30-YEAR PLAN FOR GREATER ADELAIDE

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (14:38): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Urban Development and Planning another question about the 30-year plan.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: On page 42 of the draft plan, the title 'An economic model to drive key decisions' is followed by an explanation that the plan is based on a detailed economic model that underpins the proposed policy directions and targets. Readers are then directed to the background technical report. Appendix A of the report is the economic modelling methodology results, and page 14 discusses the assumptions used to analyse the impacts of the plan.

The page states that the starting point of the analysis is a population scenario adopted by the Department of Planning and Local Government and that the economic analysis is largely driven by those projections, not a detailed economic model. In fact, the documents contradict each other by not providing any details of the economic model. How did the government arrive at these critical assumptions, and why does the government see the population growth of 139,000 in the Barossa region as the best 30-year plan?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (14:39): I am absolutely delighted that the honourable member has asked a question about population projections because it means that I can nail some of the quite misleading comments that have been made in relation to this matter.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: What about 139,000 in the Barossa? Answer that!

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Ridgway has asked a question. He might want to listen to the answer.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The honourable member has asked a question about the population target for the Barossa region. Well, of course, very little of that growth is in the Barossa Valley; let me make that clear from the start. The name 'Barossa' is given collectively to that region which goes from the coast to north of the Gawler River.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The question to the opposition is: where would you have it? You are the shadow minister. What is your policy? Where would you put it? We have put out our policy. If you do not like it, where would you put it?

We can see a small illustration of just how devoid the opposition is of any alternative. Members opposite have become so used to opposition because they are so fit for it. They have grown into that role beautifully. They have grown into the role of opposing everything. What they need to understand, if they ever want to be a credible alternative government, is that they have to look for some alternatives.

There are quite obvious reasons why it was chosen. The government's policy is that we would not create further sprawl in the McLaren Vale area or the Barossa wine region, and we would also protect key environmental and agricultural lands. The most important horticultural lands are those within the Virginia region. What the government has said is that given the—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: You have totally ignored them.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: We have not totally ignored them, Mr Dawkins. In fact, it is a fundamental part of it. Mr President, show him the map! The honourable member should look at the map and see where we are building. This is another bit of—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hons Mr Dawkins and Mr Ridgway will listen to the answer.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: I look forward to hearing an answer.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is attempting to answer. If there is some quiet, other members can ask some questions today, as well.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: What the Hon. Mr Dawkins is trying to suggest is that somehow or another we are proposing to rezone or do something different to the Virginia horticultural area. Well, look at the map and show us where we are doing that. If you say we have not listened to what the people out there are saying, then look at the map. We are actually protecting the area. All those areas north of the new Northern Expressway will be protected; all those areas are to be protected.

If we are going to protect the Barossa Valley wine region, the hills face zone and the McLaren Vale region, then the only way in which growth can be accommodated—and 70 per cent is an ambitious target—is within the existing area. If the Liberal Party members do not want that, if they want to throw it out, then let them say so. If they will not accommodate growth there, where will they accommodate it?

Given that we are trying to ensure that we have maximum use of existing infrastructure, the area at Roseworthy—just north of Gawler—as a new village and a growth area—and some other areas around there—makes logical sense. When you look at the map of Adelaide, where else are you going to put it? Fundamentally, it comes down to the issue of: where else could you do it?

Again, it comes back to the point that I make again: if Liberal Party members do not agree with this, if they believe there is a better alternative, let them say so. All we have heard from them so far is a continual barrage of negative carping, whingeing and whining—something which they are very good at doing—but sooner or later the Leader of the Opposition as the shadow minister will have to attend some of the various meetings with different planning groups—the UDIA and others—and try to tell them exactly what the opposition stands for. I think we can see from their performance today that members opposite do not stand for anything at all.