Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Willunga Basin WILLUNGA BASIN The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council WILLUNGA BASIN The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (14:52): I have a supplementary question arising from the answer. Is the minister specifically saying that, even though he has ministerial authority to rezone what are called stages 2 and 3, which I understand have not been signed off by the developer, he is ruling out considering rezoning? The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY Legislative Council Minister for Mineral Resources Development Minister for Urban Development and Planning Minister for Industrial Relations Minister Assisting the Premier in Public Sector Management WILLUNGA BASIN The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister Assisting the Premier in Public Sector Management) (14:53): I think the problem that I face is that, if I take over the zoning process begun by the council—and I said it was some time ago; more than a year ago—then I obviously have to operate within the framework of what was put before the council by its statement of intent. Whereas I do have the power as a minister to vary development plans according to submissions made, and I will be looking very carefully at those submissions, they have to be relevant; I cannot go too far outside the original statement of intent. Given that the original intention of the development plan that was before Onkaparinga council was to rezone this entire parcel of land of 77 hectares, that is what I have got and that is what I have to consider. As I said the other day in my statement, the staging of it really is a development decision, not a planning decision. It is up to the developer how they stage the program, but the zoning applies obviously for the whole block of land, and that makes sense. It does make sense in planning terms to plan for a large area rather than doing it in small bits and pieces, because that way you get a much better integration of the facilities that you need in that area. That is why there has been a lot of criticism of areas like Mount Barker. Certainly, having those big development plans makes it much more difficult. It is a delight for opposition politicians to make issues with it, but the outcome, when you are looking at an entire area like that, is going to be much better for the community, because you will look at a whole range of issues on a much larger scale than is normally the case. Our argument will be that the results will be much better, because you will get a thoroughly integrated response to that. If you were just to do that in little bits and pieces, and instead of having one big development plan having dozens of little ones over smaller parcels of land, then you run the risk that they will not fit together properly and you will not have that continuity of open space and other planning objectives. I can understand why. As I have received it, this development plan looks at the entire 77 hectares. That is what I have been given; those are the cards I have been dealt, and I will have to deal with that, in planning terms, accordingly, but the staging of it, of course, is a commercial decision for the developers. The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins Legislative Council The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: Almost 10 minutes, Paul. The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is entitled to answer the question.