House of Assembly Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1) 55 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Adelaide Park Lands) Amendment Bill Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Adelaide Park Lands) Amendment Bill Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Adelaide Park Lands) Amendment Bill Second Reading Second Reading Mr BATTY House of Assembly Bragg Mr BATTY (Bragg) (11:05): I move: That this bill be read a second time. I indicate that the opposition will be supporting this bill, which comes from the other place, because it is a big win for our Adelaide Parklands, and we know that our Parklands deserve big wins. On this side of the house, we acknowledge our Adelaide Parklands are unique, we acknowledge they are precious and we know they need to be protected and preserved. Our Adelaide Parklands are something that sets our city apart. They support biodiversity, they support heritage and they support recreation right here in the heart of our city. They have been described by some as the lungs of our city. They have been described by others—indeed, I think by those opposite—as green gold, which is why it is particularly curious that we now see those opposite describing this bill, which seeks to protect that green gold, as being far-reaching and unnecessary. In my view, this bill is neither far-reaching nor unnecessary. What it seeks to do is improve the parliamentary scrutiny of development of the Parklands and improve the scrutiny provisions that are already in the act. Code amendments that relate to development in the Parklands or vary a boundary of the Adelaide Parklands zone under the code would, under this bill, require the approval of both houses of parliament. I say that this is not far-reaching and I say that this is not unnecessary. It is not far-reaching because it simply seeks to improve the scrutiny of Adelaide Parklands code amendments. Indeed, parliamentary scrutiny is already envisaged, intended and provided for in the existing legislation. Section 74 of the act already requires code amendments to be referred to the ERD Committee. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Member for Florey! The member for Taylor is called to order. Mr BATTY House of Assembly Bragg Mr BATTY: Unfortunately, it is necessary in circumstances where we see this ERD Committee— An honourable member interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! Mr BATTY House of Assembly Bragg Mr BATTY: —many recent examples, not appropriately scrutinising the code amendments insofar as they relate to the Adelaide Parklands. The Hon. N.D. Champion interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Member for Taylor! Mr BATTY House of Assembly Bragg Mr BATTY: We have seen it with the Adelaide Aquatic Centre only very recently, where the Adelaide Parklands Association were not invited to come to present to the ERD Committee. The ERD Committee are not appropriately scrutinising code amendments insofar as they relate to the Adelaide Parklands. So, far from being far-reaching, it is a sensible improvement to the parliamentary scrutiny process that already exists. Those interjections from those opposite, that it is far-reaching and unnecessary once again—it is only that if you have plans to develop the Adelaide Parklands. Mr Brown interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Member for Florey, order! Mr BATTY House of Assembly Bragg Mr BATTY: This is only bad legislation if you want to develop the Adelaide Parklands. Mr Whetstone interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order, member for Chaffey! Mr BATTY House of Assembly Bragg Mr BATTY: I notice the Parklands minister interjecting, the Parklands development minister interjecting— The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The member for Bragg will not respond to interjections. Mr BATTY House of Assembly Bragg Mr BATTY: This is only bad legislation if you have a plan to develop the Adelaide Parklands; if not, you have nothing to worry about. So it is certainly not unnecessary. Perhaps it should be unnecessary in circumstances where those opposite promised us, before the election, they would protect Adelaide's unique Parklands. Unfortunately, we have seen that they have made a total mockery of that promise ever since they made it. Whether it be the police horses debacle at Park 21 West, whether it be ignoring the Adelaide Park Lands Association and the latest code amendment, whether it be not referring recent developments to the federal minister in line with the National Heritage listing or whether it be not be supporting and progressing state heritage listing of the Adelaide Parklands in this chamber, there is a litany of failure from those opposite— Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Member for Taylor! Member for Florey! Mr BATTY House of Assembly Bragg Mr BATTY: —when it comes to protecting our Parklands. This bill is an opportunity— Mr Brown interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Member for Florey! Mr BATTY House of Assembly Bragg Mr BATTY: —to make amends. If you did not have a plan to develop the Parklands, you could support this bill today. If the Malinauskas government were serious about their promise to protect the Parklands, if the Parklands development minister were serious about the promise to protect the Parklands, they could support this bill today that seeks to do just that. I commend the bill to the house. Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Odenwalder. Mr TEAGUE House of Assembly Heysen Mr TEAGUE: I call attention to the state of the house. A quorum having been formed: