The original need for coastal leases was to generate funds and to control activities within coastal public property. Section 66 of the Act, which provides for leases of coastal public property is administratively cumbersome, over-regulatory and has a potential unintended impact on other organs of state that operate within coastal public property. In addition, it is not practical to subject every activity on coastal public property to a lease as not all activities have impact and it would therefore serve no real environmental value. As a result, it was not put into operation when the Act commenced in 2009. The Amendment Bill is proposing to replace the leases with coastal use permits whereby the Minister is authorised to list activities which require a permit, thereby removing the blanket requirement that all activities on CPP require a lease. It is intended to create a mechanism to only regulate certain activities which impact on coastal public property but which are not appropriately dealt with under other environmental legislation such as the NEMA Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations. The time limitation of 20 years has been retained as a maximum period for which a permit may be issued. 30. Insertion of a new section 66A: Leases in admiralty reserve Since admiralty reserve forms part of coastal public property, there needed to be a clause inserted in the Act to determine how existing leases on admiralty reserve, which are primarily managed by Public Works, should be dealt with. The new section now indicates that such leases should continue to be managed by the appropriate authority but in accordance with the objects of the Act. 31. Amendment of sections 68, 74, and 83 These proposed amendments are consequential to the change in terminology from "authorisation" to "coastal authorisation" - see definitions. The term authorisation was causing confusion with EIA authorisations and was therefore proposed for amendment. 32. Amendment of section 69: Consequential amendment