Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 24 February 2016.)

Clause 102.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I move:

Amendment No 74 [Parnell–1]—

Page 82, after line 15—Insert:

(2a) If the Minister proposes to make a declaration under subsection (1)(c) is respect of a development that will, if the development proceeds, be situated wholly or partly within the area of a council, the Minister must consult with the council before making the declaration.

Just to remind people, we are now looking at the development assessment pathway, known as impact assessed development, and clause 102 is the clause that determines how things fall within that pathway. There are three pathways by which a development application can be judged as being impact assessed development:

(a) it is classified by the Planning and Design Code as restricted development; or

(b) it is classified by the regulations as impact assessed development; or

(c) it is declared by the Minister as being impact assessed development.

The bit I want to focus on is where the minister declares something to be impact assessed development. My amendment proposes that, if the minister wants to make that declaration, and if the development is within the area of a council, then the minister must consult with the council before making the declaration.

This is a fairly straightforward amendment that was requested by the LGA. It simply says that the minister should do us the courtesy of telling us, or consulting with us, before making a declaration. It does not affect the other pathways for developments to fall within the category of impact assessed development. It only affects that pathway which is a ministerial declaration, and it simply obliges the minister to consult the local council, if any.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his contribution on his amendment. The government opposes this amendment, however. The provision as drafted reflects the existing law in relation to major developments and projects. The Hon. Mark Parnell's amendment would impose a new requirement to consult council prior to a declaration being made by the minister, creating more red tape and delay to significant projects that have the possibility of creating jobs and economic development for this state.

It is our view that it is completely unnecessary, given that the entire process that flows from such a ministerial declaration is about consulting. Effectively, this is consultation about consultation, which is madness gone mad and just completely unnecessary red tape, in our view. Under the bill as it is currently drafted without the amendment, an affected council and affected communities must be consulted during the assessment process for impact assessed development. The government considers that this is the appropriate point in the process where both the community and the council have access to all necessary information relating to the proposed development, and it can make meaningful and informed comments without needlessly blowing out time frames.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The reason I made such a brief and succinct contribution is that I had thought this fell into the category of no-brainer and that the government might be on side. Clearly, I need to give an example of why a measure like this is important. The best example to my mind involves a proposed development across the road from the Adelaide Showgrounds. This was a development on Goodwood Road. The developer had been consulting with the council, talking about various options and whatever, and then they went to the minister, and the minister declared a major project.

I can still remember that morning's radio when they had the mayor on the radio. I do not know whether it was Mayor Lachlan Clyne or a previous mayor, I think it was a previous mayor. On radio, they asked the mayor, 'What do you think about the declaration in your council area of this major project on Goodwood Road?' And the response of the mayor was, 'First time I've heard of it. We've been talking to these people and they've gone behind our back, they've gone straight to the minister, and without consulting us the minister has gone and declared it a major project.'

The view that I took at the time—and I think many listeners would have thought it—is that that is pretty damned disrespectful. Surely, if the minister is going to go down that path he should have at least consulted with the council and said, 'Look, the developers aren't happy with the progress they're making with you guys. I'm going to call it in as a major project and I'll deal with it.' None of that communication occurred. I disagree with the minister's assessment that this is consultation on consultation.

Sure, once it has been declared, it has been called in, yes, then they are going to talk to the council about it; but I would have thought that the threshold question should be: is that call-in even necessary? For the minister to get all of the information to help him or herself decide whether the call-in is necessary, surely they should talk to the local council. It just struck me that this was one of the simpler amendments. It is not born out of some wild imagining; it is born out of a real-life case.

I recall that I think I might have even tried in a previous set of amendments to the Development Act to include a provision such as this. It makes logical sense. The minister must consult with the council before making the declaration. It does not say the minister has to follow the council's advice. The minister just needs to not take them by surprise and have the council find out on the morning news that an important development in their area has been declared—we do not use the words 'major project' anymore, we are going to be calling it impact assessed development.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Given the government is opposing this amendment, can the minister explain how practically it would work? If you have a development that the developer is concerned is not progressing as well as they would like, what is the trigger point for the minister to call it in? Obviously, in the current circumstances you do not advise the council; they find out, I assume, probably through a better channel than the morning news, but nonetheless they are not consulted. That is what the Hon. Mark Parnell is trying to overcome. Can you just explain how you would see it working if we look at the current provision?

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I might just take the opportunity to refer the Hon. David Ridgway to my amendment No. 75, because his question, effectively, of the minister is: when the minister is going to make one of these declarations, what ought the minister to take into account? At present the answer is: whatever they want. I think that that is probably—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: I want hear that from him.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: You will hear it from him, but I will tell you my version of events. At present, the minister can take whatever he or she wants into account. What I am suggesting in a subsequent amendment, which we will get to, my amendment No. 75, is that the minister must, in acting under subsection (1)(c), 'take into account principles prescribed by the regulations'. In other words, there should at least be a list of things that the minister has to take into account, some guidance, because otherwise it is completely arbitrary.

I think that if we are going to effectively call in developments, take them away from the local council, then it should at least be based on some logic, some reason, and setting those out in the regulations I think makes sense. Otherwise, it falls into the category of unfettered ministerial discretion. The minister does whatever the minister wants, and I just do not think that that is appropriate in this legislation.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the Hon. Mark Parnell for his help and his views of how this works. I can respond to the Hon. David Ridgway's previous questions and contributions. In terms of calling in, practically how it works is it is at the discretion of the minister. The minister must be satisfied it is of significant benefit, but there are plenty of hoops to jump through, with plenty of consultation to remain. The whole consultation process starts again once it is called in. Clause 103, with practice directions, and clause 107, the EIS process, will mean that a lot of hoops are jumped through once it has been called in, and in reality I think it is the case that this power will likely be used sparingly.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I do not want the minister to get away with unintentionally getting something wrong. He refers to the practice direction under clause 103, which we are about to get to. My quick rereading of that section is that the minister is not bound by it; it is only the commission that has to take into account the principles.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Once it is called in.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Yes. The minister has consistently said that, once it has been called in, then all these other things sort of happen. My point is that the minister should not take that threshold question of unilaterally taking a development and calling it in without at least being guided by some principles. My point is to put those principles in regulation. If we want to get even more esoteric, in other jurisdictions they do not have this ministerial discretion. What they do is, they say, 'Here's a list of the types of developments that you're allowed to call in, effectively, as major projects: oil refineries, chemical works'—they would list them all.

We have gone the other way and we have given the minister complete control, which means that something like a block of flats on Hindmarsh Square gets called in as a major development, but a $2 billion pulp mill at Penola does not cut it. Go figure!

I think that there will be a level of ministerial discretion, but the amendment we are actually considering now is whether they should at least consult the council before exercising it, and later we will get to whether there should be prescribed guidelines. They are not consequential.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can advise the honourable member that we are straying on to a couple of issues in talking about this. We will get there, so it is worth agitating now. We are not opposed to there being principles or guidelines about the calling in: what we are opposed to is the specific amendment No. 74 [Parnell-1], requiring that what we say is consultation or conversation with the council before the process starts. We are not opposed to what you have outlined now, arguing for something that will come later. We are not opposed to the guidelines or principles being regulated or written in relation to some of the things you have talked about in your last contribution, but we are opposed to this particular amendment.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I come back to the question I asked first, that is, the trigger. How does the minister become aware that a project or development needs to be called in? You have talked about all the things that happen once it is called in, and I think we are all familiar with that, but how does the minister become aware? What is the trigger? Does the developer knock on the door and say, 'Hey, I can't get my development up. Council X is a pain in the neck and I need it to be called in'? I am interested to know the pathway for a project to get to the minister's desk for him or her to call it in.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. It is the same as happens now. If it is a project that the minister may consider of significance, if it is brought to the minister's attention, then it is up to him to be satisfied that it is of significance. The process to get to the minister is effectively how it occurs now. As it happens now, often the course is that a proponent has tried with the council, been frustrated and then we will see if there is an avenue for it to be called in, the minister being satisfied that it is of significant benefit, then that whole consultation process, once it is called in, beginning. So, it is not a departure.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have a question of the mover. His amendment is that the minister must consult with the council before making a declaration. Could that be as simple as the minister going on radio as 9 o'clock and, at 8.30 in the morning ringing the mayor and saying, 'By the way, I'm calling it in—just thought I'd let you know before I go on radio,' and hanging up? He has satisfied the consultation and let them know; it is not a surprise and they know it has happened.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the honourable member for his question. I would be surprised if that were regarded as a sufficient consultation because it is a notification rather than a consultation. What I have in mind, the way I see this working, is that the minister would contact the local council and say, 'Look, this developer that you have been talking to about the development, they have come to me and they think you are being a bit slow or you're not being sympathetic enough, or the council is thinking it should be five storeys, the developer really wants 10; have you got any room to move?' If the council says, 'No, no, no, we're adamant it mustn't be 10, it must be five,' and the minister thinks that 10 is a really good idea, then the minister will say, 'Well, thanks for considering it, but I'm going to call it in now and we'll be dealing with it under this stream.' That is the sort of thing I imagine with consultation.

It in no way prevents the minister from exercising the power. It does not prescribe that it has to give the council two weeks' notice. You asked whether half an hour would be enough. I would have thought that that is probably pushing it. We are not talking weeks; we are probably talking days, maybe it is a day—I do not know, I have not been prescriptive. I have just said that the minister must consult with the council before making the declaration. I point out that this was something the Local Government Association, which had a whole suite of measures where they thought they should be consulted at various stages in different parts of the process, and this was one of those.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think it was a good question asked, and I agree with the Hon. Mr Parnell that a telephone call just before going on radio would probably be seen as a notification rather than any sort of consultation. But it does raise a very good point, in that if this amendment is passed it gives another possible avenue to hold up a project and to agitate with litigation.

The requirement to consult could very easily be something that is taken to court to ask for a ruling on whether the consultation was adequate. I agree that a telephone call before a radio interview almost certainly I do not think any court would deem that as adequate consultation—but then it gives rise to all sorts of shades above that. It might be very good for planning lawyers to have another avenue to try to stop a development, but I think that illustrates very neatly that this extra level of consultation could be a very big impediment and add a very significant layer of red tape when, after it is called in, there is a whole lot of consultation. It gives another avenue. It gives potential court action about what constitutes consultation that we think is completely unnecessary, given the consultation that occurs once it is called in.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: It will probably surprise nobody to hear that we will not be supporting the amendment. The reason is that I think the minister has put it well—that is, it does open yet a further avenue for additional consultation. I do not think anyone has said this yet, but it certainly adds time to the process and time is money. That is the reality: it adds cost because most of the money used to build these developments, particularly larger-scale developments, is borrowed money. Every day that that money is not earning anything it is costing somebody money. At the end of the day, that simply adds cost to the development overall, and that is something that we would not like to see happen.

I should say the reason we have got to this point. I think the Hon. Mr Parnell is right: it is not ideal that the mayor of a council finds out on radio that a major development has been called in his particular council area and he had no prior knowledge of it. That is not ideal and it should not be that way. However, the reason we are at that point is that some of these councils make it so hard that the developers throw their hands in the air and think, 'Well, we've got to get something done,' and that is why they tend to seek other avenues and that is why we cannot support the amendment.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I am interested in exploring this a little further. I wonder about the circumstances where a council is notified that the minister is thinking about calling it in and they say, 'We better actually hurry up and approve this development,' because they feel threatened by the fact that the minister might call it in. I know that when it is called in there is a whole range of hoops to jump through, and I wonder whether this might not force councils to approve developments so that it happens more quickly, rather than going through the call-in process. I do not know whether the minister or the mover has any views on that.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I think that is actually on the money a little bit. A weapon in the holster of developers is that they have always been able to say to a council, 'Look, if you drag your feet or if you are not sympathetic enough, you know that we can always go to the minister, and the minister will call it in, and we think we're going to get a better hearing out of the minister.' Chances are they are probably doing that anyway. A lot of ministers have said, quite reasonably, 'No, the sort of development you're talking about, the scale of it, stick with the local council. If it becomes impossible, come and see me again but, no, work through the process properly.'

My feeling would be that the ability of the minister to call something in does impose a discipline on councils because, whilst I have not explored this fully, they would probably not get the application fees once it was called in, unless they have already paid them. I am not sure if they are refunded the development application fee. Certainly, it would be a discipline on the councils, that they would know that if they behaved unreasonably and tried to impose unreasonable restrictions on the development and did not stick within the planning rules, the whole thing might be taken off them. I think that is a discipline that is going to have them acting more quickly and more efficiently.

It does not mean that the notification system is invalid. I think the whole nature of ministerial call-in means that they know that someone is looking over their shoulder and that they might lose control of this development if they do not treat it appropriately.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not know if the honourable member would be open to considering amending it and having the word 'notification' rather than 'consultation', as he moves it. He may gain some widespread support for that.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I am reluctant to make the amendment unless it is the only thing we are going to get through, so I would be interested to hear from the Hon. David Ridgway whether he believes that the words as they are at present, 'must consult', are acceptable. If they are I will stick with that but if the Hon. David Ridgway says that no, he is happy with just notification, then it would be to replace the words 'must consult' with the words 'must notify'. However, I will take some guidance.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: This is one of the clauses our party room has given me instructions to explore and get some clarification on as to what it really means. I am reluctant to support the consultation amendment that the Hon. Mark Parnell is talking about, and I can sense that the government is happy with notification. I could say that we will support the Hon. Mark Parnell but then we will come back and have another look at it and recommit, because we are not 100 per cent certain, but if the government is happy with notification then the opposition would be happy with notification.

In the end, whether that is in a period of time, that they have to give 14 days' notice that they are going to call it in, or you hold the gun at the head of the council a little closer perhaps, I do not know. Certainly from the opposition point of view, we would support the amendment if the word 'consult' was replaced with the word 'notify'.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: In the interests of progressing the debate, I seek leave to move my amendment in an amended form, that is, that the word 'consult' be replaced with the word 'notify'.

Leave granted.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I move:

Amendment No 74 [Parnell–1]—

Page 82, after line 15—Insert:

(2a) If the minister proposes to make a declaration under subsection (1)(c) in respect of a development that will, if the development proceeds, be situated wholly or partly within the area of a council, the minister must notify the council before making the declaration.

There were actually two words that needed to be removed, the words 'consult with' replaced with the word 'notify'.

Amendment as amended carried.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Parnell–3]—

Page 82, after line 18—Insert:

(3a) A regulation under subsection (1)(b) or a declaration under subsection (1)(c) cannot apply with respect to a development or project within the Adelaide Park Lands (within the meaning of the Adelaide Park Lands Act 2005).

It is a shame, in a way, that this amendment is interposed between my amendments Nos 74 and 75, given that we have managed to negotiate 74 and that the government is agreeing with 75. However this is a different issue entirely, so we need to get our heads out of that space and into a new space.

Members would have received a letter last year—in about October, I think—and very likely received another letter yesterday from the Lord Mayor of the City of Adelaide, addressed to the planning minister. I am fairly sure that most members were copied into it, but basically what that letter says is that there is a couple of issues remaining that concern the Adelaide City Council. One of them is heritage, which we are going to revisit later on so I do not need to go there now, but they were also concerned that some of the historic protections built into the Adelaide Park Lands Act 2005 are missing from this bill.

I have drafted my amendment set 3, and the whole of that set relates to this one issue. The question is whether the government should be able to declare, if you like, major projects or whether it should be able to declare public works or public infrastructure projects over the Parklands and thereby bypass the normal pathway for development assessment.

Parliamentary counsel has taken the existing provisions of the Adelaide Park Lands Act, which basically prohibit the government using major project status or Crown development status, from using that in the Parklands. When I say 'Parklands', I am actually referring to the grassy Parklands. Clearly, there are areas that are already developed. In the previous bill today we were talking about Government House, and we have Parliament House here and we have got right through to the new Royal Adelaide Hospital and, if we go in the other direction, the old Royal Adelaide Hospital. My amendments do not relate to those parts that have already been built on. The part of the Parklands I am talking about is the undeveloped part.

Back in 2005, this parliament agreed that the Parklands were so important that they did not want the government using special fast-track methods and they did not want the minister to be the final decision-maker over developments in the Parklands. They wanted development applications to go through the normal process. At present, that would normally be the Development Assessment Commission.

I have taken those protections and incorporated them into the new bill. The protection now occurs in three locations because the bill is reconfigured. We no longer just have major projects and Crown development: we now have infrastructure as well. This amendment occurs in three places in the bill and, basically, it says the government cannot use these pathways which have the minister as the final decision-maker.

As an example—people like examples—the Hon. Kevin Foley, members might recall, was very keen to build a permanent grandstand in the middle of Victoria Park, and that created quite a lot of opposition. I know some members here liked the idea and many others did not, but the way the law is it could not get through. The minister was not able to unilaterally decide that they were going to do it. It had to go through the normal development assessment process.

The question before us is: are people happy to have the minister able to decide, effectively, any type of development in the Parklands by declaring it to be a major project (or, in the new language, an impact assessed development), declaring it to be a Crown development or declaring it to be an infrastructure development? Should the minister be able to impose what he or she wants on the Parklands? I have to say my answer to that is no. The reason we have Parklands is because of the eternal vigilance of generations of South Australians who have consistently said, for 100-plus years, 'These Parklands are important to Adelaide. We don't want to have ministers being able to simply go in and develop them.'

That is not to say that development in the Parklands is a bad idea. There are some really good developments, I think, that could occur in the Parklands. It is not about preserving the status quo—if it is grass now, it must stay grass. It is not saying that at all. It is basically saying it should not be up to a minister: it should be up to a proper development assessment authority using the normal process, which involves bringing the community along with you, so it includes public consultation.

That is the effect of the whole of my set 3. They are, technically, not all consequential because, whilst they apply the same principle, they apply it to different development streams, so we might have to test them individually. But, certainly, this amendment is the equivalent of the current prohibition on using major project status, or major development status, in the Parklands.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The government opposes the amendment. It was very nice that we got on well and compromised last time, and the next one I think we will support, but this amendment in the middle we oppose—as with the related amendments, Nos. 3 and 4 of set 3. It is correct that the Adelaide Parklands belong to everyone in South Australia. They are a great natural asset for this city and state, and there has been much commentary in recent years about how we can improve the Parklands as an asset for the South Australian community.

Internationally respected urban designer, Jan Gehl, highlighted the potential of the Parklands to be one of the world's truly great urban parks, but it is clear some of the current arrangements impede the capacity to necessarily realise this vision. Honourable members may recall when we were not able to build the footbridge to the new Adelaide Oval, a walk many South Australians have since taken and undoubtedly enjoyed, without having to undertake a whole range of convoluted changes to the planning system for that project.

This was simply an order to realise a piece of public infrastructure that everyone agreed is necessary. Although there were complaints before, you hear very few complaints now about it. As the expert panel recognised, South Australians should not have to be subjected to such a convoluted process. However, this will not change unless we have the ability to consider appropriate developments in the Parklands under the rigorous impact assessment process detailed in this bill.

The impact of the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendment would be to accept the statutory status quo that prevents the community from realising any betterment of the parks in a substantial way in a timely manner, potentially leaving the community with underutilised space rather than the great urban park to which we aspire and to which international experts point to. Even if declared, the council remains the custodian of the Parklands, but in their plan even small cafes are listed as noncomplying at present. If called in, it is subject to an environmental impact assessment with commission issued guidelines also in relation to consultation.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: In relation to that last point, I think the minister's notes predate the recent development plan amendment which actually took a whole bunch of things out of the noncomplying category for the Parklands which included all manner of infrastructure. He talked about a small cafe, but a large sewage farm in the Parklands has now been removed from the definition of noncomplying development, so I do not think it is consistent.

The minister said that what I am proposing is the status quo. I do not think—in fact, I know—it is not the fact that the minister cannot bulldoze through developments through the Parklands that is the problem. What the minister seems to be suggesting is that as soon as we remove the protection that is currently in the law—and I disagree that it is a rigorous process—the government will simply become the final decision maker for anything in the Parklands.

Whilst he might say there are all these rigorous processes—no, the bottom line is if you want the minister to be the final decision maker for anything in the Parklands, then opposing my three sets of amendments is the way to go. I have not heard from the Hon. David Ridgway yet, but I will remind him that these amendments are consistent with the view that his party has taken in relation to the O-Bahn, for example.

I just make the point that the Liberals in this place have often been staunch defenders of the Parklands. I think there was a disallowance of regulations that might have related to some part of the Riverbank redevelopment—the O-Bahn obviously. The point is without the protection of the status quo, then you can multiply many times the number of developments that the Liberal Party would certainly have trouble with, and I would hate to have to front the public meetings and say we had the protection but it got taken away. I would be confident the Liberals would be supporting this, but we will hear what they have to say.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I want a bit of clarification. From my understanding of what the mover says, it is what he calls the open Parklands, not the institutional zones. If we are talking about a footbridge, that would not be captured by—

The Hon. M.C. Parnell: It's in the Riverbank zone, yes.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: It is in the Riverbank zone or the institutional zone along here. From our perspective, I assume the open Parklands are—and I need to get my head around it. The O-Bahn entry into the city is through the Parklands, and that is—

The Hon. M.C. Parnell: That's included.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: —subject to a DPA.

The Hon. M.C. Parnell: Yes, but that's Parklands zone.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: That is Parklands, so that part is included.

The Hon. M.C. Parnell: Yes.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: And obviously right the way around until we get to the West Terrace cemetery?

The Hon. M.C. Parnell: Yes.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The cemetery has chunks taken out and then it is the open Parklands down to Port Road.

The Hon. M.C. Parnell: Yes.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I can now visualise what it is. The opposition is interested to hear from the government as to what type of developments they would see that the minister would approve in that space that we are talking about. I think the minister talked about small cafes. I come to work often along Fullarton Road, come around the Britannia Roundabout and see the old kiosk that is a weatherboard building that I would have assumed would have had an opportunity to be viable.

I know there is a coffee shop in the base of the old Victoria Park grandstand that has been renovated. It is there, it has a barricade around it and nothing is happening. I am just a bit interested to know the types of developments that the minister or the government would say they envisage somewhere between the eastern Parklands, right the way around but clearly not the cemetery, and then opposite the Newmarket Hotel and adjacent to Port Road.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Sorry, I just need to clarify something. When the Hon. David Ridgway painted his sort of word map of the Adelaide Parklands, I think what I said was accurate. The only thing I am not sure of is the zoning of the cemetery and the zoning of the Adelaide High School. I am very confident that the rest of what he described is Parklands zone.

My amendments remove the Riverbank zone, and the Riverbank zone includes everything from the new Royal Adelaide Hospital to SAHMRI. In fact, it includes Parliament House, Festival Plaza and all of that area. Then there are two institutional zones: there is an institutional zone that takes in Government House, and then there is another institutional zone that takes in the university and the hospital. I think I have accurately answered that. The only question mark I have is that possibly the cemetery and possibly the Adelaide High School might technically still be within Parklands. I do not have the zone map in front of me.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Perhaps I can just put our contribution forward while the minister is taking some advice. It probably again surprises no-one to hear that one of the most attractive parts of this bill to Family First was the fact that there is the possibility at least for some sensitive development in the Parklands, as the bill is presented.

As members know, I am a North Adelaide resident, and North Adelaide is of course the only suburb in South Australia that is surrounded by the Parklands, so it is something that I think is dear to the heart of most North Adelaide residents. I often walk through the Parklands myself, as do many people who come from near and far, I am sure, and I think what is clearly lacking in our Parklands is sensitive development.

When one travels to other parts of the world—I am thinking of New York City or Paris or London, for example—what you find is that the great parks of those great cities are full of cafes, restaurants and other developments that are relatively small but attract people to the area. At the moment, a lot of our Parklands are I think I heard the word 'grasslands' used, and that is exactly what they are.

In fact, on the North Adelaide side, they are literally paddocks because we have horses in them. That is great for those 30 people who get to keep their horses in those paddocks, but what about the 1.3 million people who might come there and go to a nice restaurant or enjoy some other facility? If we think about the Parklands, and think about the things that attract people to the Parklands, it is always development. Not many people go there just for open space. There are plenty of other places people can go to for open space—for example, the North Adelaide Aquatic Centre or the, I have forgotten what it is called, restaurant that is on the southern side of the city. What is it called?

The Hon. M.C. Parnell: The pavilion.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Yes, Pavilion on the Park, thank you. Those are the things that attract people to the Parklands. That does not mean we should be building 27-storey, high-rise buildings in the Parklands—no-one is advocating that—but I think there is capacity for sensitive developments that people actually want to use. We can see them already everywhere. As I say, the North Adelaide Aquatic Centre is a very good example of that.

We strongly support using what is a great asset for Adelaide to facilitate sensitive development that would actually attract people to this wonderful resource that our state has and to provide a mechanism whereby it can get used. Before I am criticised by members saying this amendment does not preclude that, it does not and I accept that, but what it does do is make it harder—that is the reality. What we have seen under the status quo is that not much actually happens in the Parklands, as the Hon. Mr Ridgway just pointed out. We see this as a great resource that is underutilised, and the bill as it stands has the capacity to improve that situation, so we support the bill as it is in this regard.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: To answer the Leader of the Opposition's question about the types of development, it is the commission that will set the guidelines; however, I think it is instructive to take note of what the Hon. Dennis Hood talked about. What you would envisage is sensible and sensitive development, a cafe supporting the recreational area, not building factories or giant waterslide parks across the whole of the Parklands, but sensible and appropriate development that adds to the amenity of the park—a cafe next to some of the playground areas that are already on the Parklands, for example.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I think the Hon. Dennis Hood makes some very good points. After treasurer Foley was unable to get support for his grandstand, a bill passed the Legislative Council to give the treasurer and the government of the day the authority to do it. I think that is my recollection. I think my colleague the Hon. Terry Stephens put that bill. It did pass the Legislative Council, so that went through parliament.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: It was one of the things that Terry did—exactly. Kevin Foley then lost his mojo and did not bother to progress with it. It does come back to the point: I come through the southern end and Dennis Hood is up in the northern end, and I think we would all agree that to have a coffee shop or someone selling a cool drink, maybe—

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: No, unlike the Hon. Kyam Maher, I do not like cream buns. I am concerned about the provision that will allow the minister to give approval for a small coffee shop but also for, let's say, a big grandstand or a big development in the Parklands. The dilemma we had last night on one of the clauses we were discussing was that it was almost too broad. I can indicate that the opposition's inclination is to support the Hon. Mark Parnell because the provision is too broad. There should be some way of having a mechanism whereby there are smaller, more sensitive developments.

It is all very well for the minister to say that it is up to the commission, that they are sensible developments, that we will not have water slides; and the Mark Parnell throws in the smelly red herring of a sewage farm into a park. We know that sort of stuff is not going to happen. I know that some people in the development world say that the way to get extra activity is to take a slice off the Parklands fronting Greenhill and Fullarton roads and put up some residential development. I think it would be a very brave government to do that, but those suggestions are floating around. The opposition will be supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendment.

I will say to the minister that if there is some capacity to have, as I mentioned, a little weatherboard coffee kiosk that is still derelict sitting in Victoria Park, and if there are ways to activate those types of old facilities but also new modern ones that bring the activation, I do not think there would be too many concerns from the opposition. We think that currently the provision is too broad and we do not wish to see the sort of developments that could happen without another layer of protection.

Are the golf courses in all the Parklands considered Parklands? I know they are under council control. I am asking the minister but I see the honourable Dennis Hood nodding saying they are Parklands. So they are deemed to be Parklands?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that the par 3 golf course is in the Parklands.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I know that you are not a very good golfer, but I think the two normal 18-hole golf courses as well as the par 3 golf course are all in the Parklands.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that that is correct, and I can also inform you that I am a terrible golfer. I once played 18 holes before getting sick of it all.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: It does not surprise me; your capacity and, I guess, concentration would be a bit light on, I would think. But I am sure that at the clubhouse you can get a cool drink and some refreshments. That is the point I am trying to make: we are going to support the Hon. Mark Parnell, but I think there is some capacity and a little bit of appetite on this side of the chamber for some mechanism to have a sensible development, not delayed and not held up, and even mobile. My understanding is that we cannot even have mobile coffee vans and things in the Parklands. From our perspective, we do not want a big development without much thorough and robust consultation and process, but I think members can realise that the opposition, while supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell, will always be open to other sensible suggestions.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: For the record, I will be supporting the Greens' amendment.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I can confirm to the Hon. Mr Ridgway that there is indeed a place where one can buy a drink at the North Adelaide golf course, and at very reasonable prices.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: Probably alcohol, is it?

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Indeed.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I move:

Amendment No 75 [Parnell–1]—

Page 82, after line 29—Insert:

(7) The Minister must, in acting under subsection (1)(c), take into account principles prescribed by the regulations.

The government has indicated that it is going to support this amendment.

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: If you have had a change of heart, I have a long speech. I think the government is supporting it, so I will not speak to it again.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The government supports this amendment and I thank the honourable member for his contribution.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: If the government is supporting it, then let's all get together and we will support it as well.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended from 12:57 to 14:15.