Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Environment and Food Production Areas) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 19 March 2025.)

Mr FULBROOK (Playford) (16:45): I stand in support of this bill and from the outset I challenge anyone opposing it to step forward with their alternative suggestions. I have noticed in recent weeks an effort made by the opposition to somehow embroil the government of the day with the housing crisis while trying to paint themselves as saints, as if the whole problem suddenly erupted exactly three years ago. Anyone who knows anything about housing will know that this is not the case, and to carry on weaponising something as crucial as getting a roof over your head is displaying nothing short of complete ignorance.

As I said in my maiden speech, it took a generation to create this mess and it is sadly going to take this long to probably unravel it, so long as we have the nerve and the staying power to want to see this through to the end. We must be honest and accept that neither party, at both federal and state levels, are free from blame. While the opposition will be tempted to suggest it is all the government's fault because Labor have been in power for 19 of the last 25 years, it does not excuse them from the fact that they have only suddenly woken up to there being a housing problem.

They may not have been in government for the majority of the time, but they hardly raised an echo throughout and while I do not want my contribution to be tit for tat, for the benefit of trying to set this issue into some form or context, let us not forget that some of the most savage rises in average property values against average incomes happened when those opposite were last in office.

We should not also forget that their poster boy, former Prime Minister John Howard, was famously quoted as saying, 'Nobody ever complained to me about their house price going up.' What we are dealing with is the fallout of alarm bells ringing, maybe as early as 2004. At the time, the likes of then Prime Minister Howard and Treasurer Costello ignored them and in some ways you could hardly blame them. The issue was just impacting a small cohort of the community at the time, while the bulk of the electorate were arguably beneficiaries. So why would anyone flying high politically care, when it was just a small group of people missing out and buying a home, when all it really meant was that with a little bit more saving they would soon catch up and enter the market?

I should not necessarily be picking on 2004 as I reckon the multiple roots of this problem can be traced back further. Back then you could get an average home in Adelaide on around six times the average household income. This is data extracted from an annual report compiled by Demographia, which I read for the first time in shock horror as someone in their mid-20s working for the Property Council.

Their second report, published in 2006, incorporated Australian markets for the first time and funnily enough used language such as 'housing crisis' back then. It seems strange that only in the last few years has the political world, and indeed the media, brought this concept into the mainstream. While I hate to generalise, most of our leaders at the time had probably secured a roof over their heads many years prior when that average number had been much lower than six times the average household income. What was emerging was a major issue, but the commentary of the day did not see it like that.

I think we can all recall picking up newspapers and reading reports that celebrated another suburb joining the $1 million club. It was a sign of the times, as if it translated into some form of national prosperity. While I have been critical of Mr Howard, there just did not seem to be a problem within mainstream commentary, while the issue quietly simmered in the background.

Gradually, over time, that number started rising, and today it means that in Adelaide you need 9.7 times the average household income to buy the average-value home. I use the 2021 census as a guide, knowing full well that we have travelled further in time, with the goalposts moving with it. If $75,660 was the median household income that year and you needed a deposit of 20 per cent, just to give some rough, indicative numbers, it would take a deposit of around $150,000 to enter the private housing market. In other words, slowly the chorus of cheers gradually started to subside and was replaced with jeers as, bit by bit, the beneficiaries started stepping towards retirement and as the have-nots began emerging into a loud and growing critical mass.

At this point in my speech, I want to remind the chamber that this neglect has made some people very rich. It then has to be asked: why should they be forced to abandon their wealth for something they would argue they have worked very hard to build? They cannot be begrudged, and nor should they be. These beneficiaries were simply following the rules and playing to the market conditions of the day.

While some of the things I have said could be described as being critical of the Liberal Party, I want to be fair and point out that the people sitting opposite me did not necessarily create the problem that I have described. Should they want to play politics on this they should be derided, but if they want to be part of the solution, then, on a personal level, I feel that they should be welcomed with open arms.

Taking a step back: when those in desperate need of a roof over their head see us squabble, their hope that we can somehow overcome what is a dog's breakfast diminishes. It is therefore imperative that we work in their best interests, or we run the risk of handing control of the problem to the crude and ill-informed political fringe. We must accept that time is arguably one of the key ingredients in addressing the problem and, with it, the reality that at some point, hopefully no time soon, governments change, and the last thing we need is to change the course and abandon this piece of the puzzle, which is in many ways part of the solution.

While I stress that this will help, as a government we are not putting all our eggs into one basket, knowing full well that there are other facets that must be considered and addressed as a way forward. The reality of the situation is that there is truth both on the left and on the right in restoring something we once took for granted. I think it is reasonable to suggest that the relaxation of the urban growth boundaries is something that has been coming from the right side of politics for some time.

To the historians in the room: you might want to look back at the calls made by Ross Elliott of the Property Council, who was championing this cause from the early 2000s. I am not saying I totally agree with Ross, but I do agree with him in many parts. I feel that what is before us is a reasonable compromise that will hopefully back in some of the points he has been arguing for decades. I stressed earlier that there is a lot of truth on the left side of the housing affordability debate that should not be dismissed either.

Some years ago we had an incredible bastion to insulate us against the problem, and it was called public housing. I could be dismissed by saying that we still have it now, but these days, after significant stock sell-off, it has been rebranded and repurposed as social housing. I am not saying the latter is wrong; indeed, we should be using our resources to put roofs over the heads of our most vulnerable. But, as Julie Macdonald from the Housing Trust Tenants Association points out, there is a big difference between the two.

Wind the clock back 40 years, or dare I say even 50 years, to when South Australia had an abundance of public housing that was a viable pathway for anyone to access. As I understand it, no matter your circumstances, if you wanted a house then the public market was a viable option to go through. Sadly, as time has gone by, the stock numbers have either been sold off or could not keep pace with increases in population, meaning we slowly lost something powerful. I say 'powerful' because it was a lever that governments had at their disposal to rein in any excesses seen within the private market.

It has now gone, and while we have seen some credible efforts by both the current state and federal governments to end the decline, it is a long road ahead if we ever want to restore the glory and collective benefits we once had with the Housing Trust. I can imagine that is an inconvenient truth to some, but to end the erosion we are seeing in housing affordability, some of the solutions are not going to be palatable to both sides of the debate. This is why compromise and staying power are significant in the road ahead.

I note The Advertiser on 28 March, which points out some interesting numbers. It points out the reduction in agricultural production on the rezoned land equates to an average of $3.6 million and 19 full-time jobs, representing 0.01 per cent of current grain production and rising to only 0.23 per cent after 40 years. I am not here to say the loss of agricultural land is not significant, but when it is pointed out the changes before us will lead to a loss of 0.14 per cent of the four million hectares currently being cropped in our state, you cannot help but see the argument in a different light.

It should also be pointed out that, just because something is being rezoned, it does not equate to some form of compulsory acquisition whereby some Stalinist force removes farmers off their land to make them work in collectivised properties for the glory of the state. In fact, the legislation points towards numerous rezoning processes. None of these are triggered automatically through the legislation: it simply shows where they will be happening and due process, including significant community consultation, which will follow in due course.

The point must also be reiterated until we are all blue in the face: farmers will be free to keep their rezoned land as farms, and it will be up to them if they ever want to sell their properties. We should not pretend otherwise: this does present a loss in the current areas farmed, but in the spirit of compromise, we all need to work together in the hope we can manage what I see to be one of the biggest challenges facing Australia today.

But it does not just end with more land or restoring something like public housing: the future of tackling the problem could be considering changes to taxation, the planning and building approval process, building codes, training and what building materials we use, just to name a few. This builds on what I have been saying since I arrived here: we cannot afford to dismiss any suggestions at this point. Everything should be on the table, with experts on all sides of the arguments hopefully being mature enough to find consensus to plan a credible way forward.

This then takes me to the opposition's recent announcement of additional land for rezoning over what is earmarked for this legislative change. I imagine the tone of my colleagues may be more aggressive, but in the spirit of cooperation, it does suggest they are moving in a similar direction to where the government is heading in this matter. Again, I note the opposition leader in his quotes to The Advertiser on 29 March cannot help but take a swipe out of the government by stating how the housing crisis has become worse since Labor took power. I draw back to my earlier point that it is pointless trying to claim some form of partisan superiority on the problem when we all know it has been simmering in the background for decades.

I do wish to point out that what we are debating today is one by-product of the consultation process of the Greater Adelaide Regional Plan. Perhaps there is a need to look at the areas the opposition is suggesting, but I would argue at this point let us stick to the land that has undergone thorough consultation rather than going down the rather humorous path of one side saying, 'Mine is bigger than yours.' That said, minus some of the political pointscoring, hats off to the opposition for beginning to realise that additional land releases are part of the recipe in tackling the problem, which grows by the minute.

In raising the consultation process of the Greater Adelaide Regional Plan, I wish to place on record that I provided submissions both to the initial call for suggestions and in relation to the draft plan. Key to my suggestions was a relaxation of urban densities around our key urban transport corridors, in particular our railway lines. In a low-density city like Adelaide, we should count our blessings that we have as many operating railway corridors as we currently have. Personally, I would like to see a lot more, but for this to happen, we really need to extract bang for our buck from the money we already invest in these networks.

For this to happen, it is my view that an increase in the densities along these corridors would bring an instant customer base, therefore providing the rationale and trigger point to bolster services and making our urban areas less car dependent in the process. Another positive side effect would be the trigger of urban regeneration in areas that could do with a lick of paint.

Having said that, if you are quick to jump to conclusions you might suggest I prefer increased urban densities over urban growth. I would argue that while we are seeing a lot more subdivisions and a move to apartment living, fundamentally the Adelaide urban landscape has been made up of houses with large backyards. While they have come at some cost in stretching our finite resources to many front doors, this has also delivered significant benefits for decades.

It is my view that there is not one preferred method to structure our urban landscape. We have an abundance of large blocks, but what we need more than anything else is choice in the types of dwellings built across Greater Adelaide. As a basic rule the further you get from either a CBD—and let us be honest, there are quite a few in Adelaide—or a public transport corridor, the lower the densities should become.

We have people bemoaning the loss of the backyard but, let us face it, depending on where you are in your life a backyard may become a liability rather than an asset, so having hierarchical documents like the regional plan to help guide the process of the right dwelling for the right part of town is invaluable—and I take my hat off to Minister Champion for his invaluable work in guiding this process.

As mentioned, I do agree that some urban consolidation is necessary and desirable, but the reality is that squeezing 85 per cent of all growth through infill could be quite a challenge, especially if we are expecting our urban population to reach 2.2 million people by 2051. With this in mind, I feel the minister deserves another tick for injecting realism into the plan through the modest release of some additional greenfield development.

In the beginning of this speech I encouraged those with better ideas to come forward. I am going to end it with a challenge to the other detractors out there, the ones who advocate that we do nothing. We have planning laws to ensure that development and land use is managed responsibly and sustainably, balancing community needs, environmental protection, and economic development, so I challenge anyone who argues against this legislation, or the Greater Adelaide Regional Plan, to envisage a world where this form of responsible government does not exist.

Adelaide, above most cities in the world, is testament to the benefits of good planning practice. While we have not always got it right, there are not too many cities in the world where either the grid, or a look in the direction of the hills or the sea, will save you if ever you start feeling lost. Ignoring these foundations will lead to urban design anarchy, which is on display in some cities across the world—some of which are rather close to home.

I have touched upon housing affordability and pointed out that there is much more to do, but this bill does sow some important seeds. As I see it, its key intention is to bolster supply and lower the pressure on supply that has triggered some of the adversity people have encountered in getting a roof over their head. Anything that helps to achieve this should be supported. With that, I commend this bill to the house.

Mr ELLIS (Narungga) (17:03): I would like to make a brief contribution on this bill and in so doing, recognise the importance of housing to our constituencies around the state. It certainly has risen over the time I have been in parliament—not that it was not important from the get go, but it has certainly risen over the time I have been in parliament to an issue of absolute primacy. It is one of the things we deal with most and about which we have the most correspondence forwarded to us, and there are truly some heart-wrenching stories that come before our office about people who are struggling to find housing and who find themselves in a real predicament when it comes to homelessness.

I have talked about it in this place before, but these are not always people you would ordinarily associate with homelessness. Quite often these are people with respected professions, families and quite upstanding lives who have, through no fault of their own, found themselves without a home to live in and with the stress and anxiety that comes along with being removed from a rental and having to find somewhere at short notice. It is clear that housing is an issue of absolute primacy across the state and that something needs to be done on that front, and releasing land is one way to do that.

There are, however, I think, some questions that this land release raises, and the first question that I would like to raise is with regard to planning. We often hear in this place, not least from the member for Kavel, about the poor planning that went into the Mount Barker settlement some 10 or 15 years ago that has left it without train services, without proper public transport facilities to get that now rather large population down into the city, into metropolitan Adelaide to fulfil the task or employment they might need to go to Adelaide to do. That is quite a real issue.

I would like to point out, for the people who have not noticed, that the significant development that is happening north of Adelaide already at Riverlea might well encounter those same problems. There is no train line that runs to Riverlea at this stage. It has a massive population that is growing quite quickly and it will inevitably reach a point where it has a critical mass of people moving in the same direction at the same time, trying to get from one point to the other.

I suspect we will have a similar problem at Riverlea in the not too distant future, where people will be crying out for improved public transport options and improved facilities, and by that point it will be too late to install a rail line or more suitable public transport options, and we will be left trying to fix the same mess that we are in at Mount Barker currently, notwithstanding that Mount Barker has an existing rail corridor.

As these new developments are released and this land is rezoned for housing purposes, I hope that proper planning goes into it to enable public transport and other required infrastructure services to be pre-planned and pre-installed. It would be far better if there were a rail corridor put aside there to allow for public transport to be provided from the outset, rather than having to come back to it later and find that does not fit.

On that topic, on the planning of significant developments, I have to say the stoplights that have been installed at Riverlea have been a tremendous burden—burden might be the wrong word—on my community. The dissatisfaction that my constituents have with those stoplights being placed at Riverlea is immense.

Successive governments of both persuasions have gone to great effort to remove stoplights between Adelaide—and I do not think, save for the one at Riverlea, there is a stoplight before Port Augusta. That is how much effort went into streamlining that road and ensuring that it was a smooth, seamless transition from city to country. Now we have this extraordinary situation where, after that last stoplight was removed when the north-south corridor was finished and the concrete road was complete, we have this stoplight whacked in place at Riverlea, which now brings fully laden grain trucks on their way to Port Adelaide to a complete stop on the highway without much warning. It is really quite an extraordinary thing.

I remember taking it up with the previous Minister for Transport, the former member for Gibson, who informed me that once that development has sold a certain number of allotments they will be required to fund a grade separation of their own accord. I look forward to chasing that up with the current government and ensuring that they are held to account because the sooner that stoplight is removed from that road, the better. The sooner those trucks can continue to go unencumbered through that intersection past Riverlea, the better off my farmers will be in trying to get their product to port.

As part of these new developments, I hope that the proper planning is in place to ensure that the road infrastructure that we enjoy on Yorke Peninsula in the seat of Narungga is not interrupted by stoplights or any other road infrastructure that brings traffic to a halt, and if new infrastructure is required because of the quantum of residents that will be moving into these developments that a grade separation will be in place to allow for traffic to go over the top and rejoin in the proper way. That would be entirely appropriate.

As an aside to the Riverlea stoplights, I would like draw to the house's attention, if I have not already—I may well have done—the repeated efforts I have made to get warning lights installed at the Riverlea intersection that flash in preparation for a light swapping from green to yellow. It is quite an extraordinary thing the resistance the bureaucracy has towards these warning lights. Currently, there are warning lights there that flash repeatedly 24/7 and, as such, offer no warning whatsoever. It is like when we were at uni and people highlighted the whole page; it is just completely pointless to highlight the whole page because nothing stands out. These warning lights that flash repeatedly over and over again offer no warning at all because you have no idea when the lights are about to change.

If the trucks had appropriate warning, if those lights started flashing as the stoplights were about to change from green to yellow, they could begin their slowing down process confident they knew what was happening ahead of them. As it stands, they are none the wiser when they go past those warning signs. If the minister is listening or the government is listening and they want to revisit that infrastructure, we used to have it on Waterloo Corner Road when we used to come to town way back when, so you cannot tell me there is no precedent for it in this state. I vividly remember it happening at that intersection. It would be well worth installing that at the Riverlea corner.

So the first point I wanted to make about this is just the proper planning systems, which I have endeavoured to do, ensuring that there is no interruption for our traffic coming from the peninsula like we used to have before the Riverlea lights; ensuring that there is consideration for the proper public transport that should go there, including train services, which I suspect will be demanded in the not-too-distant future; and hoping that this work has been done to service what is an incredibly quickly growing area of our state.

The second point I wanted to make in the time that has been allotted to me is that it is wonderful to see the primacy of quality arable land coming to the forefront again. This was a debate that I attempted to have with very little support with the passage of the mining bill in the last parliament. I attempted to convince the entire parliament that our arable land is a precious resource, one that we cannot go around carving up and removing forever willy-nilly.

We need to have some sort of plan to preserve arable land and ensure that we continue to have enough stocked, moving forward, as our population grows, and it is wonderful to see that argument come to the forefront. It will be interesting to see as this bill progresses whether there is an appetite from the parliament to preserve this land at Roseworthy that is now being removed, because it is for certain some of the best arable land that we have in this state. We can cast our minds back some generations to Andrews Farm being carved up into residential areas. We have Two Wells, which used to host wonderful farmland, and the number of homes, which are needed for sure, that now exist on prime agricultural land around Gawler and surrounds is quite startling.

The argument that we hear not just from this government but from proponents in successive governments, whether it is relating to mining or housing, is 'It's only a tiny percentage so it won't matter. We've still got quite a bit left.' Well, if we continually nip off tiny little percentages of arable land eventually we will get to all of it. No matter how small the bite of the pie is, if we take enough bites we will eat the whole pie, and I think we need to give some consideration to whether we are chewing off too much arable land as we go forward. No matter if we are chewing up 1 per cent or 15 per cent at a time, we are still chewing off bits and bits, and it will get smaller and smaller.

I am pleased this was able to be part of the debate as we have gone forward. I will be interested to see, as debate proceeds, whether it forms part of the discussion and whether there are any votes cast along those lines. Lord knows, with the season we had last year and the dry start to this year, of all the times that the agricultural industry needs our support in this place this might well be it, and sending a signal that the ever-decreasing amount of arable land is worth protecting and worth saving so we can continue to feed our population and export our goods would be a wonderful step in that direction.

In question time today we heard the Premier make a brief reference to other factors that are reducing arable land as well. There is no doubt that weather patterns do seem to be changing and that some arable land that used to have been reliable in previous years might now be decreasing in terms of its reliability and its variability when it comes to good seasons. With that, with taking out chunks of our arable land as well, and with mines and residential developments too, we are getting a decreasing amount of arable land that is worth preserving. We will need to make a stand sometime soon, I think.

I look forward to seeing that progress. As I said from the outset, I do not mean this to be interpreted as a speech denouncing a housing release. There is certainly a dire need for more housing in our regions. But I suspect that if you live in Adelaide you need to be prepared to live in a more densely populated region. You might well need to accept that if you are accessing the services and opportunities that exist in a metropolitan city it might mean forgoing some of the comforts that those of us in regional South Australia enjoy. There are certainly quite a few side effects of enjoying those creature comforts, not least of which are the health services and other essential government services which I have been campaigning on in the last couple of weeks and which do not appear to be as fulsome in regional South Australia as they are in the city. So I would like to make that point. I hope that the proper planning has gone into these new releases.

I know that, having talked to the minister about the proposed land release on the western side of the highway near Dublin, there would be significant infrastructure costs associated with pursuing that parcel of land and it was indicated to me that it might well necessitate another stoplight being installed to ensure that the population that might inhabit that land could get out onto the highway. That is the last thing we need. If that were the case, I am sure that my community might have second thoughts about supporting such a release—but we know, of course, that housing is required. I look forward to seeing the passage of this bill, how debate proceeds and whether there are any votes held.

Mrs PEARCE (King) (17:15): South Australia like the rest of the nation is in the middle of a housing crisis. My local community is not immune to this. When I am out on the doors and meeting with my local community I hear from young people who are just absolutely dying to be able to step into their first home, whether it is in the rental market or buying their very first home. I hear from parents who want their children to be afforded the same opportunities and choices that they were when they stepped into the housing market, and likewise grandparents and the like.

They have seen changes in the trends of housing within South Australia over the years, they have seen when maybe some poor decisions have been made and the impact that has had, and they want government to learn from this and that when we are planning and moving forward we are putting the right measures in place so that those coming up and into the housing market have adequate options with adequate infrastructure as well.

It is no secret that Adelaide is one of the most liveable cities in the world—there are so many amazing testaments to what makes it special—and we certainly want it to stay that way as well. That is why it is absolutely crucial that we do adapt our policies and continue to develop our communities to be able to protect what makes our great state and city special.

A key initiative of the government's Housing Roadmap and the Greater Adelaide Regional Plan is to be able to ensure that there is an appropriate supply of serviced land to be able to meet both the current and emerging housing demands that we have. In fact, it was a matter that was raised last night at community cabinet, which was hosted in my local community. We had reflections from residents in the area saying that we need more housing but we need to be able to do that right. We need to have the right infrastructure—connections to water, connections to sewerage—we need to make sure we have health infrastructure in place, schooling opportunities available and that all the other amenities that make a local community special and great are considered and put into the planning that we do as we address housing. That is certainly something that we are getting onto as well.

People from all over know that is SA Great, and that is why they are choosing South Australia as a base—and who can blame them? There are almost 12,500 more businesses operating in South Australia compared with the number of businesses operating at the 2022 state election. There have been 73,000 jobs created since the 2022 state election, 54 per cent of which are full-time. We are a city that will reach 2.2 million people by 2051, and it is no secret that the commencement of AUKUS is driving and will continue to drive employment and innovation in our state, while our mining and mineral sector continues to also remain strong.

With this unstoppable growth and potential, we do need to ensure that we as a government plan well for the future and that does include ensuring that we have adequate housing and communities set up and in place for the workforce that we know is to come, in addition to what we already know is needed. This is why our state government has launched the Greater Adelaide Regional Plan, more commonly referred to as GARP. This strategic plan identifies where 315,000 new homes will be built over the next 35 years, and it is done in a way that preserves important land for future infrastructure requirements. Additionally, no new general infill development areas have been planned, and the GARP has removed the former objective in previous versions which targeted 85 per cent of future housing being infill projects.

We have seen the outcomes where proper planning has not taken place. Poor planning has cost communities lost amenities, productivity and increased taxes. I do not think there are many of us who have not heard from residents who have been impacted, where roads soon become congested, parking is an issue and there are issues getting into local schools and the like, and we need to take all of this into account to make sure that they are adequately addressed moving forward in the actions that we are taking.

That is why the areas that have been identified for new homes are already connected to infrastructure, have infrastructure commitments in place and are all located in areas where future investment in infrastructure is planned. Having all of these components thought about in this process is just as important as putting the bricks and mortar on the ground. We want to get this done right and we want to do it in the most efficient way that we possibly can. By 2050, Greater Adelaide's population is expected to grow by an additional 670,000 people, and GARP sets a clear direction for coordinated strategic growth.

Last year, our government proudly launched the South Australian Housing Roadmap, a coordinated response to get more South Australians into safe, secure and affordable homes. In order to deliver more housing, our government is implementing a wide breadth of measures. We are making sure that we have the right people for the job, with a record level of investment in skills and training which will ensure we have the trades available to construct these new homes.

Importantly, the tech colleges that we are building across our state will play an important role in this. I am really pleased to see that we will have one out in the north-eastern suburbs to support developments in skills that we know are needed for the jobs of the future and the communities that they will be needed in as well.

I have spoken to many parents in my community who are concerned that their children may never get to live out the Australian dream of owning their own home, as they were able to do decades ago. Just as importantly, which I have mentioned earlier, is also having the choice of the home that they wish to live in that suits their needs now and well into the future as well, which is why we have delivered financial support for first-home buyers by abolishing stamp duty for eligible homebuyers who want to buy or build a new home and expanding the First Home Owner Grant as well.

I am proud that this government is on track to deliver the biggest investment in public housing in decades, fast-tracking construction with over 1,025 homes projected for completion by 2026, which, as we all know, is right around the corner, because we all know that public housing for those on fixed or low incomes is a critical element of a fair and inclusive society. Again, it was another matter that was raised last night at community cabinet. I am really happy to see that what we are putting in place is being reflected in the desires from local communities.

I know that renters in my community were very pleased to hear of this government's commitment to support renters with innovative and balanced solutions, such as our 2023 major tenancy reforms and investment in affordable living. We are also coordinating and investing in public infrastructure like water and wastewater projects. Again, as I have already reflected, we have recognised decisions that were made in the past, where maybe bricks were put out before we had the infrastructure in place. If you come out to the north, you can see it now going into the ground. We are working very, very hard to get that done. There is a need to make sure, moving forwards, that we do what we can to have adequate infrastructure put in place before we take those next steps.

We know that water and wastewater infrastructure simply did not keep pace with the ever-growing developments, especially in the northern suburbs where development is occurring across 25 kilometres from east to west. That is why our government will invest an extra $1.2 billion over the next four years, along with other investments included in SA Water's 2024-28 delivery program to be able to deliver services to an estimated 40,000 new homes, including an extra 17,000 new homes in the state's growth areas.

As part of the state's biggest ever land release, a patch of land right in the corner of Golden Grove has been unlocked for new development. It is something that I have engaged heavily with my community on. They want to see this release. They are very eager to see homes coming up in our local community, but again, it is about getting this done right, making sure we have the right infrastructure and amenities in place to make sure that it complements our existing community well.

They made their messages clear. The community certainly would like to see that it is complemented well in terms of our infrastructure and planning, that our roads, hospitals, schools and shopping centres are able to service the local community that we have developing in the area, as well as public infrastructure such as the footpaths and bus shelters being also up to scratch. That is certainly something we are taking on board and working very closely on to make sure that this development is the best it can simply be.

No matter where we are developing, these principles should remain the same, and that is what this legislation aims to achieve. This is one of the key features of GARP, that land for community and social infrastructure is identified early and upfront. We can lock in land for schools, for hospitals and our emergency services early, which does have a significant strategic and financial advantage for state government but also local communities.

This also leads me to some great news: I am beyond excited to hear that we have committed to the Northern Parklands. Knowing the popularity of our already treasured Cobbler Creek Recreation Park, I know how much of a gem that this will be for our northern local suburbs. I am a firm believer that the northern suburbs deserve just the same investment and intention as other areas, and that we rightly will treasure a parklands just as much as our local Parklands in the city are treasured as well.

Our government has committed $53 million towards the first stage of the Northern Parklands, and it will serve my neighbours and emerging growth areas inclusive of Angle Vale, Kudla and the Gawler River. At maturity, our new Northern Parklands will cover almost 1,000 hectares of land, which is 39 per cent larger than the Adelaide Parklands, at the heart of which will be a 70-hectare village green and a sport and recreation area, which is actually going to be equivalent to 31 Adelaide Ovals in size. I cannot stress enough just the size and the scale of what these parklands will be, and all the benefits that they will be able to bring to those who live and visit the northern suburbs.

The playing fields will include ovals, courts and clubroom facilities, and it will also be home to numerous local sporting clubs. I am really excited in thinking about the community connections that are going to be formed in this space. I have talked many times in this place about the importance of sport and the benefits that it brings to an individual, both physically and mentally, but what is just as important is the way that it brings people together and the benefits that that has. It is often our grassroots that are there to support people in tough times, and we want to see more of that, more connections in local communities occurring. It is certainly going to be achieved when we are looking at such a major project in the northern suburbs.

I am also pleased that more than 760 hectares will be preserved for natural green open space that will support greater biodiversity and help increase habitats for native animals. I know firsthand how much that is treasured in my local Cobbler Creek. Residents love being able to walk through and see the native wildlife and the like, and there are a lot of projects that are happening with local volunteer groups in the area in terms of the vegetation that we are planting to draw more in, all the way from butterflies to kangaroos and beyond.

We know that we are SA Great, and everyone across the nation knows that too. We want to make sure that Adelaide remains one of the most liveable cities in the world, not just for us, but for our children and their children too, and that means it is absolutely crucial that we adapt our policies and that we continue to develop our communities to protect what makes our state and our city special.

We need to ensure that there is an appropriate supply of serviced land to meet both current and emerging housing demand, and that is exactly what our government's Housing Roadmap and the GARP are doing. I certainly commend this bill to the house.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK (Stuart) (17:28): I certainly would like to have the opportunity to talk on the Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Environment and Food Production Areas) Amendment Bill 2025. As a regional person, I agree with the member for Narungga and others who have said that homelessness and the availability of new homes and land for houses is of the utmost importance to people not only in the metropolitan and outer metropolitan areas but also in regional South Australia.

We need to make certain that what we do with the zoning and release of this land ensures that the areas that are being released are the most opportunistic and the most economical, not only for the houses but also for future generations. In Port Pirie, for argument's sake, we have plenty of land. We would certainly welcome the minister releasing more land around Port Pirie and other locations in regional South Australia as part of that.

Going back to the member for Narungga's comments, I can remember many years ago where the market gardens used to be on the northern side of Adelaide around Two Wells, Virginia, Roseworthy and places like that. Now all of a sudden it has been rezoned, and lots and lots of houses are going in there. The fact is that is not only arable land. It has been mentioned previously that this proposal will only take up 1 per cent of arable land in all of South Australia.

Arable land includes land not only for the grain producing sector and cattle and sheep grazing but also for market gardens for the food that we all enjoy. I am sure that in regional South Australia around Port Pirie, where we had market gardens many years ago, you will not see any market gardens growing up there because of the climate and also the unavailability of water. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

At 17:31 the house adjourned until Wednesday 2 April 2025 at 10:30.