Bills

Linear Parks (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debated on second reading.

(Continued from 27 September 2017.)

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (11:33): I rise to make some remarks in relation to this piece of legislation. The Linear Parks Act has heretofore only been applied to what we understand to be the Linear Park, which is along the Torrens, but does provide for other linear parks to be created.

The bill, as I understand it, is one of improving administrative efficiency, from the point of view of the government at least, to harmonise the range of parcels into one park and therefore create a single regime by which they may be created, rather than utilising the various acts in which the parcels may be currently held.

I note from the government's second reading explanation that they have an aspirational plan of creating additional corridors at Gawler River, Little Para River, Dry Creek, Sturt River, Field River, Christie Creek, Onkaparinga River, Pedler Creek and Port Willunga Creek. They also state in the second reading that the minister will be granted the same powers that local councils enjoy with respect to local government roads.

Linear parks are certainly a great recreational facility for our communities, so anything that assists in their development is to be welcomed. However, the Liberal Party does have some concerns in light of the goings on with Coast Park, in particular Tennyson Dunes and the activities of the Charles Sturt council, which had undertaken some proper consultation before the council election. Under the previous council, they did some proper consultation and came up with a particular proposal that had the support of the community, which was then changed after the election. The local residents took the council to court and their complaints were upheld. I think that particular process has been completely unsatisfactory, and shame on the council for its behaviour in that matter.

From that, we have had specific concerns that this may be used as a means to get around the proper consultation process. I certainly was not disavowed of that view following the briefing that I had with the government that local communities could have their wishes overridden by these particular changes to the legislation. So, I am pleased to see that some amendments have been included, I think at the instigation of the Hon. Mark Parnell but drafted in the name of the minister. I certainly think that is a great improvement to the bill.

The passage of the bill will allow the government to create these parcels of new linear parks with adjoining parcels of land. Overall, we believe this is a positive move, with some reservations that local communities do need to have their wishes taken into consideration. Therefore, we welcome the amendments that have been tabled and we will certainly be supporting those. With those remarks, I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (11:37): I understand this bill is to streamline the process by which the government is able to establish linear parks. I have no issue with this and am generally supportive of linear parks. However, I have been contacted by the Coastal Ecology Protection Group, who are extremely concerned at the effect this bill would have should a linear park be established along the coastline and particularly the effect it will have on sand dunes.

Sand dunes are an important part of the ecology of the environment. We have seen instances where they have been interfered with and it has had a detrimental effect in regard to shifting sands. Whilst I appreciate that the government has filed amendments which provide for public notification of any proposed linear parks and gives the community an opportunity to provide their views, this does not seem to go far enough to address the concerns that have been raised with me.

Of particular concern to me is the fact that there does not seem to be a requirement for an environmental impact study to be undertaken before a linear park is constructed. I would like to hear from the minister as to why they have chosen not to include this in the bill. It seems peculiar that such a provision is not made in such a bill, especially when it has the potential to destroy sand dunes that have been in existence since the English settlement.

Whilst the government amendments allow for community consultation, we all know that it is entirely at the government's discretion as to whether submissions are taken on board or not. I could not see an avenue for aggrieved persons to pursue, should they be unhappy with the government's decision. I am happy to be corrected by the minister on this, but if no such appeal mechanism exists, I would like information as to why the government did not think this was necessary. I reserve my position on the bill until the third reading and look forward to hearing more from the government.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (11:39): I would like to thank the honourable members who have spoken in this debate. I am pretty sure I am closing it now. I would like to reiterate some of the key elements of the bill for honourable members who may not have been following it quite so closely. The purpose of the bill is to establish, maintain and preserve linear parks as world-class assets to be used and enjoyed as public parks for the benefit of present and future generations; to promote the use and enjoyment of linear parks by members of the local community and others; and to promote healthy active lifestyles by facilitating the use of linear parks for exercise and other outdoor activities.

The bill provides another tool for the creation of linear parks on land corridors, similar to the bill we already have in statute on linear parks. Part of the explanation for the Hon. Mr Darley's question is that we are not seeking to do anything different to the current legislation, so why would we put extra protections in this legislation when the current legislation, which relates mainly to the River Torrens but potentially to others, does not need, and no-one has called for, any amendments?

As the Hon. Michelle Lensink pointed out, it is intended to provide a seamless management protocol of multiple adjoined land parcels, particularly when those parcels are a mixture of Crown land, government minister land, local government land or indeed even private land, as is the case with the Field River, for example.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: I thought private land was excluded.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: We need to talk to the private landowners, but this gives us an ability, if we have an agreement with a private landowner, for the government to then expend public funding to provide works that would create facilities for a linear park; essentially, that is what it does. Why would the government otherwise spend taxpayer money on improving private land if there was no resolution of the land use?

If a linear park is decided for a particular area, we need to consolidate the land parcels that are in government, local government or some form of government control. Also, if it involves private land and we do not want to compulsorily acquire or otherwise acquire that private land, it gives us an ability to provide facilities to the community with some sense of security for that taxpayer investment in the facilities along the linear park route.

The creation of a linear park would mean there was only one process for consultation. I think that is probably the key here in relation to the Hon. Michelle Lensink's concerns about consultation undertaken by the City of Charles Sturt in relation to the Tennyson coast park, which I think the court found had some failings. The government will be moving amendments to clarify and address these concerns that were raised by honourable members regarding the consultation requirement. There was never any suggestion of discarding local community views, so we are very happy to put those amendments into the legislation to clarify that.

I suppose, to take the Hon. Michelle Lensink's discussion point even further, if the government was not confident in the ability of the local government to conduct processes of consultation appropriately and in accordance with their own requirements in terms of process then there could be a benefit in the government taking over the consultation process and ensuring it is done in accordance with the requirements of the legislation and any other processes that are in place. That would only be the case, I suppose, with councils that either did not want to, could not or perhaps have a history of not being able to run their own consultation processes in accordance with their own regulations. With that, I welcome the support for the legislation and I look forward to an interesting committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 4 passed.

New clause 4A.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [SusEnvCons–1]—

Page 3, after line 3—After clause 4 insert:

4A—Amendment of section 3—Interpretation

Clause 3—after the definition of River Torrens Linear Park Public Lands Plan insert:

SA planning portal has the same meaning as in the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016;

As is fairly self-evident in our second reading explanation and close, the amendments are to provide for further confidence that community consultation is to take place.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I have some questions in relation to this. Can the minister outline what the consultation process involves as the bare minimum obligations on the government?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I think the amendment outlines the bare requirements, as the Hon. Michelle Lensink asked for. A linear park may not be established unless the minister has gone through the steps. Looking at, for example, clause 5, page 3 and amendment No. 2:

(a) has published notice of the proposed linear park (including a proposed plan defining the linear park) on the SA planning portal; and

(b) in relation to a linear park that is proposed to include land owned by, or under the care, control or management of, a council—has given written notice of the proposed linear park to the council; and

(c) has given consideration to any submission made in response to a notice under this subsection within a period (of between 3 and 6 weeks) specified by the Minister in the relevant notice.

They are the bare minimum—or minima, I should say—and that is outlined in amendment No. 2, and that is not unusual, as far as I understand it. Whilst I am on my feet, can I say that, in relation to the Hon. Mr Darley's question, linear parks do not override planning considerations or Coast Protection Board requirements, so if these include environmental reports they will need to be done as per usual. My advice is that there is no ability for this legislation to override the normal planning considerations or normal Coast Protection Board requirements for developments generally.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the honourable minister for that response. Is he able to provide what the existing consultation requirements would be without the actual bill being passed? What would happen under existing obligations?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that the existing obligations under the linear parks are not present. There are none. This is actually an escalation of the requirements to give some form of notice. There are requirements in the current legislation, but they are requirements that pertain to me, apparently. They do not pertain to public consultation. My advice is that the existing legislation does not have those requirements that we are inserting by amendment today in this bill.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: That is all I have on this particular clause. I do have some other questions, but I might do that once we have passed these amendments.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I put on the record that the Greens are very supportive of this amendment. When we had our briefing with the government, we pointed out that it was a major omission in the bill that there was no process for public consultation. The arrangement, as I understand it, was that the government said, 'We are grateful for having that pointed out.' They moved the amendment. The deal was that if the government did not move it, we would, but I am more than happy that the government has now done it.

I think it has strengthened the bill and made it clear that people have the right to put in a submission and, most importantly, that the minister must give consideration to any submissions that are made and they must do that before they have made a decision. So, I think it is a sensible amendment, and it just goes to show the value of the upper house in taking legislation and scrutinising it and fixing it up. I think this is a good outcome.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I should probably not speak when I am winning, but I just have to reinforce the meme that sometimes pops up on my Facebook feed: the Greens take credit for everything. Had the Hon. Mark Parnell not jumped to his feet, all that credit would have fallen to me. I thank him terribly for doing so.

New clause inserted.

Clause 5.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 2 [SusEnvCons–1]—

Page 3, lines 11 to 14 [clause 5(4) and (5)]—Delete subclauses (4) and (5) and substitute:

(4) Section 4(2)—delete subsection (2) and substitute:

(2) However, a linear park must not be established unless the Minister—

(a) has published notice of the proposed linear park (including a proposed plan defining the linear park) on the SA planning portal; and

(b) in relation to a linear park that is proposed to include land owned by, or under the care, control or management of, a council—has given written notice of the proposed linear park to the council; and

(c) has given consideration to any submission made in response to a notice under this subsection within a period (of between 3 and 6 weeks) specified by the Minister in the relevant notice.

Amendment No 3 [SusEnvCons–1]—

Page 3, after line 16—After subclause (6) insert:

(6a) Section 4(4)(b)—delete paragraph (b) and substitute:

(b) a variation to a linear park may not be made unless the Minister—

(i) has published notice of the proposed variation (including a proposed variation plan) on the SA planning portal; and

(ii) has given written notice of the proposed variation to any council that would be affected by the variation; and

(iii) has given consideration to any submission made in response to a notice under this paragraph within a period (of between 3 and 6 weeks) specified by the Minister in the relevant notice; and

I move both amendments. They are not, strictly speaking, consequential on the first, but they are part and parcel of the whole explanation I gave for the last amendment, so I will not say anything further. They undertake the provisions of consultation, which both the Hon. Mark Parnell and I take credit for.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I was interested in the minister's remarks in his summing-up in relation to private property. It was my understanding that neither the Linear Parks Act nor these amendments had an impact on private property. Could he perhaps expand on what he is referring to?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: You are quite right, this bill will not apply to private property unless there is an agreement entered into through an MOU of some sort or a determination that the property become owned by the Crown, the local government or the government. It is not, strictly speaking, our desire to go out and buy up large swathes of land because that costs money that we could put into improvements, but where there is land adjoining government-controlled land, be it state government or local government, where there would be a significant benefit to the community, it can be arranged.

For example, the Heysen Trail goes through government land and private land, so we have an agreement with landowners, in this instance, to take the trail through their private land. We will be in a similar position to be able to do this, but this bill itself does not give us any powers over private land. That will have to be negotiated separately in our normal processes.

Clause and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (11:53): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.