Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills Character Preservation (McLaren Vale) Bill CHARACTER PRESERVATION (MCLAREN VALE) BILL Final Stages Final Stages Consideration in committee of the House of Assembly's message. The Hon. G.E. GAGO Legislative Council The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move: That the Legislative Council do not insist on its amendments. The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I have said a lot on this particular bill, so I will be very brief now. I am supporting what the government has brought back into the chamber but I just want to publicly say a couple of things briefly because it was confusing with respect to the clause that the government amended and brought up here regarding the McLaren Vale protection bill whereby many of us had expressed concerns about the fact that we could have had a review of the boundaries and issues around the township boundaries within just one year. I actually moved an amendment that it be 20 years, which the government did not accept at that point. However, since then I think they have seen the wisdom in that 20 years, as it would have actually secured even better protection. Having said that, they have now gone to five years, and for that reason I will support the government and not insist on the amendment originally put up by them. It is confusing, and a lot of the community in the south wanted an absolute minimum of 20 years' protection, similar to the Napa Valley; that has not occurred. That is disappointing, but we have done our best and overall, finally, after several years, we have a bill that will benefit the protection of both the McLaren Vale and Barossa Valley regions. The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY Legislative Council The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The opposition will not insist on its amendments. Now that the Hon. Mark Parnell has come back, I will not speak for very long, because I know that he was going to get his notes. I indicated in the debate when the bill was before the chamber that a five-year review was probably a sensible time if you were going to have any boundaries, whether they be the town or even the region boundaries. There needs to be a five-year review because things change; community needs and wants change. Everything else in our planning regime is subject to review, and five years is a time frame that is often used in other parts of the Development Act, so it is consistent with what happens elsewhere in the legislation that we have a review after five years. It gives the community some chance to look at what has happened, whether it is working, whether it is providing a level of protection or whether it needs to be tweaked to address the community needs of the time at some point in the future. The opposition is happy to not insist on its amendments. The Hon. M. PARNELL Legislative Council The Hon. M. PARNELL: Given that one of these amendments was mine, I propose to make a few comments in relation to it, namely, the objection which the House of Assembly has to the proposed insertion of a new clause 6A. I will start by commenting on the government's own amendment that it now seeks to withdraw, and that is the insertion of the new clause 10A into the McLaren Vale bill. I note that that is not in the Barossa bill, but the comments I make relate to both these messages we have from the House of Assembly. What I will say in relation to the government's amendment is that, if the government wants to pull its amendment, it can, and I certainly will not stand in the way of that happening, so I will not insist that the new clause 10A be inserted. However, I want to put on the record the fact that, when these messages came from the other place, I did seek the advice of the planning departments of both the Barossa and McLaren Vale councils, and the response I got back from the Barossa Council in relation to 10A was that the council still saw merit in the inclusion of this provision, but it did acknowledge that there were other review mechanisms in the legislation and therefore it was not really a die-in-the-ditch issue. So, I do not think we need to spend too long talking about that. I am very grateful to Paul Mickan from the Barossa council and similarly to Terry Sutcliffe, the Director City Development at the City of Onkaparinga, who also thought that there was some merit in the five-yearly review of the township boundaries, but acknowledges that there are other mechanisms, including the existing section 30 process. In relation to my amendment, the proposed insertion of 6A, I note that the Attorney-General, in his capacity as the planning minister in the other place, basically said that we were creating—I think his words were—either a Hutt River province or a Vatican City by giving such special status to the Barossa and the McLaren Vale. Members interjecting: The Hon. M. PARNELL Legislative Council The Hon. M. PARNELL: Okay: I am Vatican City, you are Hutt River, the Hon. John Dawkins reminds me. The planning minister made a point of these special enclaves that were being created. In fact, the minister's words were that the new clause 6A will: ...have the effect of setting up special enclaves within two districts where the ordinary rules of the planning system do not apply. This would be unprecedented within our state planning system. The point that cannot have escaped members is that the entire purpose of the legislation was to set up special planning rules for two separate enclaves, the two character preservation districts, and the normal rules of planning will not apply in those areas. That was the entire purpose of the legislation. These enclaves, the government believes, and the Greens agree, are of such significance that they warrant their own separate legislation. Major project status will not apply so that is a state law that will not; they will have their own special chapter in the planning strategy in the 30-year plan and, therefore, I think that that criticism is unwarranted. However, having said that, I accept what the minister has said, that through this amendment, we are creating an extra level of protection that the government had not originally envisaged and, therefore, that is the reason behind the government's opposition. Again having consulted with the planning staff of both The Barossa Council and the Onkaparinga Council, I am inclined to accept that we can proceed with this legislation without insisting on the amendment, and I also note the planning minister's commitment in the other place to engage more thoroughly with members of parliament on planning reform. He has promised to engage with me, in particular, as someone who has a particular interest in it, so I am prepared to accept the minister at his word that we will have an opportunity to raise some of the bigger picture issues that this amendment sought to address. Therefore, with that commitment, I look forward to that process, I thank the planning minister for taking the time to meet with me recently on it, and I think that in the interests of getting this legislation through, we can quite reasonably not insist on our amendments and allow both of these bills to now pass. Motion carried.