CHARACTER PRESERVATION (MCLAREN VALE) BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 20 July 2012.)

Clause 1.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Before we progress to amendments, I have some questions which may help members understand where the opposition amendments will attempt to go. They relate to the character values of the district under clause 6 of the bill. In an amendment to section 22, the planning strategy under the Development Act, later in the bill, the planning strategy must incorporate provisions which address any character values of a district recognised under character preservation law. I want an explanation, as my understanding is that those character values are, as stated in clause 6 of the bill:

(1) The following character values of the district are recognised:

(a) the rural landscape and visual amenity of the district;

(b) the heritage attributes of the district;

(c) the built form of the townships as they relate to the district;

(d) the viticultural, agricultural and associated industries of the district;

(e) the scenic and tourism attributes of the district.

My understanding is that those values will be open to the interpretation of the minister or the advice the minister has received from his department to be put into the planning strategy. I am interested to tease it out before we progress, because I have further questions about visual amenity in the Barossa, once I have had an answer from the minister.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that the answer to the question is that, yes, they are subject to interpretation by the minister. In relation to planned strategies, the minister is required to consult on those with the community and other relevant stakeholders. Ultimately, the strategy is translated into development plans, and they are subject to the oversight of parliament.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I understand what the minister is saying. I am aware that the development plans must reflect the planning strategy; that is the law, they are the rules, and everybody accepts that. What I am interested to know—and I saw this example last Thursday in the Barossa—relates to rural sheds, such as haysheds, which are quite large structures. I think it is The Barossa Council, its development plans say that they must be set back from roadways and that they not be able to be too visible. In fact, in some cases, there should be a bit of a cut and fill so that they lay below the skyline so that they cannot be seen.

When I was near Tanunda last week, I was shown a landscape where there were four winery developments on the skyline, all of them above the hills. They were basically great big sheds. They were not rustic little old buildings made of wattle and daub; they were massive corrugated iron or Colorbond sheds. Nestled below them, were four or five tourism operations, which all looked beautiful.

With the Barossa development plan, there seems to be some conflict between broadacre farming and viticulture, and the residents there feel that the development plan does not adequately cater for them. I am interested to know what attributes are likely to be put into the planning strategy to reflect some equality in the rural landscape. The crops up there this year look sensational, so the visual amenity is magnificent, and these people have expressed feelings about how they are being treated.

I accept that you will probably say that this is part of the Barossa development plan and nothing to do with what we are talking about today. But if we are to assess the character values, the rural landscape and the visual amenity of the district, I would like to know what the minister's view is in relation to things that protrude into the skyline, whether they be a winery or a big hayshed.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that, ultimately, the minister must consult, and therefore the views of the community will shape the planning strategy. However, the character values will give general guidance to the minister and underpin those sort of amenities and values that communities consider to be of high value and those they consider to be of lesser value.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Is the minister indicating that potentially a hayshed, let us say, is of less value than a winery? I guess what I am looking at is—

The Hon. G.E. Gago: Visual value.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: If it is a corrugated iron shed and it protrudes above the skyline—whether it has wine or hay in it—who determines whether that is a positive attribute for visual amenity or a negative attribute?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Ultimately, that assessment is made through two processes: one is through the public consultation that I talked about, and the other is through the planning process. The honourable member would be well aware that the planning process includes local council and, in turn, public consultation that council is required to undertake. There is also the minister and ultimately parliament, because it is overseen by parliament.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have some further questions about character values. Paragraph (b) in this particular clause talks about heritage attributes of the district. In a briefing that was offered to the opposition early in the piece—and I know that the words 'fast-food outlet' have now been deleted from the bill—minister Rau indicated that he was quite happy to have McDonald's in the Barossa Valley, as long as it was not with the big golden arches at the front of the building, and that it was not necessarily what happened within the buildings, as long as they still looked as if they were heritage and in keeping with what I think everyone is trying to preserve. Is that the minister's understanding: that we are now not prohibiting what people do inside their buildings, but that certainly the visual amenity must be maintained?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The short answer is yes, that the outside of the building needs to be in keeping with the heritage values, subject to consultation, etc. However, in terms of what industry occurs inside the building, the example that the honourable member gave in terms of McDonald's, a fast-food outlet, would be accepted.

That does not mean that any industry can occur as long as you put it in a nice, heritage-looking building. For instance, we have talked about mining and other industries that can only be developed in that area if they are consistent with those values in that area. So, there are limits on what you can do but, for the purposes of the question I think you were asking, McDonald's could occur as a fast-food outlet in an appropriate heritage-type building that was consistent with the values of that area.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I suspect that would be consistent with food, wine, tourism, the sorts of pursuits that we all enjoy in those areas, so I am not—

The Hon. G.E. Gago: Some more than others.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Yes, well, if you're having a crack at me because I eat too much, I cannot help it if I enjoy South Australian food. Maybe you should eat a little more. I am also interested in exploring paragraph (c). I do not want to delay things, but I think it will help when I move my first amendment. The built form in the townships as they relate to the district is an interesting character value. Do we build things the way we built them 150 years ago? Probably not. Is it just about set back and allotment size, or is it about building things so they still look the same? As we see wherever we go now, modern building techniques for energy efficiency and a whole range of prices are different from the way we did it 150 years ago. What does the minister see as the built form of the townships as they relate to the districts?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that these builds are about character, and one part of that is the built form. That could include things, as the honourable member mentioned, such as setbacks and other design elements. However, these are not intended to freeze the building forms and designs for ever more to one particular design or fashion. They are designed to complement what is existing, and obviously that will evolve and develop as technology improves and our tastes change over time. These changes will be reflected through public opinion and consultation, so it is expected that there will be evolution of some description. As I said, it is meant to complement not freeze in time.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Minister, I guess what you are saying is that, as we get more pressure for people to live in those areas, you would expect higher density dwellings in the townships of both the McLaren Vale and the Barossa, and maybe more than one storey. We might see not high-rise but two to three-storey type walk-up townhouses and apartments.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that obviously it is possible. It is highly likely that that would be a long way off; but, having said that, again, it is subject to the wishes of the community. It is really about what the community is prepared to tolerate and what it believes reflects the underlying character and heritage of the region.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: It might be a long way off, minister, but my understanding of the legislation before us is that the boundaries, as lodged at the General Registry Office, will be enshrined in legislation. So, for the town to accommodate more people at any point in the future—and it may be a long way off—there are two options: one is to come back to parliament and say that we need a bit more land to build on, or we build up and have higher density. I grew up in a rural community where more and more people go to live. People like to age in their community and people need employment to service those elderly people and grow the economy there. I am assuming that the government's preferred option is to grow up, not out.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the boundaries are currently set with a 30-year horizon. So, it is a big footprint which is more than capable of dealing with the anticipated growth needs for those regions for, as I said, 30 years.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: But we are passing some legislation today that, while it may be reviewed every five years, will be here in perpetuity, I suspect. If it passes this chamber, it is unlikely to be repealed and thrown out, so it will be something that future generations will have to deal with. Thankfully, you and I will not be here in 30 years, so it will not be—

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Well, if you are still here in 30 years, I will be delighted not to be here, that is for sure. Nonetheless, I think we need a definitive answer. If the townships are to grow, there are two ways: firstly, by changing the boundaries which, I assume, means coming back to parliament or, secondly, with higher density smaller allotments and more than one storey.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I remind the honourable member that the legislation is required to be reviewed every five years but, basically, there are three options. One is that we grow within the boundaries and, as I said, the footprint has been planned for at least 30 years. It is a large footprint and there is, we believe, plenty of room for communities to grow within those boundaries.

However, if the growth is higher than expected, then there are two choices: it either comes back to parliament and the boundaries are reviewed or the parameters around housing density are reviewed. Again, it will really be up to communities to decide what sorts of solutions they want for the growth of their communities.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I just have a point of clarification on two or three of the general issues within townships we are discussing here. With respect to the protection of the character, if you look at the main street of McLaren Vale, apart from one set back off the road that is newer, one that has been there for about 40 years that is also two-storey and one or two that have got a type of mezzanine, there is a specific character in the main street of McLaren Vale that goes right back to the Belvedere and Gloucester years before they became the one township of McLaren Vale.

Is the minister saying that, to protect the character of the main street of McLaren Vale, they would not be allowed to have two or three-storey facades as the honourable Leader of the Opposition has raised? It would be a concern to me if they were allowed to, so that is the first point. The second point is: if there was to be a change like that, which is an extreme change of character to the main street of a town, would the council be able to make that provision through an amendment plan?

You talk about community being involved. Is the community being involved through the council making that decision? The third point on this was raised with respect to the golden arches of McDonald's and the fact that the minister has said to the house that golden arches would be prevented from being part of the architecture, which is in itself interesting. I am not sure if the Hon. Rob Lucas has been to the one at Kadina yet because it is new, but I am sure he has been to all the others and it will not be long before he does go to the McDonald's at Kadina.

There was a debate in Kadina township about the golden arches and in fact McDonald's was going to withdraw and refuse to develop the facility if it was not as per their total corporate style, which in the end occurred. The point is that, if you keep the character that we have been talking about, but then you have corporates like New Holland, Case or John Deer, or any of them who have specific logos and colour schemes, what is the situation regarding that with respect to the businesses as well? There are three points there that I would appreciate clarification of.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I believe I have answered these questions previously. This legislation provides a framework to provide guidance. Basically, what is or is not acceptable is a matter for communities to consider and decide, and we know that that is likely to change, develop and evolve over time as well. Whether golden arches are accepted or not is a matter for that community to decide; they will decide whether that is in keeping with the character that they want for their community.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: There are two further points. Are colour schemes also for the community to decide? Is the high-rise changing the whole character of a main street also for the community to decide? If indeed it is, what is the definition of the community from the point of view of implementation? Is it community through members of parliament to the houses of the parliament, or is it community through local government? These are fundamentals that I think we need to have clarified.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Again, I have already answered this question. I have said that it is for the planning process to resolve that matter. That is a very thorough process. It involves councils, it involves intensive community consultation, and it involves government and ultimately parliament. As I said, those processes are in place. This legislation does not undermine that. It simply provides an overarching framework for that to work within.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Hon. Mr Robert Brokenshire does make a valid point, though, about the overarching framework from a tourism point of view and a rural landscape point of view. The farm machinery dealers like New Holland, Case and others do provide equipment that is vitally important to the pursuit of modern farming practices, whether it is viticulture, broadacre farming or other horticultural pursuits, and so those emblems—the big illuminated lights, etc.—that are part of their development, can be prominent so that when Mr Farmer comes to town and wants to buy a new tractor he can see the person he needs to go and see.

He makes a valid point: if they are allowed, how do you deal with—I do not want to dwell on the golden arches—any of the things that the original intent of the bill was aimed at? I expect that what the minister is saying is that things like McDonald's and others can go ahead but we really do not want to see their sort of emblems polluting the landscape down the main street, although we are more than happy to have New Holland, Case, John Deer, the Holden dealer and their big emblems in the main street. I would just like a little clarification on that, please.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I cannot provide any further clarification. I have spoken to this issue several times and it will be a matter for communities to decide what is acceptable as an emblem, a branding or an outside building adornment and whether that is in keeping with character or not.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Just to assist the chamber, because I have listened intently to the questions the Hon. Robert Brokenshire has asked the Hon. David Ridgway, I think part of the dilemma we have here is that people are reading a bit more into this legislation than exists. There are some things you can do that you do not need permission for that can absolutely ruin the amenity of a location; for example, if you wanted to paint your house hot pink, or some garish colour. Unless it is a heritage-listed house where there are some controls, you can do all manner of things that can change the character of an area and, currently, you do not need approval for it.

I think where this confusion has arisen is that we have these character values of the district and then there is an assumption that this legislation will protect all of those character values. The answer is, no, it won't, unless it involves development, unless someone comes along before the authorities and plans to do something, whether it is subdivide, build a building, install a new illuminated sign, or whatever. So, whilst it is not my job to answer questions on behalf of the minister it seems to me that an expectation has arisen that, because we have these noble character values, somehow this legislation will protect them all, when clearly it will not.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I will move to the viticulture, agriculture and associated industries. It was raised with me in the Barossa last week about the conflict that exists between viticulture, or vineyard, development and broadacre development. I do not recall the exact detail of it but my understanding is that if I was to plant a vineyard on the boundary of the minister's and my properties, because it is my land and I wanted to do that, then the minister has to provide a 100 metre buffer for spraying of a range of (I think) group A chemicals, the more volatile ones that damage grapes. I would like some clarification as to whether any one particular agricultural pursuit in these character values will take precedence over the others, or will they all be treated equally?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that these character values are aspirational and they provide legislative guidance only. They do not deal with or change in any way land use rules such as the ones that the honourable member has referred to, those matters are dealt with either by the EPA or through biosecurity inspectors in PIRSA. So, those rules remain unchanged by this legislation.

Clause passed.

Clause 2 passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I move:

Page 2, line 7 [clause 3(1), definition of development authorisation]—

Delete the definition of development authorisation

In some ways, I guess, this will be somewhat of a test amendment, and I will probably divide on it, over a suite of amendments the opposition is proposing. I think the minister hit the nail on the head a little in her comments that it is the community that will determine the character values, they will be the framework and the community should determine how it develops in line with those character values.

We have some legislation before us as a result of a reaction from the government when they made some very silly decisions, and that was to declare the rezoning of Mount Barker a major development. I see the member for Mawson in the gallery. We had the Seaford Rise issue which he was silent about before the election. It was sold prior to the election in an open process but of course, when he got some pressure from his local community, he said we must protect the Barossa Valley and McLaren Vale.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The opposition had also supported the principle of some level of protection when we supported the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's Willunga Basin Protection Bill prior to the last election. We also saw the Buckland Park issue which was declared a major development. The really big threats to these particular areas from urban sprawl have been from a government intervention, whether it be by a minister via a ministerial DPA or whether it has been a major development.

This legislation sets up a framework of putting the boundaries in place for the regions. We saw earlier in the year that the Henschke's Hill of Grace winery was taken out of the protection zone because it was deemed to be not that important or the Mid Murray council did not want it. My view and the opposition's view is that if you are to protect a unique character value of the district—the rural landscape, the visual amenity, the heritage attributes, all the things we have been discussing in these questions—then Henschke's winery should be part of that.

We saw some change of the boundaries but nonetheless we have had these boundaries put in place and then we have had the town boundaries, although I suspect thankfully with some questioning from members in this chamber we have had some adjustment to some of those boundaries because there were some areas missed out. If there is anything else that has been overlooked or if somebody has a non-complying development because the boundaries were inaccurate when they were lodged, I hope the minister will and the government will assist those people to get those developments approved because there may well be some unintended consequences.

Nonetheless we have zone and township boundaries. I guess what is overkill here is that the government wants to bring the parliament in to be the final arbiter if there is to be a change of boundaries. When it has been the minister in the last decade it has only been when the government and the minister have intervened that we have seen any real pressure on these particular areas, so the opposition's suite of amendments is designed to give control back to the community and local councils and not to rest it here in the parliament.

It is interesting to note—and I will use an example but I am certainly not singling out the Hon. John Darley for any reason other than as a demonstration—we have seen with the Work Health and Safety Bill that the Hon. John Darley has the casting vote and he exercises that vote as he sees fit. We could very well see some development that the community wants, and the minister talks about how this is a 30-year horizon.

We could well see some development the community wants or a change of boundary for whatever reason, whether it is the township to grow or the actual outer boundaries to change for whatever reason. We would see that come through the parliament. As I said to minister Rau last week, it is very simple for him because he lives in a world in the House of Assembly where the government of the day has the numbers and they do not ever have to worry about whether their legislation will get through.

If the government of the day says, 'Yes, we think this is a sensible idea to make some amendment to the boundaries of these zones,' it comes to the Legislative Council and I suspect we will see a make up of about one-third, one-third, one-third in perpetuity. Regardless of who is in government, there will be roughly a third of the members with the government, roughly a third with the opposition and roughly a third with the crossbenches.

The opposition believes it is a foolish way to go to have those local final decisions that the community should have input about—as the minister was saying, these are about the community wanting to reflect the values that they hold dear (the built form and all the things the minister has been talking about). We could find that in 10 to up to 30 years' time there is a member of parliament in here who just simply does not agree. It is one person who may have no connection to the region and it might well be that the government of the day, the community and the local council see it as a sensible way forward, yet there is one member of parliament who says they do not agree with it.

We know that games are played in a chamber that is divided into thirds, and I use 'games' in a broad sense. Often there is some horsetrading done to get support for different pieces of legislation at different times. There is an old saying that in politics on different days you have different friends for different reasons.

The opposition believes that this is a way too cumbersome way to deal with it. The better option is to put the boundaries in place, put the town boundaries in place, remove the minister's right to do any ministerial DPAs in the rural zones and major developments, and let local councils manage them as they have done for the last 150 years. I remind members that it has only been under the pressure of urban sprawl that we have had the minister or the government of the day come in with a ministerial DPA or with a major development.

My first amendment is to delete the development authorisation, because we think all of those areas should remain in control of the council. The term 'designated area' is also deleted as it no longer requires differentiation as clauses relating to the restrictions on residential land in divisions will be opposed. The districts and township will be enshrined in the legislation and, under the amendments that I propose later on, the use of major developments and ministerial DPAs will only be available to be used in townships.

I urge all members to support this clause as a test to see whether we are going to go down the path of having parliament decide on the future of these areas. As honourable as it might seem, if it is supported, I suspect we will find that somewhat frustrating in the future, or we can adopt the opposition's approach of enshrining these areas in legislation, taking the minister out of the equation and letting the local communities have a say.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I have a question for the minister that relates to both the McLaren Vale and Barossa protection bills. The current DPA applying in both districts, which I understand from the Minister for Planning was intended as a holding measure pending debate on this legislation, makes the building of a house on an existing allotment noncomplying. This makes it difficult for landowners to build a house on land that has already been subdivided.

Could the minister please confirm that it is the government's intention that, once this legislation has been supported by the parliament, this restriction will be removed, that is, that landowners who wish to build a house on their land will be subject to the requirements previously applying?

Further, in instances where an allotment is deemed to be noncomplying, can the minister give an assurance that his department will address with councils procedural aspects of such applications with a view to ensuring that they are not unduly burdensome on the landowner? Specifically, this should include ensuring that landowners are appropriately consulted with and guided through any application process by council and not put to excessive cost or delay in having an application considered.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that these two bills were introduced in April this year, and since their introduction they have generated a great deal of debate within both parliament and the community. Much of the debate has centred not on the bills but on the development plan amendment (DPA) that the Minister for Planning introduced at the time the bills were introduced.

It is understandable and natural that both councils and those directly affected by the DPA have raised concerns about the long-term impact of the changes introduced in that DPA, in particular, the temporary freeze on constructing dwellings outside urban areas. As the Minister for Planning stated in the other place when he introduced the bills, the associated development plan amendment was put in place to prevent inappropriate urban development from occurring while parliament debates this legislation.

There is not, nor was there any, intention that this freeze would remain in place once these bills have (hopefully) been passed by parliament. When the Minister for Planning is awaiting advice from the Development Policy Advisory Committee (DPAC) before finalising the DPA, it has always been the government's intention that the DPA, particularly as it relates to dwellings in rural areas, would be a holding mechanism.

If these bills are passed by parliament, subject to the advice of the DPAC, the government will return planning policy to the position that existed prior to the bill's introduction; that is, if the landowner had an ability to seek approval to construct a dwelling outside townships or rural living areas, that ability would be reinstated. By the same token, if a landowner had property where, prior to the introduction of the DPA, a dwelling was noncomplying, then the policy position would be reinstated.

In relation to the issue of streamlining procedural issues, I am advised that the Minister for Planning has already instructed the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure to provide case management support to landowners affected by the noncomplying status imposed in SA and to resort to the interim development plan amendment.

It is important for me to point out to members that in the state planning system noncomplying status does not mean the development is prohibited. We do not have a prohibited category of development in our planning system. Noncomplying development can be approved at the discretion of the assessment authority, if the assessment authority considers it appropriate. I am advised that in both the Barossa and McLaren Vale districts all but one of the dwellings proposed while the paused DPA has been in effect have been approved with the concurrence of the DAC as noncomplying developments.

Further, the best advice available to me is that the application that was refused would almost certainly have been refused under the previous development plan policy. I am advised that DPTI will continue to provide this level of procedural support while the paused DPAs are in effect and for a reasonable period after the commencement of this legislation, as some time is needed to bed down key implementation outcomes.

The CHAIR: We have in front of us an amendment moved by the Hon. Mr Ridgway, to which the minister has not responded.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes the amendment and sees it as a test clause for the rest of the Hon. David Ridgway's amendments. This amendment and the related amendments to be moved by the Hon. David Ridgway are opposed. I also note that the Barossa Council opposes a number of the Hon. David Ridgway's amendments. This is because the net effect of his amendments is the very antithesis of what this legislation seeks to achieve. They would represent an unprecedented limitation on ministerial authority in the planning system, both within South Australia and nationally.

For the councils, it would effectively make them unaccountable to anyone but themselves—perhaps superficially attractive, but not the best way to achieve integration of land use, planning, infrastructure and service delivery. Nowhere else in Australia is the elected government of the day removed from having oversight of zoning by local councils, and there are very good reasons for this. The provision of infrastructure and services, the protection of significant environmental assets, the maintenance of housing affordability and a competitive land supply to support industry and jobs are properly matters that fall within the domain of state government.

Indeed, the Productivity Commission in its recent benchmarking report into planning systems made it clear that it saw planning as a shared function requiring the involvement of all spheres of government, and it endorsed the practice of oversight of local zoning decisions by state governments as a leading practice for all planning systems. Indeed, the Hon. David Ridgway's amendments would remove the minister of the day from any oversight of planning decisions in either of the two districts.

The relevant councils would be free from any limitations that come with oversight by an elected government. It would be a free-for-all. It would be like South Australia's own version of the Hutt River Province, a place purportedly free from rules that govern the rest of our community. It would set a dangerous precedent for planning in our state.

The opposition's thesis underpinning these amendments is apparently that the state government is a principal threat to maintaining the long-term character of the McLaren Vale and Barossa regions, while the councils have no blemish to their record, yet the state governments of both political persuasions and councils must share the responsibility for the incremental encroachment of urban areas on these iconic districts. It is noteworthy that in the Barossa region, for instance, the significant rural living area between Sandy Creek and Williamstown, which has been long since useless for continuing agricultural use, is a product of the stewardship of the council for many years without any active intervention by state government.

Conversely, it is true to say that the extension of the southern suburbs into the McLaren Vale wine growing district is a product of state governments of both political stripes. Indeed, the Seaford area, including Seaford Heights, was first rezoned for future urban growth as far back as the Playford era as a result of the 1962 metropolitan development plan.

These bills will put a stop to that. They are supported by the councils in each district, they are supported by the community and they are supported by the wine and tourism industries. Why does the opposition want to jeopardise that by moving these amendments? That is what these amendments will do, completely undermine this legislation. It is fine for the opposition to make political points and the Minister for Planning has conceded that mistakes have been made in the way rezoning has been undertaken in the past. It would be irresponsible to jeopardise the long-term protection of these two iconic districts that these bills strive to achieve just to make that point.

Imagine the potential for expensive and irrevocable planning mistakes that the opposition's amendments would give rise to. Government would be unable to intervene to protect community interests, support economic development, protect environmental assets or even protect its own infrastructure through appropriate land use policy. South Australia's planning system has been consistently recognised as leading the nation by promoting integrated land use policy. It is not perfect, but it is right up there.

These amendments will set us back significantly and make us truly a laughing stock of the nation. They are extraordinary matters for a shadow minister to pursue, and show a lack of understanding or commitment to sound policy and good planning. The government will strongly oppose these amendments and seeks the support of this council to oppose these amendments.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Is it in order for me to question the minister at this point?

The CHAIR: If you are so inclined.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I am interested to know why the minister believes our amendments will make it unprecedented that the councils have an unfettered control. My understanding, and the discussions with parliamentary counsel, is the existing provisions will prevail where councils will be able to amend their development plans and the development plans must come to the minister for sign-off or appraisal. So I do not see any difference from the existing provisions that prevail today. I would like the minister, firstly, to explain why she thinks this gives the councils absolutely unfettered control.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: That is not the advice that we have received. The advice that we have received is that council could initiate a DPA and that council could complete a DPA without ministerial approval or intervention.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: My understanding, and I might have to consult with parliamentary counsel, was that the current provisions prevail where councils can initiate a DPA, and I would expect that under our provisions that would happen, but you cannot have a DPA approve the process. My understanding is that it must go across the minister's desk.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: That is not our understanding; that is not the advice we have received. The advice we have received is that councils can both initiate and complete a DPA without ministerial input.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: So, that is the current state of play? We are not looking to change in our amendments what currently prevails in the Barossa and McLaren Vale. So, what you are telling me is that the Onkaparinga council, Barossa, Light and Adelaide Hills can actually initiate a DPA and not consult with the minister at all and proceed with that particular rezoning?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the substance of these amendments would change the existing arrangements. The existing arrangements mean that the minister has to approve. The amendments the honourable member is proposing will change that and would remove the powers of the minister to intervene, giving full fetter to local councils to do what they will.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: We are still considering this clause within the debate. There is a little bit of confusion there. My understanding is that, when the council does put in development plan amendments, they do have to go through a full and thorough process; it does ultimately end up on the minister's desk. I would ask the minister, given that we are not going to finish this debate today, to bring in any legal opinion the department has, because I think it is an important area to be clarified, and/or to bring in and table documentation that shows that the Hon. David Ridgway is wrong in his assumptions, because this is a fairly important area that needs clarification.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Having had a quick discussion with parliamentary counsel, I would move that we report progress on the basis that parliamentary counsel would like to spend some few moments talking to the minister's adviser. Given that we are seven minutes from six o'clock, I am wondering whether it is appropriate to report progress and that, when we have had that discussion, we can carry on after dinner.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.