House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide 30-YEAR PLAN FOR GREATER ADELAIDE Mr GOLDSWORTHY House of Assembly Kavel Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (15:26): I would like to raise a very serious matter that has the potential to affect a significant proportion of the population of this state. It relates to the government's 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide, and I would like to focus my comments this afternoon on the potential impact of that plan on an important area of the electorate that I represent in this place. I refer specifically to the townships of Mount Barker, Littlehampton and Nairne, where the government's 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide will have the most significant impact. Basically, the plan looks to double the population in that area of the Adelaide Hills. Earlier this year I undertook my own community consultation process, writing to 9,000 homes and residents in those three towns, and I had a significant response to that survey. The Hon. P. Caica House of Assembly The Hon. P. Caica: Did you make a submission? Mr GOLDSWORTHY House of Assembly Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I will come to that. I had a strong community response to the survey—with almost 15 per cent of the 9,000 mail-outs, or 1,386 people, replying—and there were some overwhelming statistics in relation to the community's feelings and attitudes towards what the government is proposing for that part of the Adelaide Hills region. One of the main issues raised was the lack of services and infrastructure currently being provided by the government, as well as a question mark over what it will provide into the future if and when this plan is implemented. There are some quite specific large infrastructure requirements and needs within that district before any expansion of the existing town boundaries is contemplated. I made a submission on the 30-Year Plan, I wrote to the Minister for Urban Development and Planning, and my position was that the town boundaries not expand until services and infrastructure are put in place to meet current demands. Once that takes place we can assess modest growth, after full consultation with the council and the community. Unfortunately, that consultation has not taken place. The government has not consulted in a full way with the community or the council; it has come in in a heavy-handed manner, riding roughshod over the community and the council, and saying, basically, 'This is what we intend to do, but we'll go through the motions and you can make some submissions.' There was even some suggestion that if a piece of paper—this cover sheet that the department had issued—had not been on the submission they would not be taken into consideration. That is how ridiculous the bureaucratic process in relation to this matter has been. In my submission to the minister and the government I have asked for written confirmation from the minister that any submission that is made will be taken into consideration regardless of the manner in which it is made. This nonsense about not having a piece of paper on the front is ridiculous. The submissions closed at the end of September, and we need some clarification from the government on the number of submissions made. There is a figure of 350, but there is also a figure of 550. My office is making some inquiries seeking the exact number of submissions made, but we are having some difficulty obtaining that information.