CHARACTER PRESERVATION (BAROSSA VALLEY) BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 6 September 2012.)

Clauses 1 and 2 passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Page 2, lines 7 to 9 [clause 3(1), definition of 'designated area']—Delete the definition of 'designated area'

I want to make some general comments first, if I may. As outlined in relation to the committee debate on the McLaren Vale bill, the government intends to propose a number of amendments to this bill. I do not intend to reiterate the proposed amendments to this bill which are in common with the McLaren Vale bill; however, it is important to note matters specific to the Barossa Valley bill for members' attention.

First, as members are aware, the minister originally proposed that the boundaries of the Barossa Valley district would include the land within the Mid Murray Council, forming part of the Eden Valley geographical index. Following consultation, the revised bill did not include this area. This change reflected concern expressed by some that this boundary was too expansive and included areas that were not obviously related to the character of the Barossa Valley or intrinsic to its fabric. It also reflected the minister's view that this area, although within the Eden Valley wine region, is not at risk of urban encroachment in the same manner as other parts of the Barossa Valley area.

In relation to this change, as members would be aware the government has been subject to criticism in the media and by the Hon. David Ridgway. Because of this, the government will be tabling an amendment during the committee stage seeking to restore the boundary that was originally proposed in the bill introduced in September 2011. We have advised the Mid Murray Council, which covers this area of the proposed amendment, of this proposed amendment and that it is being restored at the request of the Hon. David Ridgway.

As with the McLaren Vale bill, I foreshadow that the government will be seeking to move a number of amendments to this bill in the committee, reflecting negotiations with the Barossa, Light and Adelaide Hills councils between the houses. The majority these amendments are the same as those moved in the McLaren Vale bill, and I draw members' attention to the debate on that bill for full details.

In relation to this bill, there are two sets of amendments the government is seeking to move that are specific to the Barossa. First, as I have already indicated, the government will be seeking to change the eastern boundary of the proposed Barossa Valley district to include the area of the Mid Murray Council originally included in the September bill. To do this, the government will seek to change the operative date for reference to the GRO map, which outlines the boundaries of the district to 26 June. This will also include the minor corrections to the township boundaries already outlined. A revised map has already been lodged at the General Registry Office reflecting these changes, but it will not come into effect until this amendment is passed.

Secondly, in relation to the rural living areas, designed as exempt from the operation of clause 8 of the bill, which prohibits residential subdivision in the rural part of the district, the government will, at the request of the Barossa Council, seek to move an amendment which slightly varies this position. At present, the clause allows subdivision freezes in the subdivision, entitlement to the minimum allotment size specified in the development plan, at the date the bill was introduced.

The council has submitted that this prohibition only needs to prevent the council from decreasing the allotment size, that there is no need for the bill to prevent the council from increasing the allotment size should it wish to. The government has accepted this argument and will seek to move an amendment to give this effect.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Just in relation to the eastern boundary, my recollection is that minister Rau indicated to me and by public statements that it was at the request of the Mid Murray Council that that area was taken out. I recall that, at the same time, the Barossa Council asked the minister to not proceed with his bill. Can I ask why it took one bit of correspondence for the Mid Murray Council to have the boundary moved, yet a task force and a whole range of actions were put in place to address the Barossa Council's concerns?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: This government has considered the points of view and input from all of the councils, and many of those points of view are reflected throughout the amendments we have made, and that includes the Barossa. In terms of the Mid Murray raising the issue of the eastern boundary, the minister formed the view that that was a reasonable request, and he believed that it was in everyone's interest to accommodate that.

There are a range of requests that were not considered in the overall general interest and have not been acceded to; however, as I said, we have listened to the points of view and input from all councils and, wherever possible, we have attempted to accommodate those, and they are reflected in the many amendments that the government has made to this bill.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: In the minister's opening remarks, she indicated that the reason the eastern boundary was shifted was that there was minimal threat of urban sprawl. Is she able to outline the areas on the western, southern and northern boundaries where she thinks there is threat of urban sprawl?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: That is the advice I have received. I do not have that level of detail with me; I am happy to take it on notice. The advice I have received is that the view around the eastern boundary posed insignificant threat, and the minister agreed. As I said, we considered the views and opinions of all of the councils and attempted to accommodate those wherever we possibly could.

As I said in my introductory statement, these amendments are similar to those we have already gone through. I said that I would not speak to each of them in turn, only to those that are obviously significantly different to the debate that has already occurred under the McLaren Vale bill.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I sought some advice from parliamentary counsel about how I might not move my amendment later where I oppose clause 8. I am advised by parliamentary counsel that I am not required to move my first amendment, so I will not be moving that but I will be moving my second one and speaking to that.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Page 2, lines 13 and 14 [clause 3(1), definition of district]—Delete 'the prescribed day) but does not include the areas marked as townships on the deposited plan' and substitute:

26 June 2012)

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

Page 2, lines 11 to 14 [clause 3(1), definition of district]—Delete the definition of district and substitute:

district means the area defined as the Barossa Valley district by the plan deposited in the General Registry Office at Adelaide and numbered GP 4 of 2012 (being the plan as it exists on 26 June 2012) but not including the areas marked as townships on the deposited plan;

This will be a bit like last night—a test, as to whether I have any support for common sense in what we are trying to do here. I note the minister in her previous remarks was unable to identify any threats on the southern, western or northern boundaries of the proposed Barossa district; in fact, there weren't any on the eastern boundary which is why they shifted the boundary.

It begs the question: what are we protecting if the minister is unable to identify threats to this region? There appears not to be any that she can identify. Clearly, what it would point to is that the local councils, and the regime that exists today with the local development plans, are offering a level of protection that sees no threats to those particular areas. I suspect that if I had asked the same question for McLaren Vale—that is, where were the threats from urban sprawl—it would have been very difficult for the minister to identify these perceived threats. We know these threats have largely been driven by the government's very poor performance in the ministerial DPA in Mount Barker, areas like Buckland Park and the little bit around Seaford.

I come back to the point I was making last night that we absolutely accept that these regions need some special treatment. We absolutely accept that the regions should have, as the Hon. Mark Parnell says, a texta line on a map that is very hard to rub out and how, in fact, you would probably have to get some white-out to cover it so that it is a little more difficult than getting an eraser to rub it out. The town should have boundaries and the locals should manage these regions as they have done in the past. We are almost using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut because there is no threat. As I said, under our amendments, we remove the right of the minister to exercise a ministerial DPA in the rural zones and declare major developments.

We let the council manage those areas the way they have always managed them and we do not want to see any further subdivision in the rural areas. Of course, we know that is consistent with the development plan but we will now accept that there is a slight risk that that could happen, so if we are successful in deleting clause 8 it is our intention not to move the amendments that delete clause 8 so that we can actually just have the current regime that is in place that is being managed by the Barossa Council, the Light council, a little bit of Adelaide Hills and a little bit of the Mid Murray council.

That is why we wanted the boundary to include Henschke's Hill of Grace vineyard, not because we wanted to put special restrictions on the Mid Murray council but just for that to be a designated area that was special. That was within the Eden Valley GI, which is a particular geographic indicator. It was not that we wanted special restrictions placed on it. We think the Mid Murray council has managed it exceptionally well, nonetheless that area should be included in this particular protection zone if we are serious about identifying the areas that are important.

I am not sure what other members' comments are going to be, and I know we are right up against 1pm, so I would urge members to consider this as an option. I know it is a bit cumbersome, and I suspect that if these amendments are supported the minister will be tearing her hair out because we will have two bills that are different.

That is why I would have liked to have sought leave to conclude my remarks on the third reading of the McLaren Vale bill; it was the first time in the 10½ years that I have been in this place that I have had leave refused. It would have only meant another minute of time to deal with that bill and complete the third reading, and I am a bit disappointed that the minister would do that.

Given that we have reached lunchtime, I am asking members to consider my proposal over the lunchbreak, and during question time and matters of interest, so that when we return to government business we can progress this committee stage of the bill. I have moved my amendment No. 2, which is a test for what I am proposing to do but, given that we are at lunchtime, I assume that we will continue this debate later.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

[Sitting suspended from 13:01 to 14:15]