PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE: MOUNT BARKER DEVELOPMENT WATER SUPPLY SCHEME STAGE 1

Mr SIBBONS (Mitchell) (11:12): I move:

That the 478^th report of the committee, entitled Mount Barker Development Water Supply Scheme Stage 1, be noted.

The committee received a proposal by the South Australian Water Corporation (SA Water) to provide infrastructure as part of Stage 1 of the Mount Barker Development Water Supply Scheme. The project is for the supply of potable water to approximately 2,400 allotments within the newly rezoned 1,265 hectares of land from rural to residential at Mount Barker based on Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure's long-term growth projections for the Mount Barker region.

The project involves a capital expenditure for Stage 1 of the Mount Barker Development Water Supply Scheme at an estimated capital expenditure up to $24.505 million nominal exclusive of GST. The main objectives of the project are to provide reliable supply of potable water to approximately 2,400 allotments initially as part of the MBDWSS Stage 1 works based on the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure's long-term growth projections for the Mount Barker region.

Supply of water to the balance of 7,600 allotments to be provided under Stage 2 of the works, development infrastructure in line with the growth in the new development zone, and main security of supply to the customers in the existing Mount Barker network. Construction of Stage 1 is expected to be completed in 2013-14. Given this, and pursuant to section 12C of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, the Public Works Committee reports to parliament that it recommends the proposed public works.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (11:15): I would like to make some remarks concerning the report that the member for Mitchell has brought to the parliament. Obviously, the report details what is necessary infrastructure in this particular part of South Australia and the Adelaide Hills, delivering an increased supply of potable water to cater for the demand created as a consequence of the government rezoning all that rural land to residential, a decision the government made back in December 2010. We have had considerable debate within this place and outside this place in relation to that decision. Obviously, issues are continuing and need to be addressed and this report looks at one of the specific areas of need in providing necessary infrastructure.

This report and the work that the Public Works Committee has done in relation to this matter goes to the broader context in relation to the provision of infrastructure and services in and around Mount Barker, not just to meet the increased demand from the land that has been rezoned but to meet the current demand placed on infrastructure and services as a consequence of residential development in that area over the last 10 or 15 years. Mount Barker has been known as being the fastest growing inland community in Australia.

I note for the house that I attended a meeting, or forum, last week hosted by the District Council of Mount Barker. The council is proposing to apply three separate rate structures to the new rezoned area (the 1,300 hectares of land that has been rezoned). The three separate rate structures are to fund transport and infrastructure requirements, a new wastewater treatment plant and to part fund sport and recreation facilities as a consequence of the rezoning decision. It was a very good meeting that the council hosted. There was a lot of information provided. As I said, they outlined the detail of the three separate rates they are looking to pitch.

It is worth noting that rates will only apply if a development application is lodged and that land is to be developed, or sub-divided, into housing allotments. So, if a current landowner owns, for argument's sake, 50 hectares of, to all intents and purposes, open farming land, even though it has been rezoned residential, those rates will not apply on that land until the trigger is pulled, if you like, and a development application is lodged and that land is subdivided into residential allotments. I think that is an important issue that current landowners are made aware of because there have been some concerns raised with me, as the local member, and within the community and the council that this rate structure will apply on every piece of land whether it is developed or not. So, I think that is an important point to make.

Also at the forum that I attended last week was a senior officer from DPTI (Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure) who spoke in relation to some proposals—nothing set in stone as such—for some improvements to the current freeway interchange, what we call the Adelaide Road interchange at Mount Barker, obviously on the exit and entry points. They also spoke about the proposed second freeway interchange, or what we call the Bald Hills Road site or the Bald Hills Road interchange. This person spoke about a two-stage work program, and I am very interested to understand more and seek additional information in relation to those specific pieces of infrastructure works.

The SPEAKER: Member for Kavel, the matter before us appears to be a water supply scheme.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Indeed, Mr Speaker. However, it has been the ways of the house that at times members are allowed to expand in relation to specific matters.

The SPEAKER: Then I hope from your side I will hear no points of order about relevance between 2 and 3 o'clock today.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Well, that may well be outside of my control, but I am actually coming to a conclusion in relation to my remarks concerning those two particular projects. This report that the Public Works Committee has considered does go to the whole issue of infrastructure and services in this particular region of South Australia, so I regard my remarks to be directly related to the issue that the member for Mitchell has brought to the parliament.

In conclusion, I am very interested to understand some more in relation to those proposed works on the existing freeway interchange and the proposed second freeway interchange. I will certainly be seeking a briefing from departmental officers in that regard. As I said earlier, this proposal, this $24.5 million project to deliver an increased supply of potable water into the Mount Barker area, is necessary infrastructure and a direct result of the government's decision to rezone that vast tract of land.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite) (11:23): I indicate that the opposition members of the committee fully support the recommendation. It is an important piece of infrastructure and we look forward to it being completed. I commend the comments of my friend the member for Kavel to the house.

Motion carried.