RIVER TORRENS LINEAR PARK (LINEAR PARKS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 2 July 2009. Page 2769.)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (17:57): I rise to conclude my remarks from the last time we sat. Indeed, I posed some questions that the minister has provided me with a copy of, and I am sure he has them with him and will put them on the record. We also indicated, at that time, that the LGA would be making a submission to the government in relation to this bill, which it has done, and it indicated that there were some amendments that it would like drafted.

The minister tabled those amendments yesterday. I have a facsimile here from Wendy Campagna, the Executive Director of the Local Government Association, indicating that the LGA supports the amendments proposed by the minister. In light of that, I indicate that the opposition supports this bill and we look forward to the further stages of the debate.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (17:58): I thank the honourable member for his contribution and other members who have contributed to this debate. There are a few matters I need to address before this bill goes into the committee stage which we can deal with, hopefully, tomorrow.

The Hon. Mr Brokenshire first spoke back on 16 June. I am pleased to note that the honourable member supports this important bill, which seeks to provide for the future protection of public open space along Adelaide's major watercourses—other than, of course, the River Torrens which is already protected. I have moved an amendment to the bill to clarify that it only applies to public land that is either owned or under the care and control of government agencies or local councils. Although this was always the case, I believe the amendment makes it clearer.

As the honourable member notes, the original River Torrens Linear Park Act arose from the sale by the previous government of riverfront land at Underdale. The government has landholdings along the other waterways that I intend to ask the department to explore for inclusion as linear parks in accordance with this bill. Without the passage of this bill, there will remain the potential for the situation at Underdale to be repeated. Although I am not aware of any such instances occurring since Underdale, the potential does exist and this bill seeks to remove that risk.

In response to the Hon. Mr Ridgway's questions about what other waterways other than those identified in the second reading explanation would be captured by this legislation, I advise that any urban waterway could be the subject of future linear parks. The honourable member cites the example of rural waterways including the Glenelg River in the South-East. They are not urban waterways although, of course, if the amendment is carried which seeks to delete the word 'urban' and substitute 'public', then of course that would provide for the possibility of linear parks being established in non-urban areas. It was the government's original intention when this bill was introduced that it would apply to urban waterways, but the amendment will allow the act to apply to other waterways.

The original River Torrens Linear Park Act 2006, as its long title states, is clearly an act to provide for the protection of the River Torrens Linear Park as a world-class asset to be preserved as an urban park. The bill amends this long title to provide for other linear parks to also be preserved as urban parks. The bill does not extend control over other waterways that are not in an urban setting. The legislation provides for the possibility of linear parks in regional towns and centres as well as metropolitan Adelaide, but it was not intended to apply to rural areas. However, as I indicated to the honourable member the other day, after we have done some thinking about it and since we are deleting the word 'urban' anyway within this bill and replacing it with 'public', there is probably no reason why it should not apply to such areas.

Certainly, I can think of a number of cases where regional towns within this state have watercourses running through them. A significant proportion of towns such as Clare, Strathalbyn, Victor Harbor and a number of other towns do have watercourses where parks are situated. In principle, there is no reason why we should not make those linear parks, particularly if the councils concerned request it. However, I repeat that it was not the original intention of the government that the bill would apply to those, although there is no reason why, at some stage in the future, that should not be the case.

The honourable member's second question related to restrictions on private land holdings within the linear parks and stated that it is his understanding that private landowners were not able to sell or subdivide their land. This is not correct. The River Torrens Linear Park Act 2006 only applies to government landholdings or land under the care and control of the council. It is true, however, that the current act and the bill allow for the compulsory acquisition of private land subject to, and in accordance with, the Land Acquisition Act 1969. However, if the land is not required, there is nothing to stop the landowner selling or disposing of the land privately. The ability of the landowner to subdivide, however, is dependent on the zoning. If the land is zoned for open space, it might not be able to be subdivided, but that is a separate issue to this bill as subdivision is controlled by the Development Act 1993.

The amendment filed in my name seeks to clarify that the act would apply only to unalienated Crown land, land owned by or under the control of the minister or another agency or instrumentality of the Crown, or land under the care, control and management of a council. The bill provides the legal mechanism for the establishment of further linear parks by the deposition of a GRO plan identifying the land covered.

The government will liaise and consult closely with any councils affected by a proposed linear park, as it did with the original GRO plan establishing the River Torrens Linear Park. The Local Government Association did write, after I prepared that response to the honourable member, and requested that it be formalised in the act that the consultation with the relevant councils take place before any park is declared. The government is happy to do so, and that amendment has been filed in my name. As with any parks and public spaces, ordinarily the landowner/occupier will be responsible for maintenance and ongoing care and control of the land.

Finally, I want to put this bill in the context of the recently released 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide. I point out that, under the section in the plan that relates to open space, sport and recreation, targets are set within that section, as follows:

Ensure that the Greater Adelaide Open Space System will consist of at least 160,000 hectares by 2012.

Provide a minimum of 12.5 per cent open space in all new developments.

It goes on to state:

Prioritise the following activities for the Greater Adelaide open space framework:

greening the Gawler Buffer, which will consist of about 230,000 hectares by 2014

I think this is relevant to this bill, and I believe it puts this bill in the perspective of the government's overall plan for Greater Adelaide in the next 30 years. It goes on to state:

developing the Gawler River linear park, which will link a system of open space in and around Gawler with the Gawler, South Para and North Para rivers, by 2036

developing waterway linear parks along the River Torrens, Gawler River, Little Para River, Dry Creek, Sturt River, Pedlar Creek, Onkaparinga River, Port Willunga Creek, Christies Creek and Field River by 2036

developing a coastal linear park from Sellicks Beach to North Haven by 2020

implement MOSS [metropolitan open space system] by rezoning 130 hectares in the Gawler buffer by 2012 and investigating further MOSS land for rezoning.

There is also within that plan draft policies for linking greenways to parks, reserves and bikeways, and there are also policies in relation to greening transport corridors and so forth. I particularly wanted to put that on the record because it does, I believe, indicate that the bill before us is a part of achieving the government's plan for Greater Adelaide over 30 years. With those comments, I commend the bill to the council and look forward to the committee stage tomorrow.

Bill read a second time.