Bills

Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Fast Food Restaurants near Schools) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:20): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:21): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I rise to speak on the Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Fast Food Restaurants near Schools) Amendment Bill. The food we eat plays an important role in our health and wellbeing. Good nutrition contributes to quality of life, it helps maintain healthy body weight, it protects against infection, and it reduces the risk of chronic conditions and premature death. Chronic conditions, often linked to a poor diet, are the major cause of ill-health in Australia.

According to Preventive Health SA, more than one in four children—that is 27.5 per cent—in South Australia are overweight or obese. This is in part due to the fact that one-third of our kids' daily energy each day comes from junk food.

The last comprehensive survey of diet in children and adolescents occurred in the National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey, which found that children aged four to 13 years of age fall short of the recommended daily serve of vegetables, meat and alternatives, and dairy products and alternatives. Children aged 14 to 18 years of age fall short of meeting the recommended daily serve for all five food groups, including fruit.

The survey found that just one in 10 Australian children eat enough vegetables—just one in 10. Meanwhile, 38 per cent of children aged four to eight, 40 per cent of children aged nine to 13, and 41 per cent of children aged 14 to 18 are getting their energy from discretionary foods: that is, foods that are not needed to meet nutrition requirements and that generally tend to be high in kilojoules, saturated fat, added sugar, added salt and alcohol.

The Australian Dietary Guidelines recommend that discretionary foods should only be consumed occasionally and in small amounts, and for most people zero to three serves a day is suitable, depending on their age, their height and their level of activity. The intake of sodium is also well above the suggested adequate intake for all age groups. The guidelines also recommend limiting saturated fat intake, and for all children approximately 14 per cent of their energy intake was from saturated fats.

We also know that living with being overweight or with obesity can have a major impact on a person's life. It can affect a person's health and wellbeing, including their mental health, and their social and economic activities throughout life. Obesity increases the risk of preventive chronic diseases, including cardiovascular diseases, type II diabetes, some musculoskeletal conditions, and numerous forms of cancer. As the level of excess weight increases so too does the risk of developing these conditions.

In addition, being overweight can hamper the ability to control or manage chronic health problems. Dietary behaviours tend to track into adulthood, so children who are exposed to these food environments are more likely to develop unhealthy eating patterns.

There is, of course, a financial incentive for addressing obesity in both adults and children. In 2018, obesity cost the Australian economy an estimated $11.8 billion. This included $5.4 billion in direct costs including health care, and $6.4 billion in indirect costs including lost productivity such as absenteeism, unemployment and early retirement. If no action is taken to reduce obesity, the cost is estimated to increase to $87.7 billion by 2032. This is what this bill is seeking to address.

The bill that I am introducing today prohibits junk food businesses from being established within 400 metres of schools and it lists a series of prescribed fast-food restaurants that would be included within the remit of this legislation. We know that, and certainly I have done some consultation with a number of schools around this, fast-food restaurants in close proximity to schools can create lots of adverse outcomes for the school community.

There is obviously the impact on health and wellbeing, and I have talked a little bit about how serious childhood obesity is and why we want to encourage healthy eating patterns among children because we take those patterns with us into adulthood, but also I have heard that having fast-food restaurants in close proximity to schools can contribute to inappropriate behaviour within the school environment, with kids consuming high-fat, high-sugar food potentially in their lunch break, coming into the classroom and that might make them more likely to act up, and also means they are going to be less attentive within the school environment. So this bill is seeking to tackle that.

A study conducted by a research team from Columbia, Berkley and the London School of Economics and Political Science linked obesity levels in school children to the proximity of fast-food restaurants to schools. It found that siting a fast-food outlet right next to a school produced a 5.2 per cent increase in obesity among students. Furthermore, a UniSA study published in the Public Health Nutrition journal found that schools in lower socioeconomic areas are almost 10 times more likely to have fast-food outlets built nearby than schools that are in higher socioeconomic areas.

There are a number of schools within our state that are located within 1.5 kilometres of fast-food outlets, but this bill targets those fast-food businesses that pop up within 400 metres of a school. Examples across the state include Christies Beach High School, which is 150 metres from a Hungry Jacks; Salisbury Primary School, which is 150 metres from Hungry Jacks and 200 metres from McDonald's; Ingle Farm Primary School, which is 300 metres from Hungry Jacks; and Playford International College, which is 300 metres from both KFC and Hungry Jacks.

Current zoning in Adelaide makes it almost impossible to stop fast-food restaurants from opening close to schools. Despite that limitation within our planning regime, a number of local councils have been urging the state government to act. Charles Sturt council has previously lobbied the state government to ban fast-food outlets near schools, and Marion council has previously targeted junk food advertising near schools in their area.

It is worth noting that this is also a hot button issue in many communities around the state. In 2021, the Peregrine Corporation lodged a development application with the Adelaide Hills Council to construct a 24-hour On the Run petrol station, complete with a fast-food restaurant, just 400 metres away from Heathfield High School. The council's assessment panel rejected the application in August 2023, but an appeal has been lodged by the corporation with the Environment, Resources and Development Court, where I understand the matter still sits.

Heathfield residents are very much opposed to this development and have organised and mobilised to defeat this proposal. They are not concerned about the idea of having a petrol station in their community, and my bill makes it clear that these petrol stations can still remain, their concern is around businesses that are selling junk food to their kids.

In Strathalbyn, residents are also up in arms and vehemently opposing a proposed fast-food development on their East Terrace, which is just 300 metres away from not one but three schools: Tyndale Christian School, Eastern Fleurieu R-12 School and Eastern Fleurieu R-12 School 7-12 campus. Again, it is a live issue in a number of communities, and again I know that they are petitioning the planning minister for action, but there is nothing within our current planning laws to say that it is inappropriate to have fast-food restaurants in such close proximity to schools.

The bill does not ban all food near schools. It is important to highlight that for this council. It also makes it clear that the prohibition only applies when the dominant purpose of a business or a building is the selling of fast food or highly processed food. Therefore that would exclude food courts, for instance, that might be part of a broader shopping centre.

The bill amends the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 to prohibit the following businesses from opening branches within 400 metres of an existing school. Businesses that are prescribed in the legislation include AMPM, Ampol Foodary, Carl's Jr, Coles Express, Domino's Pizza, Hungry Jack's, KFC, Krispy Kreme, McDonald's—

An honourable member: You're making me hungry.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: And me thirsty—Nando's, Oporto, OTR, Pizza Hut, Quickstop, Red Rooster, Wendy's Milk Bar and X Convenience but also, quite critically, any other food business added by the minister by regulation. So I have prescribed some businesses we think are of particular concern on the basis that children might also be exposed to significant advertising by these businesses on their way to and from school, but if the minister becomes aware of another business that they consider appropriate for inclusion, the bill gives them the mechanism to be able to do that.

It is important to note that the bill does not prevent the operation of a roadside service station within 400 metres of a school provided that the roadside service station does not sell food, including beverages, for consumption on or off the premises. The bill will also prevent any of the aforementioned businesses from renewing a lease should the premises be located within 400 metres of an existing school. Once the lease expires, under this bill the business would not be able to renew its lease. The maximum penalty for breaching this rule is $20,000.

Clause 135C in the bill states that development authorisation must not be granted for a proposed development involving a change in the use of land within 400 metres of a school to a use primarily for the purposes of a fast-food restaurant. As I indicated earlier, this clause would still allow for the approval of applications for development of new complexes within 400 metres of a school where the primary purpose is not to provide fast food. An example of this is a shopping centre whose primary purpose is retail but might contain some food offerings in a food court.

I think this is an important point to illustrate, because when I announced plans to move down this path late last year the planning minister came out and opposed the bill, and he did so on the basis that it would shut down food courts. As I have indicated, that is certainly not going to be the cause of this bill.

Bans on fast-food restaurants and takeaways near existing schools have been successfully introduced throughout England and Wales. By 2017, 35 of the 325 councils in England had adopted management zones designed to curb proliferation of new takeaways around schools. These include cities like Leeds, Bristol, Newcastle and the City of London.

The sky has not fallen down in those places, and, indeed, this is a reform that I think will be welcomed by many parents. I know today that members of parliament have had a presentation on some of the risks associated with sugar, in particular for young people, and I would encourage them to consider this bill within that context.

Evidence from the United Kingdom demonstrates that these changes have resulted in a decrease in the number of planning applications received and an increase in the percentage that were rejected from fast-food restaurants. The City of Manchester implemented similar restrictions on hot food takeaways near schools, which limited the proliferation of fast-food outlets in areas to no more than 10 per cent of all non-residential ground floor frontages in district and local centres. This is something that is getting results overseas. If this legislation were supported, South Australia would become the first place in the country to place this kind of prohibition on fast-food restaurants by schools.

I know the Malinauskas government is passionate about promoting healthy communities. I know that the Premier in particular has a passion for sport and promoting healthy and active lifestyles. I would expect that the government will embrace this reform as something that will improve broader community health and wellbeing and something that would be welcomed by many parents. I commend the bill and indicate that I plan to bring it to a vote at some stage, so I encourage members to engage with the proposal in coming months.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.