Bills

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

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 14 June 2023.)

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (20:52): I rise to make a contribution in relation to this piece of legislation that will amend the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act in relation to our Parklands code amendments. I thank the honourable member for bringing this bill to the parliament.

The Environment, Resources and Development Committee, of which I am a member and have been previously, and of which the Hon. Tammy Franks and the Hon. Emily Bourke are members, has a statutory role as the last gasp, if you like, for any code amendment consideration before the code amendments effectively become law. There are various processes that can lead into that, one of them being where the minister signs off on the code amendment and then the ERD Committee considers it. That has been longstanding in our planning laws for some time.

The ERD Committee has these code amendments sometimes on a regular basis, sometimes on a less regular basis, as the case may be, depending on the amount of work that is taking place. It is probably going to receive more into the future because the developer-led private ones may become more frequent as the newish laws are something that everyone becomes used to. I understand that the honourable member put this bill to the parliament previously so that, effectively, all those code amendments would not go through that ERD process and that this merely captures the Adelaide Park Lands amendment.

The ERD Committee has the responsibility to consider those amendments. There is fairly standard advice provided through one of the agencies of government, whether it is the planning section or Infrastructure and Transport. Local councils and local members of parliament are all on the standard list. There are also often many community groups that will have an interest in these things as well. Since the new parliament has been constituted, we have had consideration of some of those. I think the member for Colton came with one of his community groups to make representations and I have made a speech on that before.

The thing to note for people who are not familiar with the operations of that committee is that the government has the numbers basically to do what they like. There are three government members, one of whom is the Chair who has a casting vote, out of six and that effectively means that if all the non-government members were to disagree that would not make any difference. Some might say it is a rubber stamp but I think it has been a valued part of the planning system for some time and therefore when the laws were changed in 2016 that power was retained.

There is one recent example that is quite germane to this particular one, which is the Adelaide Aquatic Centre code amendment. In that situation there were community representatives who would have liked to make representation. The committee is not going to allow hours and hours for community groups to come and present what essentially might be repeated information, but I think in this case it is beyond disappointing that the Adelaide Park Lands Association was not invited to come and present. They are a well-recognised stakeholder in this space. In fact, we did not have any witnesses.

None of those on the standard list that I referred to wished to come and make a verbal submission, but the Park Lands Association had told me that they wished to make a submission. On that basis, I emailed the committee secretary and asked that they be invited to make a submission and that invitation was not extended to them. As I say, that is beyond disappointing so they were not able to put their point of view. I did my best to make their views represented at the committee.

I sought that the ERD Committee defer the meeting at which the decision was to be made until they could be heard but that was not accepted either. If this is the new level of transparency, as I spoke to the previous Parklands bill presented by the Hon. Mr Simms—in that case that was the Mounted Operations and the Parklands, case study 1, and the Adelaide Aquatic Centre is case study 2 in relation to the Parklands and the lack of transparency that the government is providing. They could have given 20 minutes to the Park Lands Association. It would not have really hurt anyone in terms of just hearing their point of view. Naturally enough, the Park Lands Association is not particularly happy and for good reason.

Their view certainly is that in relation to the Aquatic Centre the state government has broken three promises—these are not my words, these are from a well-known community organisation. Firstly, Labor promised to consult the public over where the new Aquatic Centre should be built and then they simply told them where it was going to be. Secondly, the Labor Party promised to protect Adelaide's tree canopy and yet they will be removing many trees from that site. Thirdly, the Labor Party promised they would keep the existing Aquatic Centre open while a new one was being built and they have gone back on that.

If you do not believe the Adelaide Park Lands Association you can also listen to the views of Michael Keelan, a well-known horticulturalist who, in response to the transport minister talking about how the footprint of the new Aquatic Centre will be smaller, says, 'He's kidding us with this thousand square metres returned to the Parklands.' We have noted that there is a pattern of behaviour from this government in relation to the Parklands. This Aquatic Centre and its broken promises is just one of the case studies that we have.

We have taken a petition to the Aquatic Centre because there are a lot of people who are not aware of what the proposals are, and we have over 1,000 signatures so far. There are a lot of people who are very surprised to learn that there will be closure of some 16 months, which I predict will probably be more than that, in which they will have to find alternative arrangements. People are actually almost chasing us in the Parklands to sign the petition. I think the government needs to stop and listen on this issue.

One of the other things that has taken place is I think in response to our setting up at the Aquatic Centre and taking the petition is that the government has been placing someone in the Aquatic Centre to put their particular version of it, and we have been advised by community users that the government representatives have been telling people that they can blame the residents of Barton Terrace for the relocation because if they had not complained then all of this would have been done. I do not think the government is taking great responsibility in terms of this particular issue. It is very unhelpful to be blaming community members for their broken promises.

Going back to the Park Lands Association, as well, they have something like over 7,000 signatures of people who are very disappointed about this. Unfortunately, the minister keeps saying that the Park Lands Association are opposed to a new Aquatic Centre—which they are not. He is rewriting history as well by saying that the Liberal Party is opposed to the Aquatic Centre—which is also not true. We were prepared to rebuild the Aquatic Centre for $75 million, equal contributions from all levels of government. That has now blown out and there will be a water slide for the cheap sum of $55 million. There will be a delay, and a lot of people are very angry about that.

I note that the chair of the Australian Heritage Council was here quite recently, and he also has concerns. I understand that the Heritage Council is going to be making recommendations to the federal government that the Parklands are under threat from these particular developments and these initiatives of this Malinauskas Labor government. There are a lot of eyes on this. There is a lot of concern about what is taking place. We would like the Labor Party to stop using the Parklands as their preferred way of getting access to cheap land, and therefore we will be supporting the bill.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (21:03): I will be brief in expressing our support for this legislation, just as we did the last time it was introduced. I commend the Hon. Robert Simms and the Greens for their advocacy for the Parklands. SA-Best has also been a strong supporter of the Parklands. We supported this legislation previously but, as my honourable colleague pointed out in the earlier bill that we had tonight, a really tough decision had to be made in relation to the Women's and Children's Hospital.

I believe we made the right decision there for the good of South Australia and future generations. The footprint needed to be on a parcel of land that would have served future generations in this state. Had it been built where it had been proposed by the Marshall government it would have been totally inadequate, and there would have been ongoing debate in the community, and argument and criticism that it would not have been a hospital built for purpose. We are now going to get a hospital that is built for purpose.

It was unfortunate that there had to be some sacrifice of Parklands, but the government has also committed that they would also be spending money to bring back some Parklands to community use. I have no regrets, and neither does my colleague, for that decision that we made in order to get that hospital built. It was a difficult decision. A decision that entails having to demolish heritage listed buildings would be difficult for any leader, and it was good that the Premier actually decided to go down that path.

Furthermore, it was also good that they did an about-turn in the south-eastern corner of the Parklands, where the police propose to set up their barracks for the horses and also other administrative facilities. It was a grab, and an area of Parklands that I think needs to be preserved. The uproar at the time was ample evidence that the community have said, 'Enough is enough. Don't go grabbing more of the Parklands when there are other options available, particularly for that type of facility.' And, as we have seen, there are options that are available. Even from last year, the police realised that it would not go down well with the community.

The Hon. Michelle Lensink has talked about the aquatic centre. Sometimes I have some differing views about the use of the Parklands when it is for community benefit. If time travel were possible, we may well have brought the founding fathers to this day and showed them what has happened on our Parklands. I would think that generally they may well be approving of some of the development that has gone on on the Parklands, but we cannot allow that to manifest and slowly have parts of the Parklands eaten away. In doing that, again I support the honourable member's bill. It is pleasing to see that this time the Liberals are going to support it and we will see where it goes from there.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON (21:07): It falls on me to outline the government's position. In that regard I would say the Parklands are a valuable asset to our state. Our government appreciates the need to protect them and, indeed, so do I. The government sees this bill as far-reaching and unnecessary, and therefore unable to support it. Let me outline why.

This bill seeks to amend the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 to require any amendment to the Planning and Design Code that relates to development in the Adelaide Parklands or any amendment to the Adelaide Parklands zone to be approved by both houses of parliament. I am sure, and I cannot see any other way, that it would not have anything but good intentions to do that. The passage of this bill, however, would have unintended consequences no doubt by adding unnecessary levels of bureaucracy to that process.

Currently, there are approximately 17 varying overlaying codes and/or general development policies applying across the Adelaide Parklands. If passed, this bill would require both houses of parliament to approve any and all changes to these codes in the Adelaide Parklands Act. The changes within the bill would not just apply to the Adelaide Parklands, but also the City Riverbank Zone and any other areas not included in that zone.

Given that the overarching policies around the Parklands are invariably based upon the specific location of each park, there are likely to be numerous changes to such policies over the coming years that could not occur unless both houses of parliament were to agree.

Prohibiting any changes to the Adelaide Park Lands Act without the concurrence of our parliament would adversely affect a government's pursuit of environmental and conservation protections. If the government wishes to declare an area—for instance a State Heritage Area, a State Heritage Place or a Local Heritage Place—it would be impossible to amend the code in a particularly efficient manner.

Worryingly, passage of this bill could also potentially solely put the protection of the Parklands at the behest of the parliament. Any lease or licence granted for a period greater than 10 years, including the rights of renewal, could be subject to the disallowance of parliament, and I note there are many disallowances of parliament.

Additionally, the passage of this bill could potentially be used to compromise the public amenity of the Parklands. If a government so wished it could disband, for instance, the entirety of the Parklands. This bill would allow that to occur. Again, I am very certain it is not intended to do so. This bill may be designed to protect the Parklands but, as I have just outlined, it could also threaten the Parklands.

Furthermore, although the change to the design overlay policy may have a beneficial impact on any development in the Parklands, this could not take effect without the concurrence of parliament. This would also apply to the general development policies, whereby the policy change would not just apply to a specific location, but potentially across the whole state. The needing of parliamentary approval for any change across the state is obviously again, I am sure, unintended, and obviously unequivocally unnecessary, particularly in regional areas.

There is also the possibility—again I think unintended in regard to how this is proposed—if parliament needs to do something in an efficient manner whereby changes must be made, it would require both Houses of Parliament to pass such a thing. So, as we have just had a nine-week long break, what happens when parliament isn't sitting? This issue or any issue in that regard would go unaddressed. That is unacceptable, and currently a minister could act to address such things with the act as it currently stands.

As a result of these, I am sure, seemingly unforeseen consequences this bill would have a detrimental impact on our state's planning policies as we attempt to update them. In fact, the bill could potentially undermine all of our positive and much-needed intended planning reforms. Furthermore, I am sure I do not have to remind some honourable members, but I remind the majority of honourable members, that the majority of Adelaide Parklands is under the care, control and management of the City of Adelaide, with clauses in the Adelaide Park Lands Act containing mechanisms to protect the integrity of the Adelaide Parklands.

These clauses include through the Local Government Act 1999 that the City of Adelaide must ensure its management of the Parklands are consistent with the Adelaide Park Lands Management Strategy, and the City of Adelaide must consult with the Adelaide Park Lands Authority should it wish to make any changes to the Parklands.

It is also possible, should this bill, as is likely, pass through here to the Assembly, that the government will seek to amend clause 3 of the bill, to clarify that the restriction on amendment to the code should only relate to the Adelaide Park Lands, sparing our regions from that form of red tape.

As this bill is likely to have harmful impacts, as I have outlined, on our state's planning policies, and there are also numerous mechanisms in place to protect the Adelaide Parklands as it currently stands, the government sees this bill as far-reaching and unnecessary and, as I outlined at the start, we are unable to support it.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (21:13): I thank all honourable members for their contributions: the Hon. Michelle Lensink, the Hon. Frank Pangallo, and the Hon. Mr Hanson. In responding to the comments made primarily by the government, it is important to consider the genesis of this bill. This is the second time that I have introduced this bill; I did so in the previous parliament, and in fact the catalyst for that was a proposal from the then Liberal government for a redevelopment along the Riverbank, which would have potentially allowed for some commercial development along the Riverbank.

It was possible for the minister to give that the green light, to make a code amendment without approval of the parliament. That had the potential to significantly change the character of the Parklands. As we often see though with the Labor Party, they talked a big game on the issue, but did not do a thing about it when they had an opportunity to support this bill in the parliament at the time. As I often say about the Labor Party when it comes to the Parklands, do not look at what comes out of their mouths, look at what they do with their feet. Look at how they vote and they never vote in favour of enhanced protections for the Parklands. They never take the action that is necessary to protect the Parklands.

This is the party of John Rau; the party that has a terrible track record when it comes to the management of the Adelaide Parklands. We are seeing that tradition continue, unfortunately, under the Malinauskas government. We saw earlier today the passage of a bill that would prevent the Minister for Police from seizing the Parklands for a new police barracks. That has passed this chamber and I hope that the government will support it in the other place, and I hope that this bill will win the support of this chamber also.

I welcome the support of the Liberal opposition and, of course, SA-Best. SA-Best have had a long-term position on this. I recognise that the Liberal Party have reflected on their position and have now changed course. I think there will be a lot of support for the position that the Liberals have now taken in the community, the recognition they now have that there should be additional safeguards when it comes to our Parklands and that they should have a particular status that is protected throughout our planning laws.

My challenge to the Labor Party is: get on board and support this in the other place. There is already a bill that has passed, or two bills now that have passed this chamber. The other relates to state heritage listing of the Parklands. This is potentially going to be a third. Get out of the way and support these bills and demonstrate your commitment to Parklands protection.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Bill taken through committee without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (21:18): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.