Chapter 8Committee's view and recommendations
Overview
8.1South Australia is currently experiencing one of the largest-scale algal bloom events ever recorded in Australian waters. Throughout the inquiry, the committee heard that the harmful algal bloom (HAB), which was first detected in March 2025, is a marine disaster, similar to ‘an underwater bushfire’, with an extensive marine mortality rate.
8.2The committee received a significant volume of evidence from members of the public, academics, ecologists, citizen scientists, international experts, marine industry participants, fishers, environmental organisations and Commonwealth and state government agencies. The committee expresses its gratitude to all who put forward this evidence, which included advance copies of academic papers, data analysis, photographs of marine losses, personal experiences and more.
8.3Throughout the inquiry, there was an outpouring of grief at the scale of the HAB and its severe impact on the marine environment, and the fear and uncertainty of the HAB’s duration and time to recovery. The significance of the South Australian coastline and waters to South Australians for work and livelihood, recreation time, mental health and connection to Sea Country was reinforced through evidence to the committee. As one fisher told the committee:
…my life has changed. I'm now at a desk. No-one's paying me… Sometimes you just can't switch off at night-time. It's a lot of pressure, trying to help protect our gulf…
8.4This chapter brings together the committee’s views on key themes raised during the inquiry, and provides recommendations, including:
coordination and communication between the Commonwealth and South Australian Governments, including the involvement of local government;
preparedness for harmful algal blooms;
the significant impact of the bloom on community;
financial support for marine industries; and
ecological restoration and recovery efforts.
National leadership and coordination
8.5As set out previously, responsibility for coastal management is shared between all tiers of government (federal, state and local), with management of coastal waters up to 3 nautical miles (nm) undertaken by the relevant state government.
8.6This meant that the South Australian Government (SA Government) had primary responsibility for the management of coastal waters affected by the HAB, first detected in March 2025.
8.7The SA Government initially reported the detection of the HAB in March 2025, and has taken steps to address and respond to the bloom, involving a range of state agencies and departments.
8.8A gradual evolution of the SA Government’s governance structures has seen more coordination between the agencies responding to the HAB, including the establishment of the Harmful Algal Bloom Taskforce in late July 2025, and the Algal Bloom Cabinet Taskforce as a sub-committee of cabinet, and Algal Bloom Response Coordination Unit which sits within the Department of the Premier and Cabinet (DPC) in late August 2025.
8.9The work undertaken to coordinate the SA Government’s response is welcome, however, the time taken between the initial detection and the move to coordinate a potentially fragmented response was too long. The limited long-term data and monitoring of similar events contributed to a delay in response.
8.10Inquiry participants told the committee that they had observed uncertainty at the outset of the bloom over who was responsible for its management.
8.11The committee is concerned at the length of time it took the SA Government to commence discussions about the HAB with the Commonwealth. For example:
major discussions about the HAB between the SA and Commonwealth governments only began in May 2025, and SA Deputy Premier Susan Close discussed the HAB with the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator the Hon Murray Watt MP, on 13 May 2025;
informal discussions between the SA Department of the Environment and Water (DEW) and Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) began at the beginning of June 2025; and
the SA Government began engaging with the Commonwealth National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) in July 2025.
8.12The committee recommends the Australian Government show leadership by developing a fit for purpose framework for research, monitoring and responses to climate induced, slow-onset and significant ecological events such as harmful algal blooms.
Application for Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements (DFRA)
8.13In July 2025, the SA Government wrote to the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA), setting out the grounds on which it believed the HAB qualified as an eligible natural disaster under the DFRA, and requesting that the funding arrangement be activated.
8.14The SA Government stated in the application that 'the scale and persistence of the event continue to exceed our capacity', despite the measures already put in place by the SA Government. The SA Government put forward the argument that the HAB aligned with Category D assistance measures, which is ‘Assistance for exceptional circumstances beyond the other categories’. This type of assistance must be requested by a state/territory and requires Prime Ministerial approval.
8.15In August 2025, however, the SA Government received NEMA’s assessment that the HAB is not an eligible natural disaster under the DFRA, and that it did not consider the HAB to be a secondary event to the SA flooding in 2022, and explained that the DFRA is limited to rapid onset events.
8.16The committee notes that the operation of the DFRA as ‘a financial safety-net’ when severe disasters occur could extend to climate induced, slow-onset and significant ecological events such as the HAB. The committee agrees with the University of Adelaide’s Environment Institute that the difficulties in declaring the HAB as an eligible natural disaster under the DFRA warrants consideration of a review of the policy and legal frameworks for nationally significant emergencies and disasters.
8.17The committee considers that the slow response by the SA Government, and delayed period before it began serious discussions with the Commonwealth, has caused uncertainty and anxiety for South Australian individuals and business owners.
8.18The committee heard that there was a perception that the SA Government’s initial response was fragmented and slow, with coordination work undertaken months after the detection of the bloom. As an example, the committee considers that the establishment of an algal bloom hotline by the SA Government in October 2025 should have happened months earlier, at the outset of the HAB, in order to provide community members and business owners with advice and support.
8.19The committee recommends the Australian Government consider reviewing and expanding arrangements for a new definition for declaring how climate induced, slow-onset and significant ecological events could be incorporated into a broader national framework.
8.20The committee recommends the Australian Government defines the roles of the Commonwealth, states and territories and local governments throughout the management and response of climate induced, slow-onset and significant ecological events such as harmful algal blooms.
Preparedness for harmful algal blooms
8.21The committee heard that the SA Government was unprepared for the HAB due to a lack of long-term ecological and HAB monitoring along the SA coastline and waters which created barriers to determining the exact causes of the HAB and assessing its impacts.
8.22The committee received evidence that existing oceanographic monitoring programs such as the Integrated Marine Observing System (IMOS) are limited in their spatial coverage and lack the ability to fully and accurately detect HABs. There was also evidence that current testing for HABs through the South Australian Shellfish Quality Assurance Program (SASQAP) is limited to sites that are linked with the shellfish industries.
8.23A range of submitters and witnesses called for both oceanographic and algal bloom-specific monitoring to be expanded. Various monitoring strategies were suggested, including water sampling and microscopic, molecular and biotoxin detection methods. The committee was made aware that there are long-standing monitoring, research and management programs in a number of other countries which have experienced similar HAB events.
8.24There were strong calls for monitoring data to feed into early warning systems and effective response strategies for future HABs. Early warning systems would allow for prompt interventions to alleviate potential negative impacts. Some inquiry participants suggested that certain mitigation strategies may also be available when HABs are at a small scale, highlighting the importance of early detection.
8.25Inquiry participants told the committee that research on marine HABs requires a very specific set of skills and knowledge, and that there is a very small number of scientists in Australia who currently have the relevant expertise. Many inquiry participants recommended the establishment of a national HAB research centre and/or coordinating body to consolidate and expand HAB expertise and capability in Australia.
8.26The committee is of the view that the HAB has highlighted the limitations of existing research and monitoring programs and emphasised the importance of investing in stable, ongoing HAB research and management capability at the national level. This long-term investment would enable the early detection of future HABs and equip the country to more quickly and effectively respond.
8.27The Commonwealth and SA governments' joint investments in the coastal monitoring network, a new national testing laboratory for brevetoxins, and an Office for the Algal Bloom Research are welcome. However, the committee urges governments to commit further funding and work closely with other countries to share HAB-related knowledge.
8.28The committee recommends that the Australian Government consider sustained funding for long-term oceanographic and algal bloom-specific research and monitoring programs at the national level, including through the utilisation of the Office for Algal Bloom Research in South Australia.
Ecological restoration and recovery
8.29The committee heard that restoration and recovery of the marine environment will be a significant undertaking. The committee welcomes the initiatives discussed in the report, such as oyster and artificial reefs, restoration of seagrass, breeding programs and other measures, and strongly encourages this to be undertaken as soon as possible and given continued funding to ensure success.
8.30The willingness and enthusiasm of members of the public in engaging with reef construction and ecological restoration is acknowledged, and the committee notes that many ecological projects would not be viable without the work of citizen scientists and volunteers.
8.31The committee welcomes the $20.6m investment in the marine environment as part of the Algal Bloom Summer Plan, and considers that this investment is a good starting point, but that further and continued funding is vital to ensure that ecological work is able to restore the environment.
8.32The committee acknowledges the severe impact the harmful algal bloom has had on the marine environment in South Australia’s coastal waters. The committee is pleased that threatened and endangered species and ecological communities will receive priority assessment for inclusion on the 2025 Priority Assessment List by the Commonwealth Threatened Species Scientific Committee.
8.33The committee acknowledges that the South Australian Government has estimated that large-scale reef restoration for South Australia will cost more than $500 million to support longer term marine ecosystem resilience.
8.34The committee recommends that the Australian Government consider options for substantial funding to be directed to projects that deliver large-scale, long-term marine ecosystem restoration and resilience including meaningful reef restoration along the South Australian coastline.
8.35The committee supports the proposal to construct the Southern Ocean Discovery Centre in SA, which aims to build on the work of the Marine Discovery Centre and help protect and promote the Great Southern Reef. The committee notes that the new Centre would not only provide educational opportunities, by increasing public understanding of ocean systems, coastal safety, and climate impacts, but also provide economic benefits to SA through sustainable marine tourism. The committee were told that it would cost $25 million to design and construct this centre.
8.36The committee recommends that the Australian Government considers investing funds towards the Southern Ocean Discovery Centre for the establishment of a world-class marine education, research, and tourism hub in South Australia.
Impact on community
8.37The committee heard that the impact of the HAB on the South Australian community had been significant, affecting mental and physical health, access to recreation and community events, and removing a significant amenity from people’s daily lives. The Australian Red Cross described the psychosocial impacts of the bloom, and noted that recreational and social activities are well known for supporting mental wellbeing, and that the uncertainty of access to these activities and beach locations was ‘being felt deeply’. The Australian Red Cross also told the committee that they had observed a rise in harmful coping behaviours, including increased alcohol and drug use.
8.38The Australian Red Cross called for mental health supports to meet the level provided after other major crises such as bushfires and other disasters, to provide in-person supports.
8.39The committee heard from individuals and businesses directly, and indirectly, impacted by the HAB that the fragmented and slow response from the SA and Commonwealth governments had exacerbated feelings of anxiety and uncertainty.
8.40The committee also heard that small business owners had found the application process for grants to be difficult, and lengthy wait times to establish eligibility had put severe stress on businesses to pay staff and bills. Further, the amounts of money granted were insufficient to cover the substantial costs of running a business including mounting utility bills, staff payments, and maintenance.
8.41The committee is concerned that the health effects experienced by individuals who have been in affected water or breathed in aerosolised algae was slow to be acknowledged by the SA Government, leading to anxiety and misinformation to spread.
8.42The advice for people with asthma was updated in September 2025, and was publicised through a media conference and published online. Media circulated this information widely after the public hearing in Seacliff. The committee heard evidence that many were unaware of the updated advice for people with asthma leading to community concern about its health impact.
8.43While the committee welcomes the investment by the Commonwealth and state governments of $690,000 as part of the Algal Bloom Summer Plan for mental health support, the committee is calling for a significantly larger investment in this critical undertaking. The committee is very concerned at the adverse impacts the bloom has had on mental health, and that this will continue as the bloom continues and long after the bloom has dissipated and the marine environment is recovering.
8.44The committee acknowledges the significant impact that the HAB has had on the lives of community members’, noting the distress of losing access to the beach for swimming, walking and gathering, as well as sports and recreational activities. Without this, many people are experiencing negative impacts on their mental health.
8.45The committee echoes calls for increased funding for mental health support, and agrees that funding arrangements should be modelled on those provided after major events such as bushfires.
8.46The Commonwealth and SA Government should increase funding for in person psychosocial support for South Australians affected by the bloom, in recognition of the significant negative impacts it has had, and will continue to have, on mental health.
8.47The committee recommends that the Australian Government and South Australian Government evaluate the current investment towards community resilience programs and mental health support services and explore continued or further investment as required for communities impacted by the toxic algal bloom.
8.48The committee recommends that the South Australian Government provides timely, clear and scientifically informed public health advice.
8.49The committee notes the current investment to supporting coastal communities and recommends that the Australian Government consider allocation of joint funding for community financial support, which could be delivered through local governments as untied grants.
Financial support for industry
8.50The committee received extensive evidence about the significant economic and social impacts of the HAB on South Australia’s commercial fishing, aquaculture and tourism industries. These industries underpin employment and community wellbeing across many regional communities.
8.51The committee welcomes the recent announcement of a further $16 million to support South Australia’s fishing and marine sector, including extending industry support grants and providing up to $25 000 for hardest hit fisheries and aquaculture licence holders to support their workers, extending licensing fee relief, and grants of up to $150 000 for licence holders to invest in projects that build longer-term business resilience.
8.52While the measures announced recently to support South Australia’s fishing and marine sector are welcome, the committee remains concerned that these are insufficient to sustain businesses, employees and their communities through an environmental crisis of unknown duration.
8.53The committee considers that more can and should be done to support the longer-term viability of affected industries. The committee heard calls for measures to support the retention of employees in these industries, such as a JobKeeper-style income subsidy program, similar to what was introduced as part of the Australian Government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
8.54The committee also heard that proposals such as a voluntary buy-back scheme for fishing licenses, could provide a mechanism for fishers wishing to exit the industry as well as aid in the recovery of fish stock. Several commercial fishers also called for the immediate cessation of fishing within affected areas to allow surviving fish stocks to recover and repopulate. The South Australian Government announced on 23 October a fish recovery program which included temporary restrictions on commercial fishing in the Gulf St Vincent to allow ecosystem and fish stock recovery from 1 November 2025 until 30 June 2026.
8.55Some industry representatives, local councils and businesses also reported difficulties in accessing financial grants due to restrictive eligibility criteria and the complexity of navigating the application process.
8.56The committee also heard about limitations with the Regional Investment Corporation (RIC) Fund and the ineligibility of wild catch fisheries to apply for RIC loans. Given the impact of the HAB on wild catch fisheries, the committee considers that amendments to the RIC should be fast-tracked to enable wild catch fisheries and affected marine businesses to access concessional loans.
8.57The committee recommends that the Australian Government consider how it can support work with the South Australian Government on long-term resilience and recovery programs for marine-related industries and sectors affected by the harmful algal bloom including fishing and tourism, in concert with industry. This could include exploring:
a targeted income support program, akin to Job Keeper, for impacted businesses;
a voluntary lease or buyback scheme for fishing licences, to provide individuals and businesses the opportunity to remain in or exit the industry; and
a tourism recovery fund to support public information campaigns and promotional efforts to rebuild SA’s tourism reputation, drive visitation, and support nature-based and marine businesses as they recover.
8.58The committee recommends the Australian Government finalises and brings forward the legislative instruments (or amendments, if required) necessary to ensure eligibility for wild catch fisheries and affected marine businesses under the Regional Investment Corporation Fund. These need to be tabled for consideration without further delay.
8.59The committee recommends the Australian Government, through the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, support the South Australian Government in conducting research and monitoring of fish stocks during and following fishing restrictions, and undertake a comprehensive impact analysis of fishing in the Gulf St Vincent. This analysis should assess the ecological, social, and economic implications to inform appropriate financial support for affected communities and guide the recovery of local ecosystems and fish stocks.
The role of local government
8.60The committee heard that local government has been at the frontline of the HAB response, including through beach clean-ups, and channelling information and updates to coastal communities. Local councils gave evidence that their resources were being diverted from other important work in order to respond to the HAB. Across local government, there were calls for more funding and an emphasis on being given 'a seat at the table' as part of the HAB response.
8.61It is evident that local government is an active and key contributor to the HAB response. The committee is of the view that greater support from the state and federal governments is needed to enable local government to continue providing essential services to the communities affected by the HAB. Coordination between all levels of government is crucial to achieving an effective, unified response to cross-jurisdictional crises such as the HAB.
8.62The committee heard directly from local governments about the inadequacy of current funding and the long-term financial strain faced by local councils. The committee considers there is a clear need to address gaps in short-term and ad hoc funding to support local governments to plan, respond and recover from events such as the HAB.
8.63The committee recommends that the Australian Government consider establishing a dedicated Local Government Resilience Fund to provide ongoing and flexible financial assistance to support local councils in responding to climate induced and slow-onset and significant ecological events.
First Nations
8.64The committee thanks all First Nations witnesses and submitters for their evidence about the impacts of the algal bloom on their communities, cultural connection to Sea Country and its disruption to traditional food sources and income.
8.65First Nations witnesses told the committee of being excluded or consulted too late as part of the SA Government’s response to the algal bloom. Concerns were also raised that First Nations’ perspectives on the significant cultural impact of the algal bloom, including on traditional fishing, was largely disregarded in favour of commercial and industry viewpoints. Traditional Owner and First Nations-led organisations are the appropriate mechanism for this consultation.
8.66The committee recognises that the HAB has had a disproportionate impact on First Nations communities, particularly those whose livelihoods and cultural ties are deeply tied to the health of South Australia’s coastal and marine environments.
8.67The committee considers that First Nations leadership and decision-making must be embedded within the SA Government’s recovery response, including the incorporation of First Nations’ traditional knowledge in coastal monitoring and research.
8.68The committee is of the view that First Nations’ scientific knowledge should be included in the recently-announced Office for Algal Bloom Research, announced as part of the Algal Bloom Summer Plan. The establishment of this new office should include roles for First Nations, in order to include and embed First Nations knowledge and management of Sea Country in research on algal blooms. The committee would welcome action taken by the SA Government to meaningfully increase engagement with First Nations in South Australia.
8.69The committee recommends that the Australian Government consider First Nation leadership and cultural knowledge in all aspects of recovery and management, including:
integrating first nation scientific knowledge into marine monitoring and restoration programs;
providing dedicated funding for recovery and business support for impacted First Nation enterprises;
ensuring that First Nation expertise in land and sea management is sought where these issues affect cultural knowledge and practice; and
expanding and resourcing Indigenous ranger and sea country programs in affected coastal regions, with roles for First Nation representatives in the new Office for Algal Bloom Research.
Senator Sarah Hanson-Young
Chair