WILLUNGA BASIN PROTECTION BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

(Continued from page 3538.)

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (21:50): I advise the council that the government has much more sympathy for this bill than it had for the last matter we dealt with, but we still will not be supporting it. I will come to the government's preferred course of action shortly, but now I would like to provide some background to the government's position. The current legislative framework that exists under the Development Act 1993 already provides the state legislative framework to manage land use and development matters. The planning strategy provides land use direction to guide future growth of the development plan, which is guided by the planning strategy, and provides a policy framework for assessing applications for development. The system provides a transparent and consistent process for planning matters across the state.

The planning strategy clearly recognises the importance of the Willunga Basin as a prime food and wine producing region, tourism destination, key regional employment area and coastal settlement area that supports affordable housing and choice of housing in that region, as well as containing areas of environmental importance. Protection of the Willunga Basin and its key environmental areas, such as the Aldinga Scrub Reserve, has been in place for many years. The current policy applying to the region is therefore a long-standing one that recognises the value of the area and the aspects that contribute to this.

The bill being proposed shifts the responsibility for planning matters in the region from elected representatives—that is, the Minister for Urban Development and Planning and local government—who are accountable to the community, to an appointed committee that is not accountable to anyone. The government does not believe that this is an appropriate course of action, as envisaged by this bill, and believes there are better ways to move forward.

Additionally, the introduction of the proposed Willunga Basin protection committee would introduce a new layer of bureaucracy which would slow development assessment processes in the region, with all development proposals requiring referral to the committee. I point out that this would apply even to a homeowner who wanted to put up a shed on their block. If this bill was successful the homeowner who wanted to put a shed on his block would have to go through this extra layer of bureaucracy.

Further, the introduction of the basin plan would duplicate the planning strategy and development plan and create some confusion as to the relationship of these, particularly if there were inconsistencies between the two. If accepted, the new 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide—the public consultation period for which finished at the end of last month—will continue to recognise the importance of the Willunga Basin and its key attributes, as described in the current planning strategy for the metropolitan Adelaide region, that is, as a prime food and wine producing region, tourism destination, key regional employment area, etc., as I have already highlighted.

The 30-year plan is designed to take a holistic view to population and housing targets across the Greater Adelaide region, including consideration of employment opportunities, areas of environmental importance, and water and food security issues. This will provide the strategic context for land use and development. I understand that the Minister for Urban Development and Planning has already contacted the local council and stressed that he desires that local and state government work collaboratively to ensure the best outcome for the basin, including banning controls that do not inadvertently restrict existing homeowners from improving their properties. I repeat: if you own a block in the urban growth boundary, for example, and want to put up a shed, under this bill you will be captured and will have to go through the process of developmental approval.

I am confident that through a genuine partnership with local government we can achieve an outcome that ensures that the significance of the Willunga Basin is maintained and promoted for generations to come in a way that does not impose new levels or new layers of bureaucracy. For these reasons the government will not support the bill, although, as I indicated, it does have sympathy for the intent and will work with local government to ensure that those outcomes come to pass.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (21:54): Given the time, and the patience of my colleagues, I will be brief, but I would like to put a few things on the public record. First, I would like to thank colleagues who have indicated support for this bill. It is a very important one and, yes, it is groundbreaking. In fact, it is the reverse of where the government has been going. The real contrast between where the government is headed and where this bill is headed is that this bill puts the big picture—the thinking, planning and guaranteeing of longevity when it comes to the protection of areas of environmental importance in the region and tourism, and the opportunity to protect it not only as a food bowl, as it is now, but also to enhance it as an intensive, increased food bowl for South Australia in the hands of a specific and dedicated committee. We see a government that wants to take power away from councils and local communities more and more every day and put it into the hands of the minister, where he or she can pick and choose.

I am disappointed that the government has indicated that it will not be supporting this bill. It has said that it understands the goodwill intent of this bill, but it is not prepared to proactively support it. In fact, it has used every excuse in the book to try to knock this bill over.

This bill is really important from the point of view that it allows a model piece of legislation to be set up and, if it is as successful as I know it will be, I do not think it will be long before governments will be introducing similar bills for parts of the Adelaide Hills and the northern areas that are also in diabolical trouble when it comes to food security protection for them, our state and our consumers.

It is interesting that I received some documentation (which I appreciated receiving), which was a request from government to come up with every possible way that it could go out into the public arena, and particularly in the Willunga Basin, and run all the negatives about the bill that I have introduced. There was nothing in that documentation requested by government that looked at any of the positives of this bill.

This has been a long time in coming for me and, if the bill is passed tonight, I will be extremely grateful to my colleagues because, as I said, it is groundbreaking. Back in 1995, when I was studying the recycled water project for the Willunga Basin in the USA, I had a look at what was happening in the Napa Valley and the Sonoma Valley. It has worked in those places. I have also visited the Swan Valley in Western Australia. It works there, although I believe that this bill is a better model than the Swan Valley model. I thank colleagues for their contribution and I commend the bill to the council.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: In addition to the comments made by the Hon. Ian Hunter in setting out the government's position, I want to mention some of my concerns about this body—the Willunga Basin Protection Committee—and also the definition of the area that it takes in. As I understand the act, it would apply to the Willunga Basin, which means the geographical area that is defined as the Willunga Basin in a plan deposited by the minister for the purposes of the act.

The committee that is set up then has a representative of almost every group in that region that one could possibly name. If I interpret the bill correctly, the committee could effectively have veto powers over any development whatsoever within the entire Willunga Basin. Given the interest in the committee, I think that could well be to the detriment of the community as a whole.

When this bill was introduced, I did look at the powers which the Swan Valley committee had and which were referred to by the Hon. Robert Brokenshire. The problem with this particular bill is that it goes much further than the act in the Swan Valley, which, essentially, has more of an advisory committee, I would suggest, than this particular committee, because if I read the bill correctly, it could really veto almost any development whatsoever, and given the nature of the committee and the incredibly diverse membership of it, in my view, it would be the sort of committee where it would be very hard to get any sort of consensus or cohesive action out of it altogether.

Far better I believe, as was indicated by the Hon. Mr Hunter, that we should just change the development plan for the region, along the lines that take place in the Barossa Valley, to ensure that holdings are larger. We can do that through restricting subdivision to a size that is larger than would be the case now and also, as applies in parts of the Barossa Valley, you can have a prohibition on any dwelling being built on a block below, I think, 25 hectares. You can certainly have a look at this.

That is why, following the approach of the member for Mawson, Leon Bignell, and also my colleague John Hill, I have written to the Onkaparinga council seeking its cooperation in relation to developing a development plan for the region which have provisions such as those which exist within the Barossa Valley to give a greater level of protection. Being in the development plan, it will have the force of law, but the great advantage, I believe, is that it will obviate the need for this large committee, a rather cumbersome progress that could hinder even desirable development within the valley and development that might otherwise take place. I think it should be pointed out that the models that the Hon. Mr Brokenshire referred to such as the one in the Swan Valley are essentially advisory committees. They do not have the powers, if I understand this bill correctly, that this particular committee has.

Nonetheless, as I said, the government certainly supports the view of the Hon. Mr Brokenshire; that is, we should provide greater protection to those agricultural areas which would be roughly those east of the Main South Road and south of Old Noarlunga and mounded in the other area by the hills face zone to the east and south. That region, we believe, should be given protection along the lines that now exist in the Barossa Valley in relation to minimum subdivision lots and the minimum size of blocks on which dwellings can be built. We believe that will give much greater protection to this important agricultural region than a Sanhedrin council which will simply complicate the management of the area rather than assist.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (5 to 23), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.