Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Adelaide Park Lands) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 27 October 2021.)

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (20:15): I thank the Hon. Robert Simms for bringing this bill to the parliament, and I acknowledge the good intentions he has in doing so. The Hon. Mr Simms is proposing through the introduction of this bill that, if an amendment is made to the Planning and Design Code that varies or affects the operation of a provision or a boundary of the code that is related to development in the Adelaide Parklands, then that proposal would need to be approved by resolution of both houses of parliament.

The bill is retrospective in nature, and it seeks to capture any Planning and Design Code amendments that vary a boundary of the Adelaide Parklands zone as of 27 October 2021. This would include the government's proposed Riverbank Precinct zones and subzones, including the health and innovation subzones.

When introducing this bill, the Hon. Mr Simms made comment during his second reading speech that, 'This is a simple change.' Unfortunately, while we appreciate the Hon. Mr Simms' good intentions with this bill, it is not such a simple change after all. The bill before us today could very well result in unintended, negative consequences for some of the community and vital publicly owned assets that are found within the Adelaide Parklands. These assets include the Adelaide High School, Botanic High School, the Royal Adelaide Hospital, the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute and the proposed site of the much-needed and long-anticipated new Women's and Children's Hospital.

While the Hon. Mr Simms is seeking to move this bill to capture the Marshall Liberal government's proposed rezoning of the Riverbank Precinct that would allow for permanent and commercial developments to Pinky Flat, Elder Park and Helen Mayo Park, it does not exempt or identify essential public infrastructure, like a new hospital, from this process.

The bill does not include or contemplate the role of the Adelaide Park Lands Authority as a principal advisory body on Parklands matters. With five members appointed by the state government and five from the Adelaide City Council, the Park Lands Authority is already an important voice. It has a vested interest in the Parklands, and it is surprising that they are not included within the scope of this bill. Instead, this proposed system is overtly political in nature. While the bill may seek to remove politics from decision-making, the reality is it could very well create an incredibly powerful political weapon that could derail investments in good public policy that are essential to the health and wellbeing of the community.

Perhaps most concerningly, the bill before us would require the government of the day to debate matters relating to the Women's and Children's Hospital. This bill would not only require both houses of the parliament to consider the worthiness of public buildings like the new Women's and Children's Hospital, but it could also require the parliament to consider new developments or redevelopments to current public buildings and structures, such as Botanic High.

This great city is surrounded by 760 hectares of green gold—the Adelaide Parklands. They provide a space where residents and visitors can run, walk, cycle and simply relax, but they are also home to many public assets like the Adelaide Oval, Memorial Drive tennis precinct, National Wine Centre, Adelaide Zoo, the golf course club facilities, West Terrace Cemetery chapel, North Adelaide train station and so much more. These particular community assets are also listed in the Planning and Design Code under the Adelaide Parklands zone's performance outcomes.

Under this bill, variations to these community assets that are deemed a development, and even some redevelopments, could trigger a code amendment coming into this parliament. Under this bill, would the addition of a community garden adjacent to the new Women's and Children's site have to have its merits debated and passed by both houses of parliament? Could the installation of disability access to the Riverbank be delayed while waiting to be brought up and moved through both houses? What would be the cost to Botanic High School while waiting for approval of the parliament for renovations or campus upgrades?

I do not think this was the intention of this bill, that this parliament be potentially debating, delaying and obstructing changes to Botanic High or changes at the Adelaide Zoo, but that could be a very real consequence of this bill. I am confident that the true intent of this bill was to hold the Marshall Liberal government to account for its proposed rezoning of the Riverbank Precinct. I can assure the Hon. Mr Simms that that is something that we agree on.

An elected Malinauskas Labor government will not commercialise Pinky Flat, Elder Park or the River Torrens itself with structures like the proposed CBD basketball stadium nor a 20-storey development on the Riverbank. We have made it clear that we will not support the Marshall Liberal government's $662 million basketball stadium that takes in the Helen Mayo Park's treasured walking and cycling paths, established Parklands and areas of cultural significance to the Kaurna people. We will cancel the basketball stadium and invest this $662 million in our hospitals, because that is what matters to South Australians.

The Hon. Mr Simms, in his second reading speech, referred to this bill being needed as a safety net to protect our treasured Parklands, but there is a very powerful safety net at the disposal of the people who hire and fire us to do just that. I have no doubt that on 19 March next year South Australians will use that safety net. They will use the state election to remind not only this government but future governments that community and culturally significant places like Elder Park, Pinky Flat and the River Torrens are for people, not for profit.

While we do agree with the sentiment and ideals expressed in this bill, the unfortunate reality is that it carries with it extreme risk of delays to valuable existing and future public assets, and it is simply not workable at a practical level.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (20:21): I rise on behalf of the government to oppose the proposed bill from the Hon. Mr Simms. There are some elements of the contribution from the deputy leader with which the government agrees. We are not entirely convinced that they are unintended consequences. We think the policy position of the Greens is fully cognisant of what they are seeking to do, and I think that some of the issues the deputy leader—and some others that I will address in my contribution—are the intentions of the Greens in relation to the proposal.

What I will say is that it is somewhat ironic that the deputy leader is now very concerned about the importance—which we welcome now—of the Women's and Children's Hospital in its proposed location. The Labor Party's position, of course, at the last election and for some time afterwards, as I understand it, was to leave the current Women's and Children's Hospital in its current location in North Adelaide. So we welcome the new-found commitment of the opposition to the government's visionary proposal for co-locating the Women's and Children's Hospital in that precinct, in and around the new Royal Adelaide Hospital.

We also note the fact that the Riverbank arena, will be in essence the third extension of the Convention Centre, which various governments over the decades have taken decisions to extend. The former Liberal government in the 1990s was responsible for the first extension, and the Labor government, after 2002, was responsible for the second extension.

The Marshall Liberal government will be responsible, in the Riverbank arena, for the third extension of the Convention Centre, which will allow the mega conferences and conventions, which we currently cannot attract to South Australia, to be able to come to and enjoy the wonders of Adelaide and South Australia, and also bring with them all the dollars and spending of interstate and international delegates into South Australia and be a huge job creator in the arena. It will, of course, have additional benefits in relation to entertainment, concerts and sporting pursuits as well.

I do acknowledge today what seems to be a new position from the Australian Labor Party. The deputy leader of the Labor Party committed all $662 million of the Riverbank arena to hospitals. Up until this stage, the public statements have been that $100 million of that was going to go into country hospitals, but we note the commitment from the Australian Labor Party that evidently all $662 million is going into hospitals.

We note that over the next three years that comes to a sum total of about $30 million, and given in that particular period we will be spending approximately $22 billion on health, I am sure $30 million is going to make a huge difference in terms of funding the health commitments of the Australian Labor Party as they lead into the election.

The deputy leader has highlighted some of the, as she said perhaps generously, unintended consequences, but which I think are the intended potential consequences of this legislation. I am advised that there are other issues that the legislation, if it is implemented, would potentially impact as well.

Our advice is the bill captures any amendments to Parklands within the meaning of the Adelaide Park Lands Act 2005, and therefore it would apply not only to the Adelaide Parklands zone in the code but also the city Riverbank zone and any overlay or general development policies applying within the Parklands—very clever drafting from the Greens, and the impacts of that very clever drafting will be apparent as I outline it.

The use of those words 'overlay' or 'general development policies' applying within the Parklands means, as I am advised, it will have an application across multiple regions across the state, and of which some 17 overlays apply across the Adelaide Parklands. It would mean that none of those could occur without the concurrence of both houses of parliament. Given the overlay and general policy set out overarching planning rules that are state or region based, there are likely to be numerous changes to such policies over the coming years that could not occur unless parliament were to agree.

These include important overlays and zones such as the state heritage overlay, the significant tree overlay, and potentially the flooding and bushfire hazards overlay, which also apply to various regions across the state. As a result of these consequences, the bill is likely to impact detrimentally on the ability for planning policy in South Australia to remain contemporary and would undermine the intention of the planning reforms.

As I said, it is a very clever piece of drafting from the Greens that issues such as significant tree overlay and state heritage overlay policies, are all caught by the sneaky tentacles drafted by that Machiavellian master, the Hon. Mr Simms—

An honourable member: Exposed!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Exposed in this apparently seductive, 'We're only trying to impact on this particular development,' but he has now been exposed for all his evilness in relation to this planning policy.

In addition to some of the projects that the deputy leader has outlined, we are advised that the bill may significantly limit the City of Adelaide's scope to progress some of their key projects such as the redevelopment of the North Adelaide Golf Club facilities, their proposed regional aquatic and wellbeing centre, and some of the other substantive recreational facilities.

There are a range of projects that the Adelaide City Council is either currently looking at, or has been looking at, or is proposed to look at in relation to those projects and others which are potentially impacted by these particular insidious but very cleverly drafted proposals from the Greens.

As I said, the deputy leader is much too generous a person I think in terms of her analysis of this—generous to a fault, I know—but let me reveal, on behalf of members, all the evilness of the member's intentions. For those reasons, the government is opposed.

I might also put on the public record that the Premier has made it quite clear with regard to the Riverbank code amendment, which has been discussed in this debate and also publicly, that the government has no intentions and has certainly ruled out any commercial developments on Pinky Flat which, evidently, has quite reasonably attracted some opposition from people concerned about the Pinky Flat area. For all those reasons, the government is strongly opposing this particular legislation.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Point of order, Mr President: the Treasurer stated 'the evilness' of the intent of the mover of this bill. I ask him to withdraw that as it is against the standing orders.

An honourable member interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: I did not actually hear that comment. If the Treasurer wishes to—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: No, I don't, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: No. I did not actually hear that comment. Anyway, I think the Hon. Mr Pangallo wants to make a contribution.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (20:31): Thank you, Mr President, only a short one—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: It is.

The PRESIDENT: In future, it would be helpful to have it on the list, but proceed.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I am sorry, but after all that banter from Labor and the Liberals, I thought we needed to get up to express our support for the Hon. Robert Simms' proposal.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Of course, you could have knocked me over with a feather duster after hearing Labor get up and then say that they were opposing what the Hon. Mr Simms is doing. Here we are, having Labor leaving the door ajar for a resurrection of the basketball stadium. In the event that they decide that they will do a backflip on that, it will become part of the Convention Centre. Labor's move should be seen for what it is: a cynical each-way bet.

Remember that Labor, when it was in government, wanted sell off portions of the old Royal Adelaide Hospital site, now known as Lot Fourteen, to developers, and I understand that this government had to extricate itself from that deal at great cost to taxpayers. Hearing the list of projects and assets that could be at risk here, I am sure that parliament would be able to intervene in the event that some of these were going to be threatened or endangered.

I do not think that was ever the intent of the Hon. Robert Simms' bill, particularly with iconic treasures like the Adelaide Zoo, which is about to enter its 150^th year. Who could possibly suggest that this place could ever entertain that place and others being razed?

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: There are people who want to move it out of the city.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I do not think they would, though.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Pangallo should continue.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I am confident that the intent of Hon. Mr Simms' legislation is to actually protect land that belongs to South Australians from being further eroded and developed. He is not advocating or being a harbinger of threats to future assets there. It does not surprise me, of course, that the Liberals will gleefully accept Labor's support for this because they in turn will sell it as: 'Have a look at Labor, leaving the door ajar for the basketball stadium.' In saying that, SA-Best will support the Hon. Robert Simms and the Greens.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (20:34): I thank the Hon. Frank Pangallo for his support, and I express regret at the position of the Labor and Liberal parties. They often have stoushes in this place, but they always get back together again, particularly when it comes to taking over our public green space, and that is what we are seeing happening here tonight.

Make no mistake that what the Labor Party are doing here in opposing this bill is they are facilitating the government's plans to take over our public green space. They are facilitating the rezoning of the Parklands. They are opening the door not only to the sports arena, which they say they oppose, they are also opening the door to the other rezoning the government has proposed: cafes, shops, apartment towers, nightclubs, low level industry, because the government can do all of this without bringing the matter to parliament.

That is precisely what my bill was trying to address. It was trying to ensure this parliament has a say on changes that would fundamentally change the character of our Parklands and of our city's green space. Sadly, the Labor Party have totally missed an opportunity here to show some backbone, to stand up to the Liberals and to defend our Parklands from what is in effect a takeover from the development sector.

The idea of giving the Liberals the keys to develop our Parklands is like giving Count Dracula the keys to the blood bank. Once the development sector sink their teeth in they will change the character of our public space forever. I agree with the Labor Party on one thing: we do not need a multimillion dollar sports stadium. After all, if members of the South Australian community want to come along and watch an Olympic-style backflip they can come to this chamber and watch the Labor Party in action, because that is what we are seeing tonight: an embarrassing backflip, an appalling capitulation to this Liberal government.

The Treasurer has got me. Sneaky Simms has been exposed again, because he is right: I am no supporter of the planning regime that was set in place by the previous Labor government. I am no fan of the idea that we can see development on our public land—on our national heritage-listed Parklands—without even giving the parliament a say.

It is pathetic that the Labor Party have not joined with the Greens in supporting this and that they have not had the moral courage to stand with us and with the SA-Best party and others and say to the government, 'If you are wanting to rezone our public space, you have to come to this parliament and defend what you are doing.' As a result, tonight the sports arena is well and truly on the agenda. The minister can give the green light to that rezoning at any time, and not only that but the raft of other commercial development the government has in its sights.

The Treasurer can say, 'We don't plan to do anything on Pinky Flat.' Well, why on earth are they seeking a rezoning? If they do not want to do anything with that space, why are they trying to rezone it? They are trying to rezone it because they want to let the genie out of the bottle and give developers a chance to move into our Parklands. This is a really dark day for our public green space.

I will be calling a division on this matter so that all members of the community can see who stands with the community in defending our national heritage-listed Parklands and who stands with the big end of town and the development sector that want to exploit this public land.

The council divided on the second reading:

Ayes 4

Noes 15

Majority 11

Second reading thus negatived.