Queensland's new State Planning Policy for Coastal Protection, released in March and approved in April 2011 as part of the Queensland Coastal Plan, stipulates that local governments prepare and implement adaptation strategies for built up areas projected to be subject to coastal hazards between present day and 2100. Local governments with lands within the delineated coastal high hazard zone (as determined by models incorporating a 0.8 meter rise in sea level and a 10% increase in the maximum cyclone activity) will be required to re-evaluate their plans to accommodate growth, revising land use plans to minimise impacts of anticipated erosion and flooding on developed areas and infrastructure (DERM 2011a). While implementation of such strategies would aid in avoidance or minimisation of risk exposure, communities are likely to face significant challenges in such implementation, especially as development in Queensland is so intensely focussed upon its coasts with these new policies directing development away from highly desirable waterfront land. Indeed the Property Council of Australia, while “maintain(ing) steadfast support for the intent of the policy” has declared the Queensland Coastal Plan to “have severe negative consequences not only for the development industry, but also for owners of property anywhere within the coastal zone and the broader economy,” proclaiming the plan will “have the most significant impact on the property industry since the introduction of the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2005 – 2026” (2011). Recognition of the realities of climate change, when placed in a local context through mapping of coastal high hazard zones, come into conflict with visions of how a community, believed it might develop, and further, how those with vested interests in such development advocated for such activity. Simultaneously, local governments are faced with what can either be viewed as a second round of amalgamations, following upon those which occurred in 2008 which reordered the state’s 157 local governments into 73 (LGRC 2008), or devolution of state control in recognition of geospatial and cultural differences, through the institution of regional planning areas as shown below in Fig. 1. State policy frameworks (e.g., DLGP 2011) indicate that these regions will be used in the formulation of economic development, land use, and transport strategies and will “strengthen coordination” amongst levels of governance (7). Understanding the determinants of effective collaboration amongst these multiple, hierarchically nested levels of governance, will aid in ensuring the success of such collaboration, particularly in the face of the uncertainty associated with flood hazards exacerbated by climate change. Politicians, elected to short terms, often with the support of those propertied interests, will be tasked with making decisions over planning horizons which are at least an order of magnitude longer than they themselves will likely be in office, and which will have continuing consequences beyond their lifetimes. Queensland DERM, in collaboration with the author of this paper, developed the schematic shown in Fig. 2 to assist local governments with “conceptualis(ing)” adaptation pathways, incorporating generic trigger points to assist in decision-making, recognising that “at some point in the future (whether it is by the year 2100 or beyond) the costs of protection works and maintenance will eventually be greater than the value of the assets being protected,” (DERM 2011b, 16) potentially motivating retreat. This diagram attempts to simplify what is undeniably a conflict-laden effort - one which will likely be further complicated by technical literacy (the ability to understand, communicate and “negotiat(e)” in situations where science plays a prominent role (Fourez 1997, 906). Diminished capacity to engage with technical information and concepts may impede understanding of complex dynamics associated with coastal hazards, further complicated by dynamic information and uncertainty. Pressure on these political actors to forestall change may be high, however the social, economic, and environmental costs of “defending development... justify development constraints in vulnerable areas” (DERM 2011a, 35), especially as those costs would likely accrue to the local or state government rather than solely be experienced by those opting to develop land in high hazard areas. Individuals tasked with advising decision-makers then may find themselves able to advance activities which will reduce risk exposure, but need to do so in a manner that maintains flexibility as revisions to estimates of sea level rise occur. Quick adoption of plans to get in front of the problem may seem initially a wise choice, but may actually lock a community into a new mode which in time is found to be lacking. By considering the manner in which planning is undertaken, it is possible that we may be able to reduce long-term risk without requiring decision-makers to commit political suicide. This paper offers a preliminary framework to structure examination of the potential challenges faced by those who advise political decision-makers as they navigate amongst strategies to address increased risk associated with coastal high hazard zones, looking particularly at issues of information selection and technical literacy in communication of risks, and path dependency in determining likely courses of action. This framework, which will be applied to a set of case studies of communities in Queensland in 2012, is anticipated to aid in framing interactions between planners and engineers in the guise of advisers to those with decision-making power, and those decision-makers themselves. Further application of an expanded framework, recently funded by the Queensland Premier and Cabinet, to the interactions between these actors in neighbouring local governments within the seven Regions, and between varying hierarchical levels of governance, will also be undertaken in 2012.