DEVELOPMENT ACT REGULATIONS

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (16:38): I move:

That the regulations under the Development Act 1993 concerning Institutional Riverbank Zone, made on 2 June 2011 and laid on the table of this council on 7 June 2011, be disallowed.

These regulations relate to one of the institutional zones of the Parklands which is the area bounded by King William Street, the Morphett Street Bridge, North Terrace and the River Torrens, so effectively the southern side of what we would call the dress circle part of the River Torrens that has the Festival Theatre. The Convention Centre and the Hyatt etc. overlook that particular area.

These regulations take them from being an institutional zone which is in the Parklands, and effectively the development controls that exist in the Parklands exist for the institutional zones. This regulation declares that zone to be a Crown development which vests significantly more powers in the minister and gives the minister almost unfettered control over the developments that take place in that particular precinct. Although the minister does have to refer any proposals to the Development Assessment Commission, clearly the minister has significant powers and the government has significant powers to proceed with developments in that particular area.

I will try not to be too long-winded because I know we have a large number of private members' matters to deal with today and also government business after dinner. This is an area that has been of interest to governments for more than a decade, and I am interested to see that on 16 March 1999 the then premier, John Olsen, unveiled a bold plan which would completely transform the heart of the city. That plan was to bring together some activities that would be out there. Premier Olsen said:

This 10-year plan will bring together the best elements of Adelaide lifestyle, including the parks, the cultural attractions and the restaurants…The Riverbank project will do for Adelaide what the Southbank project did for Melbourne. This can be and should be our federation project.

Under the plan, public plazas, terraces, paths and roads will interconnect across the site and entrances to buildings such as the Festival Centre will be changed, with stairs and terraces descending from the plazas to the park.

The government announced before the last election that it would have a redevelopment of the River Torrens area, in particular the Convention Centre, but members must recall that it only did that after the opposition had launched its policies and was given significant support and encouragement by the community for not only a covered football stadium but a master planned area along the riverbank. The government at the time (I think it was treasurer Foley) said this was going to be the 'Las Vegas of the south', that it was way too expensive, that we could not afford it, and that the opposition was being reckless.

It is interesting to note that pretty much the same plans have been spoken about for this 'dress circle' part, as I call it, of the River Torrens. Of course, the development of Adelaide Oval is now likely to go ahead. We have a bridge that is likely to come across from Adelaide Oval, but nobody quite knows where it will make landfall on this side of the river; the government has not disclosed that. Apart from the Convention Centre redevelopment, none of the government plans has been disclosed. That is the reason for wanting to disallow this regulation.

Like most South Australians, the opposition supports the redevelopment of these parts of our city, but we also support a government that is open and accountable and transparent with the people of South Australia, and before we give the minister these powers we would actually like to see what the minister and the government are planning to do. You will note from the sketches we have seen in the paper and other publications that a number of buildings are proposed within this site.

Minister Conlon has denied that any office towers or accommodation towers are planned, but I am advised that there is significant speculation within the development industry that players within that industry are talking to the government about potential development sites within that area. We saw recently a published master plan, shall we say; however, it is not the master plan, it is just some sketches that were provided to The Advertiser, with a building somewhere down near the old gaol.

I think the government needs to come clean as to what that is, what is planned for there and whether there is any plan to build a tower behind Parliament House on the plaza at the rear. I think most members would agree that the heritage-listed plaza behind Parliament House is probably a little tired and may not be the best use of that space, but surely the government should be comfortable enough with what it is planning to do to release the master plan prior to seeking these particular development controls.

Interestingly, it looks as though a range of water features in the river might be part of the development. I suspect that that would add significantly to the aesthetics of the river, especially at night if some sort of lighting is involved. But, Mr President, we have not seen the master plan.

Now, we have an Integrated Design Commissioner at the suggestion of Thinker in Residence, Laura Lee, who we all know is a very close friend of the Premier's, that an Integrated Design Commission be established. So, we have an Integrated Design Commission with an Integrated Design Commissioner. We have a government architect and, in fact, we have now also engaged—I think it is ARM; I may have to correct that for Hansard.There is an interstate company—which is a little disappointing—but nonetheless, an interstate company has been appointed to do the master plan.

So, we are investing significant public funds in the Integrated Design Commission, with senior people such as Commissioner Tim Horton and Ben Hewett, the Government Architect, and we are spending a lot of money with a firm to develop a master plan. In fact, what the opposition is saying by moving this disallowance is not that we are opposed to the development but that we think the public has a right to see the master plan before we give development control to the minister so that people are well aware of what is being proposed.

In fact, maybe the master plan should not just be between King William Street and Morphett Street; it should probably be from the Brewery, or Port Road, through to Hackney Road. We have significant investment with the tram that has gone to the Entertainment Centre and we have the Torrens Precinct. It appears that the hospital—notwithstanding the huge financial burden it will be for future generations—will be going ahead on the hospital site, but there is a significant strip of land between the hospital and the river, and the railway line and the river, going right out to Port Road.

Of course, we have the Bowden Village development that, over time, will see more people living in that part of Adelaide and, along the tram route in through Thebarton, Mile End and Hindmarsh, I suspect there will be some significant urban infill, so we will see a lot more people living at that end of the city. I expect we will see more people on the tram, and more people living, walking and coming to the city. So really, a master plan for the whole river is probably what we need, rather than just this one in the middle.

Having said that, we know we are dealing with this particular dress circle part of the river at the moment, and we believe, given that is only a matter of weeks or a couple of months away before we will see that master plan, that moving to disallow these regulations, as I have moved, is an appropriate way to say to the government, 'We are not actually totally opposed to what you are trying to do, but show us the colour of your money', if you like. 'Show us what you are doing. Let the people of South Australia know what you have planned', and then of course we will be in a position to allow the government to proceed with its development.

Of course, when we look down the other side—when I talked about a broader master plan—we have the old Channel 7 site in Gilberton and, along the river, there is some development and urban infill happening there. That is why I think the broader picture should be to have a master plan from Hackney Road through to Port Road. With those few words, I just reiterate that this is not about stopping the development; this is about saying to the government, 'Show us what your master plan is.' You announced this well before the election.

We have now had some 15 or 18 months since the election. You announced the Adelaide Oval proposal in December 2009, so we are now coming up to two years since that was announced. So clearly, you would have assumed that the master plan should be well advanced and that the community should be able to view that master plan before we give, if you like, unfettered development controls to the minister and the government. I urge all members to support this motion for disallowance.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter