Bills

Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (23:08): I too rise to speak on the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill and, in doing so, I want to refer to an example that happened in my own electorate earlier this year where the local council was locked out of a major decision at the pointy end of the decision-making process. It refers to the Deputy Premier's repeated statements about community involvement in regard to this process. He says that community involvement should be weighted to the front end of the planning involvement in the development planning creation.

Of course, there are no real details on how to achieve this, but if we look at the history of what happened in Unley with regard to planning development we know that the government has had an agenda for quite some time to increase density within the inner ring in Adelaide. We know that for quite some time, certainly within the City of Unley, there has been a lot of concern about destruction of heritage and the replacement of those beautiful stone buildings with what many people describe, sell and market as Tuscan villas. Those who have been to Tuscany would know that in Tuscany you will not see a single building that looks like those Tuscan villas.

It is extraordinary, when I go back to 2005, when I was a mere candidate for the seat of Unley, the biggest issue, regardless of somebody's intention, what their historical voting intentions were or what their new voting intentions were, was that they were very concerned about the destruction of heritage in the City of Unley. They were not concerned about development, but they were concerned about the character, streetscape and the heritage of the city.

It is fair to say that the city took a very responsible attitude in its development plan. It worked with the government at that front end, as described by the Deputy Premier, of the process and established areas that could have urban consolidation within the City of Unley. Those areas were areas that were not seen as having significant heritage value, areas that had already perhaps been changed significantly through the ugly 1960s and 1970s period, where there were a lot of flats, for example, put up across the city. There were the cream brick flats, the two and three storey flats, some with beautiful faux columns as well—there is a set like that just off King William Road.

So the council used the fact that there was also some commercial land that was no longer being used for that purpose and would make a perfect opportunity for higher density housing, and that was just off Charles Street. There were some factories in through there. When I had my business on Unley Road I think that at one stage we looked at moving our factory into that area—a massive area of buildings that historically had been factories for about 100 years. They are all gone now of course, and in there we have two, three and in some cases four-storey apartment living. Other areas have been designated where there can be development.

Part of the trade-off for that was that the government or the council agreed to allow up to five storeys in some areas on main streets, Unley Road in particular. In so doing they were able to secure some heritage and character areas in other parts of the city. If you look at a map of the City of Unley, it is quite detailed as to where block sizes can be reduced, where they cannot be, and what minimum block sizes are (some are larger in some areas and smaller in other areas). It was a well thought-out plan, and it goes back to the point the Deputy Premier made in his motivation for removing community consultation and reducing the availability of the community to even know that something was happening at the end point of a development, where the development was going to the DAC, for example. All the work was done up-front in Unley. The council consulted very well with the community. It brought many of the community members with them—of course we all know in politics that you cannot bring everybody with you—and the five-storey limit was agreed to, and became part of the Unley Development Plan.

I want to come forward to about January/February this year when a proposal was put to the DAC for a 7½-storey building, which of course was 50 per cent higher than the community-consulted five-storey development. I have to say that nobody who raised concerns about this with me was concerned about the fact that there was going to be a large development at 244 Unley Road, but they were very concerned about the fact that, at the very first opportunity the government had to use the new planning rules it had brought in within the City of Unley, the development plan that was negotiated and signed off by the planning minister was breached by 50 per cent. The report that was published by the DAC states:

It is considered that whilst there are a number of departures from the provisions of the development plan, particularly in respect to building height, setback and car parking…

In other words, every major consideration and every major contentious issue that was dealt with through the broad development plan within the City of Unley—every single one of those—was breached. That did not matter really because the proposal goes on to say that:

The proposal recognises the ambitions of the desired future character—

not existing character, future character—

and broad strategic objectives of the urban corridor zone.

So all of those people who were involved in the Unley Development Plan, all the residents who came to those meetings, everybody who thought that the government was acting in good faith by putting the work in at the beginning, as the Deputy Premier would say, 'waiting to front-end the consultation process', of course were shocked to see that the very first proposal that was going to be decided by the DAC was, in fact, 50 per cent higher.

But, the consolation for those residents was in fact that the original proposal was nine storeys and so the developer had made a compromise down to just 7½ storeys. It is an old trade union ploy, isn't it? It is called an ambit claim, I think. That was seen as being a good attitude of the developer, and of course people are concerned that this would set a precedent for the next block—which fortunately I suppose at the moment has about six different owners. But if that was sold to a single developer, that may very well become a situation where that developer points to the building that was approved at 50 per cent higher than the Unley Development Plan and says, 'Well, look, this is 7½ storeys and we only want nine or 8½ storeys, we are only going a little bit bigger.'

The issue is that there is already a significant problem with local traffic management in Unley. Unley is a major thoroughfare. It was identified back in 2000 that Unley Road needed a major upgrade and extensive consultation and design work was done to upgrade Unley Road. I was on the Unley Road traders committee at that time, and it was one of those rare occasions where everybody—all the stakeholders, the businesses, the residents, the bike users group, the council, the department—agreed with the proposal. It just happened to be one of the cheapest solutions to ease peak hour traffic but still retain shopping time parking and still retain a village atmosphere that people enjoy so much on Unley Road, King William Road, Goodwood Road and other major arterial roads within my electorate.

The point there was that the work was not done on Unley Road—the government changed—despite the fact that a costing document had been prepared and was making its way to cabinet before the change of government. That was then thrown out by the then transport minister, Trish White, who refused to take that to cabinet. The funding was used for some other purpose and that work was never done.

A lot of people tend to avoid Unley Road, because it can become a bit of a car park at peak hour, and they use the side streets to go through. They might start at Cross Road, go down Goodwood Road, head down Park Street, or one of the other streets running parallel to Park Street, turn down Weller Street over into Arthur Street or Mary Street and out onto Unley Road, and they have avoided probably two kilometres of car park on Unley Road. This happens every morning.

The problem that we have with the situation with this development is that because the council was locked out of this process altogether there was no opportunity to look at a local management plan for the extra traffic, the extra parking, the visitor parking, that this development would generate, either during the process of building or, alternatively, afterwards when the development was finished. This was 140 apartments.

The plan was approved with more than 100 carparks short of the council's requirement. We do need to remember that parking is a very big issue in all of the inner suburbs and in Unley in particular, because we do have traditional strip shopping, and not a lot of that strip shopping has customer car parking, so street parking is required for those businesses to survive. We also have, in many instances, smaller blocks that might only have room for the one car. Some of them do not have driveways at all, and some of them have shared driveways between two homes, and, of course, modern homes, particularly if you have young adults still with you at home, could have two or three cars. Those cars end up in the streets.

We also have the situation where people will park in the streets in Unley; they might come in from the outer suburbs and then they will either walk in to the city—get some exercise, enjoy the scenery—or decide to jump onto public transport. Those cars are parked there all day. Those carparks are competing with those living in the streets who might have visitors or services coming to their homes. Those carparks are competing with those who are working in the businesses in Unley and those who are shopping in businesses in Unley. You can see that it is a compounding problem.

For the situation with the development of 244 Unley Road, there was no opportunity for that to even be partially addressed in the immediate area through maybe looking at what changes could be made to the width of Park Street, for example, immediately north of the development, which is a very narrow street.

As a matter of fact, there is commentary in the submission that points out the difficulty in doing right-hand turns and the fact that the road is not wide enough for a right-hand turn and a left-hand turn to be conducted at the same time by two different vehicles and that the right-hand turn would in fact hold up a lot of people who want to turn left, because Unley Road is a very busy road and getting a clear spot between cars coming in two different directions can take quite some time. The suggestion was that that problem will fix itself because people will simply use the side streets and go somewhere else to enter Unley Road if they are heading south.

That is a very simplistic view of how to deal with that rather than looking at, perhaps, compelling the developer and saying, 'This is a big development. We are giving you 50 per cent more building than you expected when you bought the property or speculated on this property. We want to pinch a couple of metres and widen that road.' That would have been a good outcome and eased some of the distress for people living in Hart Avenue, but that was not the case: it did not happen.

There also happens to be a small, one-third length slip lane in front of that site. I would have thought it would have made a lot of sense for that slip lane to have been lengthened so it went from Opey Avenue all the way to Hart Avenue, and that would have given the bus which stops in that slip lane at the moment the opportunity to pull in, away from peak hour traffic, or traffic at any time. One of the reasons this was given the go-ahead was that it is in a transport hub and that meant there was a bus stop out the front. For that bus stop to have been more efficient and have less impact on traffic flow when it pulled over to pick up customers and pull out again, it would have made a lot of sense for that slip lane to have been lengthened. But that was not the case.

I think I have given some idea of the difficulties we have when decisions like this are made under this formula of the Deputy Premier's, where 'Everything is going to be fine. Don't worry about the regulations. We will deal with those afterwards.' I like the chicken and egg scenario here, that is, that the draft of the charter for community participation is not available. It is not available because the minister says that the creation of this particular charter is an action of the commission that needs to be established by this bill. It is an extraordinary situation. We cannot have this information because the body that is to develop this information needs this bill in order to establish itself to develop this information. It certainly does sound like the member for Enfield in its logic.

The other thing that is very concerning for my constituents is the fact that 46 regulations are to be created yet we have not seen them and do not know what they are. We know the difficulties that non-government members have in making changes to regulations. It is either all in or all out. It is a very difficult situation. We would rather see those regulations prior to the passing of this bill. It would certainly give us more confidence to talk to people in our electorates about what the government is proposing.

In this age of so-called bipartisanship that we keep hearing about from the Premier, he says he wants to work together to build South Australia and grow jobs. It is not exactly working, I have to say, with South Australia having the highest unemployment in the nation, by a long shot. I would have thought giving every member of parliament access to these regulations would be a constructive and positive way of dealing with this bill; but, for some reason, the minister has decided not to do that, and I think it makes this process far more complicated.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (23:29): I rise to make a very brief contribution to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill and note that the shadow minister has outlined planned amendments to the bill as it stands. We support certain elements of the bill, but there are a number of areas of concern.

Obviously, planning is an area that has many grey elements. There is always an area of interpretation. There are always areas of, I guess, presumption when it comes to planning, particularly in the electorate of Chaffey, where I have six council areas. There are always people, particularly in the Riverland, who have buildings or businesses in one council area and different businesses and properties in other council areas, and they always seem to run into different areas.

I must congratulate my councils in the Riverland because they are now working more closely together, particularly with planning, which I think has been quite a burden to any business person or anyone who is developing country. Obviously, we have large sparse areas where there is the opportunity to build homes and develop properties, but one of the biggest issues has been the flood plain.

Over many years, there has obviously been an interpretation of where people can and cannot build, but the 1956 flood level has particularly been a benchmark in the Riverland of where you can and cannot build and what you can and cannot do with regard to adding, extending or putting new additions onto your business. It has really been a mixed bag of whether you can or cannot, particularly within those town areas.

I note the minister has described this bill as a 'once in a generation overhaul of the South Australian planning system'. I believe that only time will tell. I see that there are 12 pages of more than 74 amendments by the minister (the Deputy Premier), and I think he is being quite lighthearted about how he is going to bring them in. He is being quite jovial about the members on this side of the house making their contributions, but we are making our contributions because we have had significant feedback from constituents, from councils and from people who are developing and who have encountered significant grey areas with planning within their areas.

Planning is such a diverse, complicated issue that really generates debate and always generates concern because any planning issues that come and go, backwards and forwards, with people complying cost a lot of money, particularly when we talk about our young wanting to build a home. There are elements and different phases of owning or being able to build your own home or develop a business, and it does not just have to be a house—it can be sheds, it can be buildings or it can be developing country into horticulture. There always seems to be that burden of planning that adds a large cost to progressing what you are trying to achieve.

South Australia's Expert Panel on Planning Reform handed down a report last year in which it stated:

Our planning system should provide communities with a clear understanding of the policies that will guide development, while ensuring that unnecessary costs and delays for applicants and assessing authorities are minimised. It is critical to the competitiveness of the state…

I think that really underlines one of the issues here in South Australia: we continually have this red tape barrier. We have these issues of compliance and regulation that make us uncompetitive. I think the planning department and the planning issues are no exception. I know myself that developing country—building homes, building sheds and building processing plants—has always been fraught with danger. In many cases, people have said that it is too hard and walked away. I am hoping that this bill will ease the burden on anyone developing, building, or planning any change over the next 20 years and that this will help them better understand it and make it much easier and much more cost-effective to embark upon.

Too often the system focuses on energy and the efforts of micro-level issues. We have had the same debates over and over again on detailed issues of individual developments. As I have said, they devote precious little energy to fundamental policies and strategies that are the cornerstone of the system. We cannot continue with a system that is increasingly unaffordable, unsustainable and unconnected to our future needs.

The last significant review in South Australia's planning system was conducted, as I said, some 20 years ago. I agree that our planning processes need to be addressed: 20 years seems like an eternity when you are dealing with planning issues. Without serious reform we will continue to go down that path which is just a slippery slope into a dark hole not knowing where you are going to come out.

There are areas of the bill that need to be carefully approached and addressed, ensuring that by putting in a growth boundary concerns that it would increase house prices and impact negatively on the economy do not come to fruition. I support a simpler planning system that encourages economic growth and we need to provide more support for our young people to enter the housing market. As it stands, even in regional South Australia, many of them simply cannot afford the up-front costs.

I think I have already stated that the up-front costs, the deterrent with planning, particularly for people entering the housing market and dealing with planning departments, really does prove to be a disincentive. I know that many young ones have just walked away and said, 'This is all too hard,' and have shelved something that would contribute to the local economy, and they will just go out and purchase an established house. That is something that could be avoided with much simpler planning regulations.

I have received a number of submissions and correspondence about this bill and I would like to put on the record some of the responses to the bill from a joint submission by three Riverland councils. I would like to congratulate them because they are now working as a team. For many years I worked in all councils on different projects—buildings, development—and at one time I was always dealing with different interpretations and different planning people. It was something that would always threaten to tear my hair out. I do not have all my hair and I think that is partly due to dealing with planning issues, particularly with the different interpretations across my three councils. The letter states:

The Riverland Councils acknowledge and applaud the Governments efforts in endeavouring to create a simplified and modern planning system through the introduction of the Bill.

In particular, the Riverland Councils are pleased to note a number of new regional reforms that appear to be intended to assist regional councils to better coordinate planning policy, planning assessment and infrastructure delivery functions, and which have the potential to allow the Riverland Councils to continue their regionalisation efforts in line with the outcomes of the Riverland Futures Project.

The Riverland Councils are supportive of any planning reform initiative that has the potential to remove the 'red tape' and ease the administrative burden (both on the public and on the relevant authorities), associated with development assessment, and are strong advocates for positive customer experiences within the development assessment process, and encourage any changes which will improve that experience.

The submission from the three Riverland councils is quite extensive, and I will touch on a few of their concerns and issues in relation to this bill. They addressed the joint planning boards. Obviously, the councils have had for a number of years a regional approach to planning. The councils share a regional development assessment panel, which I think is great progress, with the three councils working together, and they have ensured that their development plans are closely aligned and harmonised across the Riverland region.

The current regional development assessment framework requires ongoing cooperation and consultation between the three Riverland councils, and they are pleased that elements of this successful regional system are reflected in the proposed reforms. The councils are now keen to work with the minister and the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure to ensure that the bill will allow regionalisation efforts to continue. The councils are concerned that parties to a planning agreement may be held liable for the debts and legal liabilities of the joint planning boards in circumstances where the boards are actively negligent or in breach of the law.

Touching on the community engagement charter, the councils wish to be consulted on the development of the charter to ensure that it is relevant to their communities. With respect to e-planning, the Riverland councils welcomed the proposed framework for the SA planning portal, set out in clauses 46 to 54 of the bill. If the portal is developed consistent with the bill's framework, it will provide a sophisticated lodgement and information system, and it will increase openness and transparency, and I think that is what it is all about. It is all about transparency in the planning system that this bill will bring.

With respect to the planning policy documents and the planning design code, I know that there were a lot of concerns from the councils. They are supportive of the intent to create an integrated network of planning policy documents, together with a streamlined planning and design code. However, on the basis that there are over 23,000 pages of planning objectives and principles currently contained in the development plans, the Riverland councils are concerned about the time frame for the development of the code, and it is important that councils be consulted throughout the process. They go on to say that they have quite a few concerns. I am sure that, with the member for Goyder's amendments—and I am sure that there will be amendments to amendments—there are many changes that will come to this bill as time goes on.

With respect to restricted and impact assessed pathways, obviously the councils understand the effect of the clauses. The councils will no longer be involved in the receipt, assessment or processing of applications for restricted development. The bill provides for receipt and assessment of these applications by the State Planning Commission, so it will be very interesting to see how that rolls out.

With respect to infrastructure funding, the councils are generally supportive of the offsetting scheme proposed in the clauses of the bill, although they do note that such a scheme may have limited operation outside greater metropolitan Adelaide. However, the councils are reluctant to accept the infrastructure delivery schemes proposed in that part of the bill. There are many concerns that the councils have put forward, and if I had another 20 minutes I would perhaps proceed with them. I have a couple to refer to finally. In relation to the Car Parking Fund, the councils:

…note that provisions for a Car Parking Fund, which currently exist under the Development Act 1993, have been removed from the Bill. The Riverland Councils find the Car Parking Fund to be a useful tool in development assessment, which allowed them the flexibility to require payment into the fund in lieu of providing carparks within a proposed development.

In relation to entry onto land, the councils:

…are very concerned with what is proposed by way of clauses…of the Bill. It is our experience that most development applications in the region require retaining walls, fences or other structures, which cannot be constructed without entry onto neighbouring land.

The concerns go on. Development on Council Land—there are concerns with enforcement and compliance. The Riverland Councils note that there are new enforcement and compliance tools for the adverse publicity orders. The clauses go on:

However, the councils are concerned these enforcement and compliance mechanisms are only effectively made available to the SPC and not councils.

Adverse publicity orders can only be enforced, and obviously civil penalties can only be negotiated or obtained in the ERD Court. So there are a number of concerns. I applaud the councils for working together to bring all of these concerns to this bill, but I must say, in closing, that the councils note:

…that there is no formal consultation process for submissions and comments on the Bill. Given that the Bill is extensive in detail, and that consultation to date has been premised upon broader concepts, the Riverland Councils would also appreciate clarification on the Government's intentions concerning the progress of the Bill, and the proposed consultation.

I am sure that a lot of their concerns will be addressed as we go into committee. There have been many submissions put to me privately and through councils. Today my contribution has been about dealing with the majority of the three Riverland councils concerns but, as we go into committee, I am sure there will be many questions to be answered.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (23:47): I note that we have tried to move towards more family friendly hours—but Ruby goes to bed at about 8.30pm so anything after that is free time.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not family friendly? Could you speak to your colleagues?

Mr KNOLL: No, not family friendly. Could I say that the venerable Sam Newman put out an album entitled I Do My Best Work After Midnight. Unfortunately, Sam and I do not have that in common, so I am lucky that I will be able to speak before midnight in order to do my best work.

Can I say to the assembled members here—not that we reflect on their status in the house—that this is democracy. I have had a number of people, including members of the media and the government, put to me tonight that we do not necessarily need to talk this bill out, and that is not genuinely what we are seeking to do here, but each one of us—the former treasurer can laugh—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you must ignore him.

Mr KNOLL: Each one of us has been lobbied heavily on this bill.

The Hon. J.J. Snelling: Well, tell us your position.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr KNOLL: It is also quite interesting that for a bill—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr KNOLL: —that was supposed to be tabled in parliament before the mid-winter break, allowing us a good five or six weeks of consultation before parliament resumed, that is not something we were able to see. For a piece of legislation that asks us to vote on an urban growth boundary that we are not allowed to see, but we are not allowed to stand up in here and raise questions or have a slightly equivocal position, I think is absolutely disgusting.

For us to vote on getting rid of community consultation at the back end of planning regulation and asking us to talk about a charter of community participation when it has not even been written and there is no draft or informal understanding of what this thing is going to be is disgusting.

For us to try to vote on a bill when there are 46 separate areas of regulation that will be promulgated some time between three to five years into the future, and for the government to stand here and ask us to vote in blind faith and not allow us the opportunity to put our concerns on the record, or at least have a position that allows us the room to be able to properly represent the various stakeholders in this area, is absolutely disgusting.

It shows a hubristic, arrogant government that does not respect the views of the community and does not respect the views of this parliament. That is why we stand here until this late hour on a night like this, because we on this side of the house will do what we can—whether it be on this issue or whether it be an issue like cycling—to properly represent the views of people. If it does mean that we take a bit more time, then so be it. It is not as if we have been sitting late all these 47 sitting days this year, it is not as if we have been jam-packed full with an agenda from a government that is pushing forward and jumping ahead with a legislative agenda that requires us to burst at the seams. It is nothing of the sort. I think this is the second or third time this year that we have sat late, so I find it a little bit rich, coming from members of the government, that we are not allowed or that we are pressured into not having this opportunity to have our say put forward.

The Attorney-General is a man who puts a lot of bills before this place. It seems that he is the only one in the government who actually appears to do anything, from time to time, but I have been told off before about praising him too much so I will not do that either. You learn to understand the style of various ministers from the bills they bring before parliament, and this bill is very typical of the Attorney-General. It is heavy-handed, it is centralist, it is dismissive of consultation and local input and, for the reasons I have just outlined, this bill very much has the fingerprints of the Deputy Premier all over it. Again, we are being asked to consider something on which we have very little detail.

I understand that the legislation is designed to be done at a high level but surely, when you are asking the entire development community, the entire state, to take a leap of faith, every little piece of information that you can put on the table will help to bring more people along with you. Again, I come back to the fact that we have a government here that does not generally believe in consultation but instead seeks to ram something through that may or may not be good for people at some indeterminate time in the future, that we are all supposed to just get along and get on board with. Unfortunately that is not the way the opposition works, and we will be here to represent the views of our communities.

Tonight, simultaneously with our meeting, our sitting of parliament, the Town of Gawler council has been sitting, and I would like to note some of the recommendations that their planning team has put to the council about some of their concerns with this bill. These are draft recommendations and they are part of the agenda so, obviously, in coming days we will find out the outcome of the meeting. However, the officers' recommendations are that the following key concerns of the Town of Gawler pertaining to the bill are the basis of a submission given to the state government.

They point out that the removal of elected members from development assessment panels is not justified and not supported, that the community engagement charter be produced now and presented for council feedback prior to determination of the bill by parliament, that the state government clarify its position as to the likely scope of local variations to planning policy that will be derived from the state's planning policy library, as it is understood that only very limited variations will be allowed, and the need for further details that will quantify what will constitute accepted development and be deemed to satisfy development before acceptance of this approach can be further considered.

I am not responding to interjections, Deputy Speaker, but we had the member for Playford talking about the fact that it would be wonderful to understand the opposition's position. I can tell the house that of the 68 councils around South Australia, each one of them has certainly put a position but is unable to be firm in their position because they do not have the information required.

I find it disgusting that we are supposed to make a decision based on thin air and vapour, the vibe, the Dennis Denuto of planning bills, which has such a fundamental change to the way that we develop and build South Australia that it should take as much time as is necessary. If we take a day or two here to discuss this bill in greater detail, we are talking about things that will affect planning and infrastructure development across this state for decades to come. Surely, given the fact that it is not like the minister gave us enough time, even according to the deadlines he was going to give us in terms of consultation, for us to take that extra day or two is not out of order.

When it comes to local government involvement, when it comes to having local government on development assessment panels, there has certainly been debate. I can understand the desire to have a development assessment panel that is filled with professionals, those who have had experience in the area, those who can assess a planning application on its merits and make a decision, but I come from a regional community that has some fairly specific desires, some fairly specific features, which means that the planning decisions we make in our local community may be different from other areas. So, I am also very cognisant of the fact that we need to retain a level of local understanding and local knowledge on our development assessment panels, or regional boards, or regional development assessment panels, as they form under this bill.

I have sympathy with what I think the government is trying to achieve, not that we have been given any detail on the matter, except to say they want to lock out local councillors, but I understand that we need to have some level of local knowledge. I have a number of contentious development decisions coming up, whether that be the Palmer wind farm or whether it be renewed applications around the Freeling West rezoning.

There is, I suppose, a tussle between the elected members and their desire to represent their local community and what they believe their local community wants and the development planning professionals, who take a very dry look at what is presented before them. I can understand both sides of that argument but I think the government has swung too far the one way. There is also huge concern around cost shifting and the infrastructure levy shifting costs of governments, whether they be local or state, in terms of infrastructure provision onto developers. Again, I could have some sympathy but we have no understanding of how this thing is going to work, and the devil is definitely in the detail.

When it comes to food production areas, this is an area that the Barossa knows about. The Barossa preservation zone is one that seems to be already in place, it is a food production zone that is already in place and one that we are quite proud of. In the end, the act that we came to was a lot more simple than some of the earlier versions, in terms of what it excluded or included. We have a food production zone in the Barossa that protects farming land and allows farming land to continue doing what it does whilst at the same time gives good clarity to where townships will be built and where those townships' boundaries are. With that, I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.