Question Time

30-YEAR PLAN FOR GREATER ADELAIDE

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (14:27): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Urban Development and Planning a question in relation to the 30-year plan for Greater Adelaide.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The draft 30-year plan document contains a number of maps showing proposed transit corridors for development. For example, page 79 shows all the major corridors and then, further on in the publication, there are directional maps broken up into regions. On further examination, the glossary at the rear of the book states, 'Transit corridors are located within 800 metres of a designated transit corridor.' Taking the northern Adelaide directions map on page 171, for example, the corridors are illuminated in yellow, with the areas in between designated for potential regeneration areas, and outside the corridors are the existing urban lands.

When these designated corridors are duplicated to scale on the current metropolitan map, those 800 metre wide vicinities literally morph into one another, a far stretch from the neatly delineated corridors portrayed on the maps. My question to the minister is: why have the maps in the document been drawn with no scale, depicting a totally misleading picture of the space that the transit corridors will cover?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (14:29): Heavens above! What the 30-year plan aims to do is concentrate the future growth of this city, first of all, within the existing boundaries. We are aiming for 70 per cent growth within the current urban boundary. That is a very ambitious target and, if we do not achieve it, we will get a lot more of the urban sprawl that people like Mr Parnell, and others, have been telling people around this state—in the various areas affected—they do not want.

The way we can best avoid urban sprawl is by getting development along corridors. There is an arbitrary designation of 800 metres, which is the sort of distance from a major transit station that people are prepared to walk.

The other objective of the Adelaide plan (and I have indicated this on a number of occasions) is that if we get this right you can achieve most of Adelaide's growth (70 per cent) over that period within the current boundaries and you can therefore put much less pressure on urban sprawl; but you can do it in a way that will not impact on 80 per cent of existing suburbs if you can concentrate medium development along the corridors. If Liberal Party members do not want to do that, let them say they would rather have urban sprawl and a greater impact on our suburbs. So what we are talking about is putting most of this growth within 20 per cent of the current boundary, and that will be along corridors.

The idea is to get as much density as possible within walking distance and, if you want a walkable city and less dependence on motor vehicles, you will put it around major transit nodes. In particular, 13 transit-oriented developments have been identified within the 30-year plan and, obviously, you want most people living within walking distance of that.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: How does the Buckland Park development fit into it?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It is amazing, isn't it! I am glad I had that interjection from the Hon. Mr Dawkins because, again, it exposes the gross hypocrisy and, I would suggest, dishonesty of the Liberal Party and others who oppose the 30-year plan. They say: what about Buckland Park? If the Liberals say they do not want people living in what they claim are high value agricultural areas, I think that is highly dubious bearing in mind some of the claims that have been made in relation to some of the areas south of Mount Barker, and most of the area is hobby farm. You might get the odd alpaca. The fact is they have been subdivided for rural living on medium size lots. Decades ago most of those areas passed their relevance in terms of concentrated agricultural production. They are essentially hobby farms. One of the problems we have had in planning, incidentally, is that we have allowed too many of these types of dwellings on the fringes of towns and cities.

The Hon. Mr Dawkins talks about Buckland Park, so he does not want growth there; and he does not want it on lower value land near the coast. So, where exactly do they want to put it? We are coming up for an election in six months. If the Liberal Party does not like the 30-year plan, let it put up its own. Let members opposite put up their own plan about where they believe the city should grow and how it should grow. Of course, maybe they do not want it to grow at all, but let them tell the people of this state what that means. Let them put up an alternative.

At present, the 30-year plan is out for discussion. In fact, it is incredible when you hear all these people—I assume they are all members of the Liberal Party—ringing talk-back radio and having a whinge about something. They have all been ringing up and saying. 'We were not consulted on it.' Heavens above! What we are doing now is going through the consultation period for the 30-year plan. That is what it is about. That is what we are doing at the moment. I welcome the discussion and, at the end of the period, I welcome hearing exactly what the Liberal opposition and the shadow minister actually believe about it. Does he believe in the principles in there? Rather than the honourable member getting hung up on a few maps that identify major corridors—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: It is misleading.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It is not misleading. How can it be? If the map did not indicate what the corridors were, it would be misleading. To advance debate on this, we have tried to illustrate the corridors. The policy that goes around the corridors is obviously a different issue.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: It is 800 metres.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: What might happen within that 800 metres, of course, will depend on a whole lot of extra work to be done, but we believe we can accommodate the population in there. That is why it is out for discussion. They have been sitting in opposition for 7½ years and have not come up with a single planning reform or planning suggestion in this state. This government has put forward a plan, and all we get is this incredible minutiae nit-picking about detail of the map. We are looking at 30 years ahead for Adelaide. They are trying to attack the plan before it has even been finalised and before consultation has concluded.

Of course, we know what the opposition is about; we know why it is doing that. It is doing this for one reason and one reason only; that is, it is a party which is fundamentally divided. We know that it is totally divided and, what is more, its members are so talentless that they are devoid of any ideas and they cannot come up with any reasonable suggestion. Is it not about time—we are now within six months of the next election—that the Liberal opposition in this state, rather than just attacking everything the government does, came up with an alternative? I challenge members of the opposition: if they do not like the 30-year plan, tell us what they disagree with and what they would do as an alternative.