable use and development of the waterways without the burdens of excessive bureaucratic red tape. The lack of definition of what constitutes “excessive bureaucratic red tape” has raised Gecko’s concerns that this may lead to a watering down of environmental standards and requirements. The recently released Healthy Waterways Report card has demonstrated that the environmental health of our waterways continues to decline, despite efforts to avoid this, and it is essential that environmental standards are maintained and improved. Our waterways are too important a resource for both recreation and tourism to be sacrificed for short term economic benefit. It is also noted that the 10 year strategy must consider the community, environment and economic needs of the Gold Coast. This statement fails to recognise that the economic and community needs are dependent on a healthy environment of all waterways and this should be clearly stated in the Bill’.

Comment noted. The primary function of the Authority is waterways management while the overall role of environmental regulator will remain with the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection under the Environment Protection Act 1994.

It should also be noted that the waterways management strategy to be developed by the Authority is ‘about the long-term sustainable use, management and development of the Gold Coast waterways’ having regard to the benefits for and impacts on the environment.

(see clause 15 and responses to ‘General Comments 1’ and ‘3’ below)


Rose Adams (GECKO)

Comments related to the failure to incorporate the impacts of climate change into the preparation of the 10-year management strategy.

‘It is also noted that there is no mention of the necessity for the GCWA to take into account the impacts of climate change on the waterways and include such matters into the preparation of the 10 year management strategy. The effects of climate change are being felt around the world now and these impacts will become more severe within the lifetime of the first management strategy and it behoves the Authority to ensure maximum protection of our vulnerable coastal areas by inclusion of climate change in the management strategy’.

Comment noted, however, it should also be noted that no specific impacts (environmental or otherwise) are explicitly stated in the waterways management strategy. The potential impacts of climate change will receive the same reasonable consideration (to the extent that this will be possible based on the current level of understanding of impacts, mitigation measures, regulatory requirements, etc.) as will all potential impacts. This is clearly implied in clause 15 which states that the strategy is ‘about the long-term sustainable use, management and development of the Gold Coast waterways’ that will be used as a basis to ‘establish a clear direction for the sustainable use, management and development of the Gold Coast waterways’ and ‘identify the needs and priorities for the sustainable use, management and development of the

Gold Coast waterways into the future, having regard to the benefits for and impacts on the community, environment and economy of the Gold Coast City local government area’.


Rose Adams (GECKO)

Comments related to community input versus vested interest input.

‘Gecko would agree that local input into decision making about the management of the Broadwater and other GC waterways is a desirable outcome. However since the composition of the representative of the proposed GCWA is as yet unknown, other than the chair designate and the Mayor of the GCCC or delegate, it is impossible to assess the level of local input especially from the general community rather than more vested interests’.

Comment noted, however, the level of input from all sectors of the community will receive the same level of attention. As noted in clause 19(3) the Authority is required to take reasonable steps to consult with the Gold Coast City Council, the community of the Gold Coast City local government area and sectors of the maritime industry.


Rose Adams (GECKO)

Comments related to accountability of the Authority to the people of the Gold Coast.

‘Gecko notes that there will be no Department of Transport (DTMR) representative on the GCWA, but potentially the CEO could be appointed from these ranks and serve the same purpose. It is noted that, while the GCWA will be accountable to the Minister for Transport and Main Roads, which is appropriate, the document does not provide for an accountability mechanism to the people of the Gold Coast they purport to represent’.

Comment noted. While a suitable CEO may be appointed from anywhere, based on the possession of the relevant level of experience and qualifications necessary for such a role, the CEO must still answer to the Board (as the Board controls the Authority, refer clause 43). As outlined in clauses 44 and 45 the Board will, by necessity, have strong links to ‘the people of the Gold Coast they purport to represent’ with a membership consisting of a chairperson that is an ex-Gold Coast mayor and city councillor, the current mayor of the Gold Coast City Council; and five other persons that have knowledge of and experience in one or more of the following relevant to the Gold Coast waterways—

o the representation of the interests of stakeholders in the Gold Coast waterways, including industry, recreational users, tourism operators and interested groups

o marine, coastal or waterways planning

o environmental management

o marine, coastal, waterways or infrastructure engineering

o commercial and marketing development

o maritime business.


Rose Adams (GECKO)

Comments related to the streamlining of requirements and how this may be linked to the independence of the Authority.

‘The paper suggests that this new body will streamline costs and bureaucratic red tape without actually defining what these are. However later in the reading it is noted that the Authority will operate using the existing laws and regulations and the same assessment processes in the event of a dredging or other application. Is this a streamlining or just a transfer of decision making from one part of the Department of Transport to a statutory body which is now supposed to be more independent of the Department?.

Comment noted and points acknowledged, however, while the Authority will fall under the responsibility of the Minister for the Department of Transport and Main Roads it will have no direct links to the Department (other than working constructively to achieve a common goal).

It is important to note that, for reasons of accountability and adherence to statutory requirements already in place, such as environmental protection under the Environmental Protection Act 1994, that the Authority continues to operate within the existing legal framework of the State.


Rose Adams (GECKO)

Comments related to election promises, i.e. transparent governance.

‘It appears that in a hasty bid to put in place this statutory body the above important issues have been overlooked. This piece of legislation as drafted fails to deliver the transparent governance promised to the people of Queensland prior to the elections’.

Comment noted, however, the issues raised are related to overall government policy rather than a specific query with regard to the Bill.

gold coast waterways authority bill 2012 · 1.3 gold coast waterways authority bill 2012 2 1.3.1...

Documents