HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-05-15 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CHARACTER PRESERVATION (BAROSSA VALLEY) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 5 April 2012.)

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (11:02): I rise to speak on the Character Preservation (Barossa Valley) Bill, which is before the house. There is a bill following, which is to do exactly the same measure in relation to the McLaren Vale district, called the Character Preservation (McLaren Vale) Bill, and some of the comments I will make in relation to this bill apply to the other bill as well.

Madam Speaker, you might ask how we have got to this stage of bringing these bills before the house. I think the general community's belief is that the reason the government is here with these two bills is due to the mishandling of the rezoning and the development issues in the Mount Barker region and the community outcry that has occurred following the planning decisions of the Mount Barker district. As a result of that, the government has gone down the path of producing this bill, which has to do with the character preservation of the Barossa Valley.

The impact of the bill is essentially to allow no residential subdivision in areas outside of townships in the Barossa Valley district. The district is defined in the bill as being 'the Barossa Valley district by the plan deposited in the General Registry Office at Adelaide and numbered GP4 of 2012...but does not include the areas marked as townships'. So, what we are talking about is the non-township areas of the Barossa Valley region generally.

The community are raising the question: what problem is the government trying to solve in the Barossa Valley? The government has done its 30-year plan and it has set aside the areas that it sees as the land that is going to be available for future residential development. That land is essentially outside of the land that is proposed to be an area of no development, no new titles or no subdivision under this bill. They have already made their announcement that for the next 30 years land outside of this area will be what is subdivided and land inside this area will not be subdivided—and the minister nods.

The community are then saying, 'Well, you have already made that decision. Why then do you need another level of bureaucracy and another level of planning over the top of what already exists?' That becomes the fundamental question in relation to this particular bill and, indeed, the next bill. We are now aware that the Barossa Council has another two weeks to come back to the government with comments on this bill. Why the lower house is being asked to decide on something when the council which it impacts on has just been given an extra two weeks to come back with comments is a matter of some interest. We would suggest to the government that there might be some value in them, at the end of the second reading, simply adjourning this off until we get the Barossa Valley council's comments back.

The reality is that no-one anywhere is suggesting that the Barossa Valley should be subdivided, or that the Willunga Basin should be subdivided. No-one in this house is going to argue for that subdivision. Everyone will argue, quite rightly, that the character of those areas needs to be preserved, and the issue is about what method you use, ultimately, to preserve them.

We need to recognise, of course, that the reason the character is there to be preserved is that it has been preserved over the whole history of the state. The processes that have been in place have worked up until this point to preserve the character, otherwise the character would not be there to be preserved. Indeed, the local councils argue that case in their submissions to the government. They argue the case that local governments are in a good position to manage the development process.

If the government proceeds with pushing through all stages of this legislation in the lower house this week, the opposition will be reserving its position until we get the final submissions from the various councils so that we can properly consider exactly how the councils see this particular bill. The reality is that the councils, through their planning processes, have always sought to get the balance right in their district, as the local representatives, and no-one here is going to argue for outright subdivision or residential development within those areas. We respect and want to listen to what the local councils have to say in relation to these pieces of legislation.

We are aware that there was a meeting with the minister on 11 May. So, just in recent days there was a meeting with the minister and we are aware now that the minister has allowed for a brief task force approach over the next two weeks to scope issues in relation to the bill and its intent. We are talking about the Barossa Valley bill here and the minister has had a meeting with the Barossa Valley council on 11 May, where he agreed to another two weeks for the council to consider the issues, yet, at the same time, he wants the lower house to vote through the bill, not knowing what the council's final issues really are once the council gets its opportunity to go through the detail in its final form with its elected members.

Why the government would want to put this through the house this week, when it does not know the Barossa Valley council's final position and we do not know the Barossa Valley council's final position is a mystery to the opposition. The government will get no criticism from the opposition if it seeks to adjourn it at the end of the second reading so that we can hear the Barossa Valley's viewpoint. That is ultimately a matter for the minister.

There are some councils in the Barossa district generally, or those that have land in the Barossa district that is covered by this legislation, that have made their positions clear. I refer to the Light Regional Council. Correspondence was sent to various members of parliament regarding the Light Regional Council's position, and the council says this:

I note that the [Light Regional Council] became aware of the tabling of the Character Preservation (Barossa Valley) Bill 2012 and the Character Preservation (McLaren Vale) Bill 2012 in Parliament on 5 April 2012. Further, Council noted the concurrent termination of the 'Barossa Valley and McLaren Vale Protection Districts' Development Plan Amendment and its replacement with the 'Barossa Valley and McLaren Vale—Revised—Protection Districts' Development Plan Amendment (the DPA) for public consultation by the Deputy Premier and Minister for Planning, the Hon. John Rau, (the Minister), as announced in the GovernmentGazette on 5 April.

The public consultation arrangements regarding the amended Character Preservation (Barossa Valley) Bill 2012 have not been publicised to Council's knowledge—

so, the council was not aware of the public consultation process—

however it has become aware via the Hansard from 5 April...that the Minister provided members of the House with the opportunity to consult with their constituents by letting Bills 'lay on the table' for...four weeks to allow public comment. Further, the Council has now been advised that revised Bills are listed for further consideration [of the house]...this morning—

which was 2 May, when this was written. It continues:

I advise that the Light Regional Council's Strategy and Projects Committee considered the proposed 2012 Bills at its meeting held on 1 May and as a consequence to this meeting, the Committee has asked Council staff to advise you of the following key matters so you may be aware of its preliminary position before the debate scheduled in the House of Assembly, this morning.

In this respect, the council:

1. Notes that it remains supportive of the notion of preserving the character of the Barossa Valley and McLaren Vale;

Before everyone runs off thinking that means they support the bill, you have to read very carefully what they have actually said. They say they 'remain supportive of the notion of preserving the character of the Barossa Valley and McLaren Vale'. They do not actually say that this is necessarily the best mechanism to do that. They just simply at that point are saying that they agree with the broad principle. Then they say that the council:

2. Is concerned that no formal consultation process has been publicised for the revised Character Preservation (Barossa Valley) Bill 2012 or the Character Preservation (McLaren Vale) Bill 2012;

3. Requests clarification of its opportunity to be involved in defining the 'special character' of the Character Preservation District area (as discussed with the Deputy Premier and the Minister for Planning, the Hon. John Rau on 15 November 2011)—

So, as of 2 May they still have not had a sufficient response to a problem raised in November 2011.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: They should read the bill, says the minister. I will forward that on to them so they know what they should do. Here they say that they just wanted an opportunity to be involved in defining the 'special character', since it is, after all, their land we are legislating about. Point 3 continues:

...(as discussed with the Deputy Premier and the Minister for Planning, the Hon. John Rau on 15 November 2011) as the proposed use of the Planning Strategy via the Development Act, 1993 for this consequently makes it a State Government function; which would limit the opportunity of the effect of councils to have an input into this key matter;

What they are raising is the role of the local council, who are their local representatives and who have managed the planning process for what must be 100 years, and what process and what opportunity there is for local government to be involved. It continues:

4. Request clarification of responsibility for progressing any subsequent DPA(s)...whether these will be further Ministerial DPA(s) or the responsibility of each respective council and the relative time frames envisaged;

5. Considers that 'Major Project' provisions should also be excluded from developments or projects in the townships of the district [as distinct from just the district, which excludes townships];

6. Remains concerned that revised bills retain the suggestion of very broad powers via future unspecified regulations. Further, while the responsibilities for administering these regulations are not clear the inference of retrospective application (...that those undertaking particular 'existing' activities may be required to comply with 'new' requirements or conditions, could be fined (up to $10K) for noncompliance or be required to cease such activities (whatever these may be) altogether) remains a concern;

7. Is concerned that the bill currently only obliges the Minister for Planning to consult with the minister responsible for the administration of the character preservation law with respect to DPAs affecting the area contained within the character preservation district (including townships). It is considered that the state should also be obliged to consult with the affected council(s) with respect to any DPAs within their areas in this context;

It is hard to argue that the local council should not be consulted about a DPA that impacts on its district, but such is the minister's legislation.

8. Is concerned that proposed changes to section 34 of the Development Act 1993 are too broad, and similar intent to the 'Major Project' powers (which would no longer apply to the Character Preservation Districts) and are not supported;

9. Remains concerned that all other authorities (responsible for the administration of any act) retain the opportunity to request 'specified information' (undefined as yet) from government authorities (including councils) which could translate into potential resource implications for the council. Further, it is council's view that administrative responsibilities prescribed through the bills (particularly those identified within sections 5(2) and 9(1) in each bill) are too broad and should not extend beyond the Development Act 1993;

10. [The council] Remains concerned that the adoption of the legislation as proposed (including the revised Character Preservation District mapping for the Barossa Valley) will prelude the correction of zoning anomalies on the western periphery of Nuriootpa (as previously noted and consideration requested of by Light Regional Council in its earlier submissions); and

11. Is of the strong view that the existing legislative framework comprising the Development Act, Planning Strategy & Development Plans is sufficiently robust to provide the additional protection outcomes desired by the state government without the need for additional legislation.

Point 11 goes to the issue that I made in relation to point 1, and indeed I think the general view of the house, that is, when someone says that they want to preserve the character of the Barossa Valley and the McLaren Vale districts, the answer to that is yes—it is the vehicle as to how you get there. The Light Regional Council says, yes, it wants to preserve the character but it is of the strong view that the existing legislative framework comprising the Development Act and planning strategy, etc., is sufficiently robust to provide that protection. That is the view of Light Regional Council.

Then there is the Adelaide Hills Council, which, by the reading of this submission, has some land north of its council area that is captured in the Barossa Valley district zone. This email to the opposition leader, dated 14 May (so this is recent), states:

Adelaide Hills Council (AHC) has made a submission on the concept of the Protection Districts, two submissions on the related Development Plan Amendments (DPAs), and now two submissions on the proposed legislation establish Character Preservation Areas. In each of these submissions, Adelaide Hills Council has requested:

it be noted that the proposed Protection District concept does not directly address encroachment of urban development into rural areas, as intended;

that the Protection District areas within the AHC be withdrawn from the proposed Protection Districts, on the basis that these land areas are not a meaningful part of either the Barossa or McLaren Vale [district];

that the Protection District concept will provide no additional benefit to the functioning or character of the areas affected;

that the affected areas are already part of the Hills Face or Watershed Zones, which are some of the most rigorous planning restrictions in the country; and

that Council has plans (DPAs) in hand to better manage the lands in question.

This local council thinks its DPAs are going to better manage the land in question. The email further stated:

The revised DPA has removed part of AHC in the McLaren Vale Protection District. Council strongly requests that land near Kersbrook also be removed from the Barossa Protection District.

Adelaide Hills Council has no desire to be part of the Protection Districts as described by the Character Bills 2012 or the Revised DPA.

The council has made a lengthy submission to the minister. I will not read all the submission, but I will touch on some of the key points. Council would like the following comments relating to the proposed bill to be considered by the parliament when deliberating on the matter. So in fairness to the council, I will raise these points:

1. The intent of the combined bills and DPA package is to 'provide protection from inappropriate urban development' in the selected areas, yet this package only does so second hand by attempting to preserve, as yet, unspecified elements of those areas' character. A direct prohibition on various types of suburban development and rural living development, and their direct impacts, would achieve the stated intention in a more effective way than attempting to maintain a current inconsistent character which is expected to change and evolve over time.

2. The areas of the Mid Murray council previously included in the Protection District have now been excluded on the basis that they are 'not obviously related to the character of the Barossa Valley or intrinsic to its fabric'. The area of the Adelaide Hills Council north of Kersbrook is similarly 'not obviously related to the character of the Barossa Valley or intrinsic to its fabric'. Adelaide Hills Council has previously indicated that this area is not a part of the Barossa Valley as it has a fundamentally different character, and again requests that this area also be excluded from the Barossa Valley Protection District.

3. Land division is currently non-complying in the area north of Kersbrook which is in the Watershed (Primary Production) Zone. As a result, the Bills' planned provisions restricting residential land division provide no additional protection in that area.

I am assuming the council's argument is that if it provides no additional protection, why have another layer of bureaucracy over it; that becomes, I think, the council's argument. It continues:

4. The development of a dwelling on each of the 64 existing undeveloped allotments in the area north of Kersbrook will not constitute urban development, and are not likely to fundamentally change, or provide incremental erosion of the character of this area.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: They are not prohibited.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The minister says that they are not prohibited, but I think I am right in saying they have become noncomplying.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: They are not prohibited.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: No, but they have become noncomplying and so people have lost their right to build as such.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: They never had a right to build.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The minister says that they never had a right to build, but they are valued on the fact they can have a residential home on them.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: They can't now; they are noncomplying. It is a different valuation process. Point 4 continues:

Existing provisions in the Council's Development Plan are more than sufficient to control and guide individual residential developments within the Watershed, and maintain its distinctively non-Barossan character—

Non-Barossan? That's an interesting set of words—

Residential developments comprising more than a single dwelling are also non-complying in the Watershed. During the history of Adelaide Hills Council, no applications have been approved which propose either a residential land division or the division of a rural allotment to accommodate more than one dwelling.

The point they are making is that, under this section of the Adelaide Hills Council, their planning rules already deal with the issue, so why another level of bureaucracy over the top? It further states:

5. Council is concerned that the amendment of the Planning Strategy to give effect to this Bill will require Council to undertake another Strategic Directions Review according to the requirements of Section 30 of the Development Act. If no Section 30 review is to be required, then details of the proposed 'review of relevant Development Plans' should be provided.

6. Part 11 of both Bills provides for the making of regulations 'without limitation'. However, your statement to Parliament on 5 April 2012 indicates that this regulating making power is limited and reflects the standard regulation-making powers contained in most legislation. This inconsistency should be resolved through close consultation with affected Councils in the drafting of the Regulations with the resolution clearly stated in a final draft of the Bills.

7. While the new Bills no longer contain 'objectives', the lack of an over-arching concept to guide development assessment remains. The intent of the Bills is to protect the areas from urban development, but the action addresses currently undefined character elements. There is no explained concept to provide a linkage between the intent and the action. Without such a binding and overarching concept, the determination of development applications or the resolution of policy issues will have no objective basis for analysis or assessment.

8. 'Once operative, this legislation will set out what is desirable and undesirable in the Barossa Valley. Neither the State Government nor any of the councils will be able to change the rules, or allow incremental erosion of the landscape for urban development, without the approval of the parliament.' The current draft of the legislation does not 'set out what is desirable or undesirable' in either the Barossa Valley or McLaren Vale. The legislation provides a number of general criteria which will, in time, guide the creation of unspecified amendments to the Planning Strategy and the unspecified content of new regulations. This proposed legislation creates a framework for eventual action but does not 'set out what is desirable and undesirable' in either area.

Council is appreciative that the Minister has excluded the Upper Sturt area of the McLaren Vale Protection District, on the basis that this area, amongst others, is not related closely enough to the character of McLaren Vale. Council requests that its area north of Kersbrook be removed from the Barossa Valley Protection District on the same basis.

I should say that my family, through my father and uncles (from memory), have some land at Upper Sturt, but I made no submissions to this particular bill in relation to that matter, to the council or the government.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I didn't make any submissions.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: The council made submissions.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The council made submissions, I think; yes, that is right. The points for parliamentary consideration:

In reviewing this legislation, Council has been aware of a number of factors that do not seem to have been considered in preparing the legislation and associated DPA. Accordingly, Council suggests that the Parliament may benefit from considering the following points in its review of the proposed legislation, in order to address Council's concerns:

(a) The Adelaide Hills Council is addressing the specific and complex needs of its rural areas in a series of linked rural DPAs. The current Primary Production Lands DPA will implement the findings of PIRSA's Areas of Primary Production Significance project, and provide a land capability basis for developing policy and policy areas suited to protect such areas of primary production significance and the variety of rural activities which exist in this area. This work will be further developed in the Natural Environments and Rural Policy DPAs to come.

In a separate response to the DPA, Council requests that the area within Adelaide Hills Council and north of Kersbrook be removed from the Barossa Valley Protection District, as separating this area from Council's well-researched and scientifically-supported DPA process will have no beneficial effect on the area or the region.

(b) The DPA and the Bills do not appear to recognise, or provide for the management of, the complexity arising from competition between major land use types;

(c) Establishing protection districts to 'protect' the agricultural character of these areas is an obvious application for land capability planning, such as the Areas of Primary Production Significance project, recently completed by PIRSA. Any regulations should encourage the development of such scientifically based planning policy and land management for implementation through the Development Act and specific quantitatively-based regulations;

(d) This proposed legislation provides no basis for addressing issues or changes arising from unanticipated farming or other innovations, such as 'environmental covers'—the netting structures which protect and improve the quality of orchard produce; and

(e) This proposal has almost no capacity for responding to changing community and landscape values over time as it will require Parliamentary approval to amend the legislation. Although Parliamentary scrutiny is considered appropriate for stopping any proposed changes to the protection districts, it is not a practical way to manage changing community needs and values over time. A five yearly review by Parliament does not guarantee an adequate response timeframe for such changes, especially where the review is not fundamental to the political parties at the time.

(f) The area north of Kersbrook, which is included in the Barossa Valley Protection District, is located within the Watershed (Primary Production) Zone. This Zone has some of the most restrictive development policies in the State in order to preserve water runoff quality, and will not be considered for any intensive or urban development while the land is used for water harvesting. It is considered that adding the Protection District layer to existing and proposed DPA controls will have no beneficial effect on this land's use.

(g) The area north of Kersbrook seems to have been included in the Protection District legislation on the basis that it is part of the Gawler River Catchment. It is considered that this selection criterion is not relevant, as this area is not part of the Greater Barossa Valley, as it has a different character, landform, and agricultural production pattern. It is part of a Torrens Valley character area, and has no functional link to the Barossa Valley. The Council boundary is therefore considered to be a more appropriate border for the proposed Protection District, as that area around Williamstown can be argued to be a functional part of the Barossa. Retaining this Kersbrook area within the Protection District dilutes the cultural and integrity basis for supporting the character preservation and Protection District concept.

(h) The 'identity of the district' is defined by its constantly changing land-uses, design and architectural patterns, with its forms defined by the changing nature and values. Adding an additional barrier to this process of change, simply to stop specific land uses that are, in any case, contrary to existing strong policies, will have no beneficial effect and is likely to stifle or break up the existing agricultural character and the very culture slated for protection.

(i) Despite the Protection District concept being promoted as a means to restrict the encroachment of urban forms of development into Country areas, it is considered that neither the Bills not the DPA address this matter directly.

It is pretty clear from the Adelaide Hills Council's submissions that they are yet to be convinced in regard to this particular policy.

The Light Regional Council does not support it, the Adelaide Hills regional council does not support it and the Barossa Council, which we are arguing about at the moment, has been given another two weeks. They have so many concerns that the minister met with them on the 11th and they have been given another two weeks to go away and bring their concerns back to government.

Why we are debating this bill in the lower house today when the main council—the Barossa Council—still has concerns and has not put its final submission to government is a bit mystifying, I must say, to the opposition. I think it devalues the debate because I would love to be able to stand up and contribute on behalf of the Barossa Valley council the concerns of their local ratepayers but I cannot do that today.

I am sure some of the local members from that area would get a general feel from the community and might make some comment, but the formal position of the council has not yet been established, so it is just unfortunate that we are here today debating this. Again I say to the government that, if they want to adjourn it at the end of the second reading and put it off for two weeks to give the Barossa Valley council a chance to come back in, they will get no criticism from us. I do not think two weeks in the time frame is going to make a lot of difference to the outcome, ultimately, that the government seeks.

The broader issue is: why is the government here with this bill and, indeed, the next bill? Why it is really here is that the government has copped so much flak over the Mount Barker rezoning and development that it has now sought to try to quell public anger by saying, 'Look, we'll have this new process.' However, the reality is that the Mount Barker redevelopment was not a creation of the local council; it was not the creation of the local ratepayer. The Mount Barker redevelopment was a creation of this government.

It was this government that trod all over Mount Barker through its process—a ministerial DPA, if my memory serves me right. The government came in and said, 'We know better. We will bring in a ministerial DPA and we will expand significantly the Mount Barker area and a lot of that will go to housing.' Having done that, and having had screams of protest from the Mount Barker/Hills community in general, they are now saying, 'Well, look, we'd better come up with this different process.'

The councils have made it clear in their submissions that if the government had stayed out of Mount Barker and not done a ministerial DPA, the Mount Barker redevelopment would not have been happening to the level that it is. It would have been simply done in accordance with the council's planning rules—you know, those local people who are elected as local councillors who come up with council-based planning decisions and planning policies. It would have been done to those rules. Right up until that point the land was protected and being used for its agricultural purpose. It is only when this government intervened and brought in its ministerial DPA and got all the flak that the process seemed to go against the government, causing it to rethink the matter.

So, what the government is really trying to say is that now it has stuffed up and we have this outcome in Mount Barker, we now need some other process. What do the councils say? They say that that is not quite true. The government should simply stay out of the way; councils are quite good at making planning decisions to preserve and enhance their local district as they wish it to be.

The reason we still have vineyards down in the Willunga/McLaren Vale area and the Barossa Valley, and indeed throughout the Adelaide Hills, is that councils have had planning policies that have allowed them to remain there and be protected over many years. The Magarey family pear orchard at Coromandel Valley has been in my electorate for many generations. It has been there because, over generations, the council has had appropriate planning processes in place. The reality is—as some of the councils' submissions point out—that the types of agriculture and the types of primary production will vary over the years.

I can take you to places in the Adelaide Hills where I used to work (in orchards) in my teenage years. The orchards are no longer there. I went to dairies during my school holidays. The EPA and other regulations have forced dairies out of some areas of the Adelaide Hills. They are no longer there. So primary production and agricultural activity can actually change over the years.

If you want an example of how regulations can make life difficult, go and ask John McGough at Upper Sturt. He, for his sins, is in the Mitcham council area and, because he is in the Hills Face Zone, if he wants to go from apples to pears, or change crops, he has to get council approval. He has to go through the process of getting approval, and the council will decide whether he can change. That is the reality of it. The advisers can shake their heads, but I have been down that path; that is the reality. Legislation can quite often have unintended consequences.

As I understand it, a letter from the Barossa Council was sent to the minister on 3 May. The council had a meeting on 11 May, so this letter predates the meeting but still sets out some of the Barossa Valley council's concerns in relation to this bill:

The council's concerns relate primarily to the 2012 bill's express intention to reduce the council's decision-making powers under the Development Act—

So, this is another example of a council saying, 'You are stripping the local people of their say'—

...especially:

the increased ability of the minister administering the Development Act...to undertake development plan amendments in respect of the council's development plan which relate to the 'special character' of the Barossa District, with no need to consult with the council;

So having gone through a ministerial DPA with Mount Barker, they are now going to have ministerial DPAs over the Barossa Valley district and, according to this, not even consult the local council about that ministerial DPA. You can understand why councils might have some concerns. The council also raised concerns about:

restrictions on the ability of the council to act as the 'relevant authority' in respect of development applications made under the Development Act in its area.

In particular, the 2012 bill and related amendments to the Development Act in the 2012 McLaren Vale bill—

So the Barossa and McLaren Vale bills together—

do not address the following concerns of council, which were expressed in respect of the previous bills—

So, even though they have raised it previously, these concerns have not been dealt with—

the fact that the Council's Development Plan may be amended by the Minister to achieve the objectives of a character preservation law (i.e. the 2012 Bill if the bill passes into law) without prior consultation with the Council;

the potential for the Minister administering the Development Act to appoint the Development Assessment Commission as the relevant authority for the developments which may, in the opinion of the Minister, administering a character preservation law, have a 'significant impact on an aspect' of the district or a township;

the fact that developments within townships may still be designated 'Major Project Status' under section 46 of the Development Act;

that the 2012 Bill still proposes to designate the DAC as the relevant authority in respect of land divisions in the district;

the 2012 Bill still contains onerous powers which allow any person or body involved in the administration of any Act to request significant amounts of information relevant to the district;

the 2012 Bill still contains broad regulation-making powers which purport to allow the Governor to make regulations prohibiting acts and activities of development within the district.

Further, the 2012 Bills introduce a new form of control over the Council's Development Plan, which the Council is opposed to, in that:

the Minister will, if the 2012 Bill passes into law, be obliged to, on a unilateral basis without any requirement for consultation with the Council, amend the Planning Strategy to reflect the 'special character' of the district (which term is not defined in the 2012 Bills) within 6 months of the 2012 Bill becoming law; and

within 6 months of the amendments to the Planning Strategy taking place, the Minister is obliged to review the Council's Development Plan and, if required, undertake a Ministerial DPA, again, with any requirement for consultation with the Council, to ensure that the Council's Development Plan is consistent with the planning strategy.

Lastly, the Act will be amended to allow the Development Plans to refer to or incorporate statutory provisions, meaning that the Council's Development Plan may be amended by way of the Ministerial DPA (again, without any requirement for consultation with the Council) so that any provisions of the Development Plan which are inconsistent with the 2012 Bill are read down to the extent of any inconsistency.

This is interesting here, where the council then goes on to say:

The controls are not necessary

It is Council's view that the above controls are not necessary to protect the unique qualities and values of the Barossa District. The Council submits this objective could be better and more effectively achieved through adopting a collaborative approach in undertaking specific Development Plan Amendments for each particular area within the Barossa District.

Regarding need for consultation with the council, it then outlines a case as to why the council should be consulted. They then emphasise the point:

The Bills do not prevent inappropriate, high-density development from occurring within townships.

The way I understand the Barossa Council's submission, back on 3 May at least, is that the bills do not address what can happen within the townships proper, so the major project status, for instance, can still be used within the township proper, not outside the townships proper. So, I am assuming that means that they are concerned about a five-storey hotel or something being approved under a major project status and, while the vineyards may retain their character, the township, in actual fact, may not.

The opposition is a bit surprised that we have been asked to conclude a debate, and debate this issue, given that the Barossa Council itself has not formally signed off on its final submission. It is indicative that they certainly had some problems back on 3 May and there was a meeting on 11 May. What compromises, if any, were made on 11 May, we are unsure. I understand it has to go back to council and that council needs to make a formal decision and then feed that into the process, so we will have to look at that once that decision is made.

They are some of the issues raised by the three councils in relation to this particular bill. I have some comments from the Onkaparinga council regarding McLaren Vale, which is the next bill, and I will make those during that particular debate.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:45): I rise as the member for the Barossa Valley, the member for Schubert. I also note the presence of the member for Mawson, who represents McLaren Vale, and I understand we have a different point of view but probably the same intent. In May 2011, a year ago, the Minister for Planning released a discussion paper regarding his proposal to introduce legislation to protect the Barossa Valley and McLaren Vale regions.

The original intent, as described in the discussion paper, was to protect the regions from urban encroachment and sprawl and large-scale industry. Three local Barossa identities who have been previously named twice by the minister in Hansard, so I think I can—Jan Angas, Maggie Beer and Margaret Lehmann—have been pushing for this legislation. These identities, some would call them luminaries, got the minister's ear and commenced this process with no consultation with the affected councils until the discussion paper was released. I understand the member for Mawson was also involved in that, but I was not named in the minister's list with some reason.

On 28 September 2011, the minister released a draft bill, the Character Preservation (Barossa Valley) Bill 2011, and declared an interim Development Plan Amendment (DPA), effectively putting a freeze on all developments in the region by making virtually all proposals—and there is some dispute about this—from farm sheds on farming land, expansion of industry within an existing industrial site and shops within a main street shopping precinct non-complying. Although non-complying does not mean prohibited, the process is much longer and much more expensive than a complying or merit-based development application. Naturally, people were not submitting applications and this impacted hugely upon the local economy.

Feedback and a multitude of complaints and concerns resulted from the first draft bill and interim DPA. The Minister for Planning admitted that the DPA had resulted in unintended consequences. He subsequently released a revised bill, the Character Preservation (Barossa Valley) Bill 2012, which is what we are here debating today. He declared a revised interim DPA on Thursday 5 April 2012.

While I support the principle to protect the Barossa Valley district very strongly, particularly from urban sprawl and developers—and everybody does—the Character Preservation (Barossa Valley) Bill 2012, although an improvement on the first draft, does not reflect the original discussion paper and subsequent feedback from the community and stakeholder consultation. It still does not address urban sprawl and inappropriate large-scale industry. The bill affects 95 per cent of the Barossa Council area; the other 5 per cent approximated balance comprises the state government's own 30-year plan growth areas; 10 per cent of Light Regional Council and a small portion of Adelaide Hills Council.

The minister stated in his second reading that the feedback received during consultation on the 2011 bill highlighted and confirmed the government's view that the protection of the Barossa Valley from urban sprawl from townships or creeping suburbia is a priority for the community. I do not think anybody can argue against protecting the valley from urban sprawl and encroachment, but the interesting point is that the government itself creates the threat with its planned urban land 2038 boundary and growth areas via the planning strategy.

The draft plan of the 30-year plan included a projected target of approximately 100,000 people in the Barossa region. Where does this sit with this bill and all this rhetoric? That is how we read it and that is how everybody else has read it. Pick it up and re-read it, whether they have changed it. Effectively, what the government is trying to do with this bill is protect itself from itself. The urban sprawl that has been allowed to take place in Mount Barker was not approved by council, as mentioned by the shadow minister. It was forced upon them by this Labor government. They bulldozed and insisted upon a plan that both the local council and the community were against.

The state government expects the public to believe that it will be protecting our regions from urban sprawl and large-scale industry, but Mount Barker is evidence of how the government has allowed the opposite to occur in the Adelaide Hills. I understand that the minister admitted that mistake, and I say all power to him for admitting it, but please do not let it happen again here. The measure proposed in this bill seeks to grant planning powers and authority to the minister and the Development Assessment Commission (DAC) which will reduce councils' powers to assess development applications and undertake Development Plan Amendments (DPAs) within their jurisdiction.

I commend the council in the proposed Barossa district protection area on doing a good job in assessing planning applications and development proposals in its area. I have been working with them for nearly 20 years, and my own personal experience tells me that the Barossa Council in particular has a very careful and consistent policy. I personally wanted to buy some land or some block houses and create hammerheads on them. Down by the river there were large blocks and I saw that this land was a bit useless and I thought a great idea would be to buy this land and make hammerheads. No way—I did not even attempt to change their minds.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: You're the sort of person who tries to buy—

Mr VENNING: No way—exactly right. If I cannot convince them nobody was going to. Irrespective it was not going to happen and it did not.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Mr VENNING: I know firsthand—

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Come and sit over here.

Mr VENNING: —they have strong rules in place and nobody but nobody was going to break the rules, and I respected that very much—and I still do. This bill demonstrates a lack of faith the state government has in councils to make effective and appropriate planning decisions in the region and will add an additional layer of unnecessary bureaucracy. I have always believed in the decentralisation of decision-making powers. I would never support councils' powers being diluted and/or removed.

I am all for the protection of the Barossa from urban sprawl but current development plan controls that councils have in place have been working well, as I just said. They are based on local knowledge and extensive experience in respect of township development and primary production requirements. Threats of urban sprawl and encroachment are not coming from the councils; it has only been the state government's planning strategy changes, metropolitan ResCode regulations and the 30-year plan growth areas that have caused problems and posed threats to the region.

Existing council development planning has strict site area and performance criteria to determine whether a dwelling is allowed. The performance criteria and site areas are based on landscape characteristics and farming potential. A single-dwelling policy and prevention of further subdivision is what results from this approach and, therefore, prevents inappropriate densities and sprawling development.

In addition, the industrial scale is also noncomplying in rural zones development already. Separate legislation is not required to limit and prevent residential subdivision. Controls already exist in the council's development plan amendment (the DPA). Land division to create additional lots is already noncomplying in the rural zones—I repeat: land division to create additional lots is already noncomplying in the rural zones. That is not going to change.

I know that when the minister announced this he had a bit of a shot at the council, particularly in relation to the Tanunda East development. It was a bit of a friendly shot, but he had a bit of a shot at them. However, when you look at your own 30-year plan, Tanunda East was in the 30-year plan as being an area that was agreed to. So all council did was say, 'Okay; it's been agreed in the 30-year plan; we'll go along with this.'

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Hang on, who wanted it?

Mr VENNING: Still it is on your desk, minister.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Who wanted it?

Mr VENNING: It's still on your desk.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Who wanted it?

Mr VENNING: I don't know who wanted it.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: The council.

Mr VENNING: I do not know who wanted it. Anyway, the 30-year plan was in there; you cannot deny it was in there. It still waits on your desk, minister, at the moment; it still sits there, so it is irrespective of all this. There are several examples of promises that were given in respect to the legislation that have not been delivered, including but not limited to: that legislation would not override local planning decisions; that townships within the protected areas will continue to be controlled by council; and that there will be no changes to existing development rules and processes as the legislation is being developed.

In relation to the proposed Barossa protection district, none of the affected councils have come out in support of this bill. It has taken a while, but they have not. All are supportive of preventing urban sprawl and inappropriate large-scale industry in their districts, but they all have concerns about many of the objects and clauses in this bill—in fact, in both bills with the one that is coming next.

Of all the council submissions that were tendered to the government, the only submission that the government intently listened to was the Mid Murray Council. The protection district defined in this bill was altered and the Keyneton area was removed. When the minister's advisers were questioned about this change the response was that they listened to the Mid Murray Council's submission and they felt that their area was not in the Barossa Valley.

Now we have the ridiculous situation where Henschke—one of the most prestigious and famous wineries in the Barossa Valley and the home of Hill of Grace (with the vineyard in but not the winery)—the Henschkes and the wine industry in the Barossa tourism area are not very happy about that. We are hopeful that whatever happens the minister will put it back in. Or is it all about allowing wind farms, minister? You might like to address that when you come back to us.

It is interesting that there has been no formal period of consultation on this version of the bill. On the other hand, the second interim DPA is going through a period of consultation which does not end until 27 June. This bill does not proceed until that consultation period has finished. I hope that, after it leaves here, we can wait a bit until we have seen that. It is not that far away; it is only a few weeks. As the shadow minister just said, I hope we are able to do that. We do not want to delay this any longer than we need to, as the minister would know, because this has caused a lot of pain for nearly a year—certainly for eight months a lot of businesses have been affected. The minister will dispute that but I can show him the files (I have already sent them to him) of people who have been affected by being held up in their planning applications. It has been pretty horrific and some of the banks are also getting pretty excited about this.

The bill in its current form will remove future democracy and community accessibility to the planning system and will replace it with increased bureaucracy that fully empowers the state government to determine the strategic direction for the protection of the district based on a political lobbying arena rather than such direction being determined through local research, analysis and consultative planning through local communities. Ever since the minister made the initial announcement at the special lunch at the Old Redemption Cellars at Peter Lehmann (I was there and thanks for the invitation, I did appreciate it; it was mid last year and it was a good lunch) people got carried away and swept up in the euphoria of protecting the Barossa. The minister certainly put it over very well, he took the meeting with him and it was going to be very easy.

I did not support it and I put out a press release at the time, and the minister was not too happy about that. I drew criticism from the council as well, not just you, minister, and I was told that I was the odd man out. Minister Rau, you did not name me in Hansard but you named everybody else so I was a bit snuffed about that.

Council has now voted unanimously (of those present—two were missing and one was excluded) to retain all of its decision-making powers. Council has wobbled, there is no doubt about that. The minister has had a bit of a go about the delegations coming in with differing points of view. Eventually, when the dust settled, they all came out with a strong opinion. This area is very technical. I was chairman of the ERD for seven years and it is an extremely difficult and complicated area. If you want to have grey hair or be bald, be a planner. I notice the minister has gone grey; I think you were grey before you got it, minister!

I want to pay tribute to the Barossa Council's planners (something I do not often do but I will in this instance), especially Mr Louis Monteduro and his team—excellent work: consistent, up to the mark, and irrespective of time they deliver the goods. I believe that has been a very, very worthwhile effort.

The bottom line is that we do not want to have housing subdivisions in the rural Barossa; we do not want a Mount Barker in the Barossa. As I said earlier, how did that happen? I was on the ERD Committee when it happened and the minister was not the minister. It should never have happened, it was railroaded through. The government overrode the local council and inflicted it on them via a ministerial DPA—a mistake that the minister has admitted to and that is fair enough; I reckon it takes a bit of professionalism to do that. How can we say in this instance that to protect the Barossa we should take power away from council and hand it to the government? The logic is astounding, I just cannot work that one out. The Barossa is a wonderful place, and it is certainly worth protecting from wanton development.

I had a lot of other information to give the house, but I believe the shadow minister has already read in some of the issues in relation to the Barossa Council's position, particularly on the 2012 bill and the related amendments to the Development Act in 2012.

They say that they do not address the concerns of the council expressed with respect to the previous bill, particularly the fact that the council development plan may be amended by the minister to achieve the objects of the character preservation law, that is, the 2012 bill, if it passes into law, without any prior consultation with the council. I will not go through the other issues.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: It can be now.

Mr VENNING: The minister says, 'It can be now.' Well, I am sure we will have a good look at that. It is an honour for me to represent the Barossa Valley as an outsider, as I come from the north. It is a wonderful area, and I will not do anything ever to put it in jeopardy. I have had discussions with the member for Mawson, and I will be interested to hear what he has to say about McLaren Vale in his speech. He may wish to enter the debate on this one. We have the same intent, I think: it is a matter of who you trust—whether you trust the council to get it right, and I do, as in this instance I have personal experience, or you trust the government, and I am sorry, but I do not.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Parliament, not the government. There is a difference.

Mr VENNING: Parliament; yes, there is a difference. Again, governments can get control of parliaments. I have been here long enough to know, minister Rau—longer than you, actually—the shenanigans and games that can be played in relation to lobby groups and pressure groups who come in here and affect the decision-making powers and the way the legislation is framed. How often do we get that wrong?

I am quite happy to praise the Barossa Council for getting this right, because the issue is complicated. In particular, I will mention that two or three councillors have been superb in working this through with me, particularly one (and you obviously know who she is), because it has been a difficult area. The council has almost done a 360-degree turn on this, you would say, but in the end it voted unanimously.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Mr VENNING: Particularly one of those councillors has a difficult personal issue at home, because the husband of one of the luminaries you name happens to be on the council. That has been interesting, and nothing has been said about that in the media, although I am amazed that it has not. I challenged the journalists to ask the relevant questions that nobody will. So, it is just a matter of—

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Why don't you leave it alone?

Mr VENNING: Leave it alone—you do, and I have. With that, I hope that the minister will see the light or, if he does not, that he can leave this on the table for a couple of weeks until we see the final DPA decision come through from everybody, and in the end I hope common sense will prevail. Yes, we agree with the intent of the bill, but I have never believed and still do not believe that this is the way to do it.

Mr BIGNELL (Mawson) (12:03): I rise to support the bill and to point out that there are two sides to this debate: one side, the government side, the Labor Party, is here to protect the agricultural lands of McLaren Vale and Barossa Valley into the future; the other side is here to protect the positions of council bureaucrats. We have heard the shadow minister's contribution: the entire contribution of the member for Davenport was reading out emails and submissions from councils—it was all about what councils want and not about what the people want. It is actually lazy politics. If you get out there and talk to the people in the area and find out what they want, they want more than anything for this land to be preserved. They want this land preserved forever. If you were in touch with your community you would know that.

Member for Schubert, the people of the Barossa Valley came to me for help because they were not getting any help from you because you were not interested.

Mr Venning: Three people.

Mr BIGNELL: Three people? Not the three people you mentioned. This goes back to 2009: they were Margaret Lehmann; Sam Holmes, who runs the Barossa Grape and Wine Association—

Mr Venning: I didn't know that.

Mr BIGNELL: —yes, Sam Holmes—and Jan Angas and Anne Moroney. We had several meetings in here in parliament, in the Barossa and in McLaren Vale with those people.

Mr Venning interjecting:

Mr BIGNELL: The initial approach to me, because of the work I had done in McLaren Vale, came from people—

Members interjecting:

Mr BIGNELL: —in the Barossa—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The members on my left will keep quiet while the member is speaking.

Mr BIGNELL: —who said to me, 'We like what you're doing in McLaren Vale. We need that sort of work done on our behalf to save the Barossa Valley from urban sprawl.' What had happened in McLaren Vale was that we had had a lot of issues boiling away down there; one of them was Bowering Hill, where the government owns the land, and there was a proposal to sell that land to developers so that 6,000 homes could go there. We won that battle. I went to the community, and the community said, 'That's great, but what's to stop another minister coming in and changing that ruling?'.

They do not actually trust ministers, they do not trust governments, and they do not trust councils. That has nothing to do whether they are Liberal governments or Labor governments; it gets down to the fact that a minister or someone in council can quite easily re-draw a line on a map. What they sought was the protection of this place—this parliament—so that the 47 members in here and the 22 in the upper house have to decide whether the rules we lay down here this year can be changed sometime in the future. That is what they wanted. That is the sort of protection they were after.

We have worked very closely—and I am very sorry, member for Schubert, if you only got on board last year, but people in your area were working on this back in 2009. We had meetings—

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

Mr BIGNELL: Well—

The Hon. I.F. Evans: You didn't invite anyone to the meetings, Leon.

Mr BIGNELL: Well, it was not for me to invite them to the meeting.

Members interjecting:

Mr BIGNELL: You would have been welcome, but you had four constituents from your area on that committee, and it was up to them to invite their local member if they thought that they could contribute. The embryo of where we are today came out of 2009 and, in fact, you can trace it back further than that in the McLaren Vale region, from work that we had been doing from 2006 and 2007.

It gets back to the fact that we are not in here to represent local councils. Each of the 47 of us are in here to represent the 22,000 or 23,000 voters that we have in our area. I can say, as the member for Mawson, in getting around the electorate of Mawson, the overwhelming majority of the people in the electorate want food security; they want to be able to grow food in our areas and not rely on importing food from overseas.

So, it is not just about the wine industry, because future use of that land—which is acknowledged by people in both the Barossa and McLaren Vale—may not be entirely for grapes. It is largely that way now, but it might not be that way in the future. We need to protect the land, because once the land is gone, we do not get to plant any sort of crop there; there will be houses and strip malls on that land.

The member for Davenport mentioned that the reason we have land there to protect is because of the strong council rules that are in place. Well, if we look at the McLaren Vale wine region, we have a look at Woodcroft which, 25 years ago, consisted of dairies and vineyards which are no longer there. If we go back 10 years before that, Reynella was in exactly the same boat. Now, both of those areas have become suburbs under houses and shopping centres.

Look at Huntfield Heights or Hackham South: that area used to be prime grain country, and now it is under houses and shopping centres. What we want to do is stop politicians, whether they be at local or state government levels, from changing those lines. We want to do that because that is what the people want us to do. We are actually putting in protections, and that is what this bill and the bill that is coming up are all about. We need to get back to basics, and not just come in here and worry about paid council employees, who are actually worried about their own job and some loss of power they might have, because really the power is actually vested in them and vested in us from the people, and we are here to represent the people.

I will have more to say on this when we move onto the discussion about McLaren Vale, but I support the Character Preservation (Barossa Valley) Bill.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (12:09): Mr Deputy Speaker, with your indulgence, I will address both the Character Preservation (Barossa Valley) and Character Preservation (McLaren Vale) bills in my contribution. Doubtlessly, the minister will sigh with merciful relief that he will not hear two speeches from me. In short, I will say this: the model of alleged protection that is presented in this bill under the guise of parliamentary protection and scrutiny has an element introduced into it of the government. What I say in this contribution is that as far as I am concerned, the introduction of the government into this process is duplicitous, and I do not trust it. I suggest to this parliament that over the last 10 years this government has demonstrated that it is unreliable, incompetent and untrustworthy, and I will address those three issues.

Let me just identify the districts we are talking about in these two bills, what has been described as the McLaren Vale wine region by the member for Mawson just a few minutes ago, and the Barossa region. I do not think there would be anyone in this house that, if they drove into either of those valleys, as they are today, would disagree that they are beautiful, that they are scenic, that they are world renowned for their produce—more particularly, in recent decades, wine and horticulture.

They are clearly different. Of course, the Barossa's early inhabitants were the Germans, 200 families of which signed up to the South Australia Company in 1836 and came here in 1838. There has been a very strong development of that community, over the last 173 years, from food production and some mining, as well as quarries and other developments, to today, with its expansion into tourism, wine production and industry—including bottling and the like—which is world-renowned. My own maternal great-grandparents, Arthur and Emily Lehmann, operated a sheep property in Cockatoo Valley before they moved to the Riverland to develop food produce there.

That property has now been subdivided up, and in recent decades some of it has been owned—and under grapes—as a holiday destination for an Adelaide family, who has occupied it. I suppose that is symptomatic of the change in that region. That region today is still magnificent. Clearly it has been developed, with the additional infrastructure giving it extra water from the River Murray—at a high price, I might say—but nevertheless they have, as a community, developed it to what we see today; absolutely magnificent, and a premier tourist destination.

The McLaren Vale was a little later, I suppose, to come into intensive wine growing. Certainly in the 1970s and 1980s, when I visited areas like Willunga and McLaren Vale, apart from the late Greg Trott operating his winery, and a few others, a handful really, this was an almond-growing district, with sheep and racehorse breeding and training. It has a very different profile, but it too has developed not only in tourism but in other types of food and wine production, and is internationally acclaimed. All of this has been managed over the last 150 years-plus by our planning laws and, in particular, by local government.

I suppose the introduction of this model had its gestation in a light bulb moment of the Premier, when he announced, in February 2011, that he was going to 'protect the identity and integrity' of these two wine regions. At the time these proposed regions were, in fact, quite a bit larger than they are today. The McLaren Vale region was going to include areas of Davenport, Heysen, and Bragg (my own electorate), which is largely urban and which now includes some area up in the hills. It was going to take in areas of the Burnside council.

How we were in any way involved in the McLaren Vale district was beyond me, and I said that to the minister at the time. In fact, eventually, apart from his idea that it was in line of sight and in some way had a connection, some parts of this have been excised, as though we are to be grateful. Certainly, the people in my electorate are grateful, but it does not mean the others have not been abandoned, that is, those who are now compulsorily within the current boundaries and who, in some way, are supposed to be appreciative of this.

The minister has been, during the material time, the minister for tourism for a period of time, and I think he even introduced the original bill at a time when he was minister for tourism; he is the Attorney-General, Deputy Premier, minister for consumer affairs and, of course, importantly for this exercise, the Minister for Planning. That is not an aggregate that I would endorse, personally—I think that the Attorney-General should be independent of these—but, nevertheless, these are extra roles that he has been given during the development of these bills.

The general concept of the government is that, under the umbrella of the parliament, there is going to be this protection against urban sprawl and inappropriate development in these two basins, these two valleys. That begs the question, of course, as to what is being protected and against whom we are protecting it. This is a very interesting consideration because, of course, to say that the government is protecting agriculture and farming, as some have said, is a complete nonsense. That is a complete nonsense. That is a fantasy in the imagination of somebody who is trying to suggest that this government gives a toss about rural communities in this state, and I will elaborate on that shortly.

I suppose the most significant example of that in recent years has been (with the government's blessing, or direct intervention) the development of the Mount Barker area in which they bulldozed a ministerial DPA. Mr Deputy Speaker, in your own district of Gawler, I can remember attending a number of public meetings when it was proposed by this government that it would support a population infill, doubling your major town of Gawler in your electorate, about which there was public outrage.

What this government has come to this house to do is introduce a model because they have so blatantly abused their own power in government that they now need to come along and try to form a complete shell against their own actions. Instead of coming in here and saying, 'We made a mistake; we undertake to the people of South Australia that we will not abuse our power again,' they have come in here and suggested that we adopt a model under the guise of protection in which they are going to play a part—an increasing part—on proposed noncomplying development. I do not accept that, and the people in these districts do not accept that.

It seems to me that the way the government (and, particularly, the former premier in his statements, to start with, which were all spin and, of course, what we get delivered is something different) perceives these valleys is not as important food bowls comprised of thousands of people who have competently managed their own affairs and developed their own produce consistent with their decisions, but as valleys that are playgrounds for the urban rich. That is the reality of this.

The minister can chuff and chaw all he likes. He was the minister for tourism, and I know where their bent is, because he stood in this very parliament and told us that we need to understand this because, if this works, he is going to replicate it in other tourist districts—the Coonawarra, Kangaroo Island, I suppose the Adelaide Hills will come in, and the Clare Valley. This is consistent with what they do. What they do is announce a model and a framework, and we have had form on this—marine parks. What a classic example of 'This is what we are going to do to protect the fish in the ocean and the biodiversity' blah, blah, blah. What have we ended up with? Ten years later, after great expense in time and money, we have a community who have been completely led down the garden path by this government. Now we have the commercial fishers arguing about compensation.

We have had other examples, of course, such as the prescribed water. What another classic example of setting the statutory program and the mandate, then the detail comes out and it is a complete disaster. This is just not acceptable and the local communities have now looked at this, including the local councils on their behalf, and they have said, 'Well, this is very different to what we were told.'

The member for Davenport has read out their submissions. They have come from what is a motherhood statement that we want to protect the integrity of a community—great. It sounds fantastic, but what have we ended up with? We have ended up with the detail, which they are running away from at 100 miles an hour. You only have to read the 230-odd submissions on these bills or read the more than 100 submissions on the DPA debate, which is still going on and which the government wants us to just ignore. They want to pass this legislation before we have even concluded that debate—and the public meetings are not even scheduled until August this year. That is the expectation of this government. They have done it before and they are trying to do it on this occasion.

Why don't I trust them? It is not just the Mount Barker exercise, look at the 30-year plan. The 30-year plan is their document for development in South Australia, post minister Holloway changing the urban boundary to control urban sprawl. He changed that so that he could expand the sprawl. Following that, we have the 30-year plan. The 30-year plan also came in at a time when the government had said, 'We are going to listen to the people. We are going to have all of their submissions. We are going to be able to consider what they think and what they would like to do.'

Conveniently, of course, in these new zones, the very areas which had major areas of objection, including along the coastal Reynella and Aldinga areas and including the Gawler region—Roseworthy, Hewett—and the regions that come up to the buffer zone that has now been proposed in this boundary, have a 30-year plan which envisaged, for example, in the Barossa region, an increase in population of 100,000 people. When the public baulked at that, when they said, 'No, that is not acceptable', the government carved it down a bit. I think it is down to 80,000.

This government was very intent—and it still is—on increasing population and increasing urban sprawl, which it sees as the evil in this, and it is now going to say, 'But aren't we good? We are going to cherrypick these two valleys out and we are going to provide them with a layer of protection, but we are going to be in the model that makes the decision about noncomplying.'

That is just not acceptable. The reason why it is particularly not acceptable is that still today—and the minister knows this because he is also the Attorney-General—we are in the District Court over an FOI application which has been going on for years and about which the Ombudsman has said that documents and submissions on the 30-year plan have been presented and even have the consent of the persons making those submissions for them to be published, yet the government has refused to publish them. The Ombudsman has said it is in the public interest that they be available.

What does this government do? This government goes off to the District Court to try to stop the people of South Australia reading those submissions. That is why I don't trust them. That is totally unacceptable. Whatever the ultimate decision of the District Court is—and we will be waiting for that for another year—it is unacceptable that this government should plan for South Australia and not really allow South Australians to know what is going on, where their priorities are and what they are doing.

As for mismanagement by this government, there is a litany of mismanagement, but I will just give you an example. They introduced their own ministerial DPA over the Glenside Hospital site because they knew best. They cut out the local council. 'We know best about the development.' They are happy to bulldoze trees there and to be able to put housing on it. The Film Corporation does not make any money. They have their own little supermarket projects, etc., because they know best. Well, the government does not always know best, and a stunning example of that is when the Supreme Court recently made decisions on three major projects in this state.

As we speak, Urban Construct is taking the government—the masters of mismanagement of master plans and major projects—to court in relation to Newport Quays. That has been a big success! Let's look at a couple of others. The Marion pool is a beautiful facility; we have all read about it. Where are we? In court. Candetti Constructions has taken the government to court. The superway, the compulsory acquisition of land to develop that—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Bragg, please resume your seat for a second. I have allowed you quite a bit of latitude. You are now going into areas that have nothing to do with the bill before us. I ask that you go back to the bill.

Ms CHAPMAN: My only point, Mr Deputy Speaker, is—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you repeat the point, you will be going—

Ms CHAPMAN: I am not going to refer to the projects; I think it is previous obvious. There are dozens out there—there is a litany of them out there. My point is that I do not trust this government for good reason: it has not been honest with the people of South Australia. The government has been demonstrably unsuccessful and incompetent, and we cannot rely on it.

This is the third time the government has asked this parliament to embrace and support a parliamentary model where the government is left in control. That is not acceptable to me, and I know that it is not acceptable to a very large number of people out there. Representatives have made submissions to the government, including from councils, whose members are elected by the local people. These councils, which have competently managed these districts for generations, are wising up to what is happening, and they will not accept it.

In short, I say that it is unconscionable that this government should expect us to debate this bill before it has even signed off on the detail of the new DPA, which is still out for consultation until the end of June, with public meetings to be held in August—as set out on the minister's own website. Yet the minister expects us to sign up to this—a recipe for disaster—when the government has demonstrably failed every other time it has asked us to do that. Well, I do not trust the government, and I will not be supporting that.

At the very least, this government should adjourn consideration of this bill after the second reading and let the people be heard, and I ask the government to put those secret submissions in relation to the 30-year plan on the table and let the people of South Australia read them.

Mr PEGLER (Mount Gambier) (12:28): I certainly support the intent of this bill in relation to the preservation of character. It is a pity that the government did not act in the same way when it introduced the ministerial DPAs for wind farms, which certainly did not take into consideration the preservation of character.

On principle, I do not support this bill. I believe that we have an existing planning framework and development plan amendment report processes that can address the issues. I think a much better way for us to work on these sorts of issues would be for the government and the councils to come together and, through the government planning strategy, work out a way forward that can address all the issues and have some commonality between all those councils in the McLaren Vale and Barossa Valley, and I will give an example in relation to this.

In Mount Gambier, we developed the Greater Mount Gambier master plan, which was led by the planning minister of the day. The councils and the department came together to work a way forward that gave the people of Mount Gambier and the surrounding districts some surety of how the town would grow into the future and still retain its character. I think that is a much better way to go. The councils, of course, then altered their development plan amendment reports to take that process into consideration.

As far as I am concerned, we as a government should be sitting down with those councils and working on a strategy to move forward that has commonality and does preserve the character. We must never forget that at the end of the day those DPAs are signed off by the minister, so the minister does have control of what goes into those DPAs and also on how those DPAs are interpreted. I think that is a much better process than government coming in and trying to stand over. I will not be able to support this bill or the McLaren Vale bill.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (12:30): As a start, I thank every member who has contributed to the debate. As usual, I received a bruising tongue-lashing from the member for Bragg, but one becomes accustomed to that. In relation to the general propositions, perhaps if I can start with the last contribution, because the honourable member said something very, very important in his last few phrases, which is: the minister ultimately has control through the DPA processes.

Today, that minister happens to be me, and I can assure the house that, so long as that continues to be the case, there is no threat to the Barossa Valley and there is no threat to McLaren Vale. However, at some point in time, I am prepared to accept that there will be another minister, and there will be several ministers after that, and after that, and after that. Each one of those people can, by the stroke of a pen, do what none of us in this debate want to happen—because everyone has got up here and said, 'We don't want to see subdivision in those areas. We don't want to see incursion of urban sprawl.' Everyone said that. The argument has been confined to how we give effect to that.

Every single minister who occupies this position from here on, by picking up a pen, can do, by himself or herself, what nobody here wants to happen. In fact, in the past it has not just been ministers; it has been councils who have created problems. I will let the member for Mawson explain in more detail about one particular instance that has been a big headache for me. Ultimately, I think we have resolved it, with everybody being unhappy, instead of some people being profoundly unhappy. Anyway, I will leave that to the member for Mawson because that is in his patch.

To be perfectly frank, this is about a power shift. That is true: it is about a power shift. I make no apology for that. The power shift is away from my right hand to two houses of parliament. That is the power shift. What do you have more confidence in: my right hand, or whoever it is that has a right or left hand with that pen poised in it over the next 20 or 30 years, or two chambers of this parliament, that has to have a debate in public, with Hansard recording every word and with scrutiny in terms of the parliamentary committee system and the second reading debates? Who do you trust more?

I would prefer to put my trust in 69 people in two houses of parliament, reported publicly in Hansard and covered by the media, than in an unknown series of people who will occupy my job over the next however many years and can sign on a dotted line with their pen, under any circumstances that happen to suit them—and I am not casting aspersions on the character of future office holders because I do not even know who they will be; none of us do.

An honourable member: What about the past ones?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Nor the past. I am saying that all we are doing here is elevating the level of security that these regions can look to to comfort them that they will not become the victims of urban subdivision. There may be change, and there can be, because change is very, very simple. Change simply involves bringing a bill in here to change it and publicly explaining why you think it is important to change it. And, in that context, nobody is going to be taken by surprise. There will be a public debate, and if the bill changes in the future, well, fine, it changes, the process has been gone through, but it will not be down to the minister of the day. So, when we are talking about power shifts here, let's be very clear who is having the power shifted off them and who is getting the power. The minister is losing power: the parliament is gaining power. I would have thought that would have been a good thing.

Mr Bignell: Hear, hear! It's what the people want.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Exactly, it is what the people want. Now, there are a few other misconceptions that are floating around the place. First of all, the process has been going on—and I think the member for Schubert announced this, quite correctly—since May or so of last year. It's now been going for 12 months. You would have thought, however, to have read some of the correspondence that has come to my desk in the last fortnight, that we are talking about May this year, not May last year.

There was a discussion paper, there was a draft bill, there was an interim DPA, there was consultation in relation to the interim DPA and the draft bill, as a result of which we now have a different interim DPA which follows a statutory process, and we have a new draft bill, which is an even slimmer volume than the original draft bill. Actually, I think the original draft bill probably did a lot more than this one does, and in some respects I prefer the original one; however, we did listen to representations that were made to us, and as a result the original bill was streamlined even further; it sought to do even less.

For the Barossa Council to suddenly come to this point in the last week or so defies description. I am attempting to have a continuing rapport with them in a discussion with them, so I do not think it is appropriate for me to go too far into my views about how they have conducted themselves, other than to say they are a little bit like that the member for Schubert: they can be on many sides of the same point simultaneously.

I had a meeting with these people—and I should inform the house of this—last week. There were a number of people in the room, so there can be no ambiguity about what was said. I think probably notes were taken by everybody in the room. And here is where it landed: the City of Onkaparinga said, 'Yes, we're okay with it. There's a couple of little finetuning around the DPA and so on, but we are fine with it.' And, get this: they asked me, 'Do we have to be coupled with the Barossa Valley? Because we do not want to be slowed down. If they are going to slow it down, please do not slow us down.' That is their position. I realise that is not about this bill—it is about the next one—but that is what they want.

As for the Barossa and Light councils, they have raised a number of furphies. Now, there are possibilities that they are doing this because they do not understand what we are doing. That is a generous interpretation. A less generous interpretation is basically that I think the member for Mawson might have got pretty close to the mark, but let's be generous.

The only thing this bill does is prevent subdivision for urban purposes. That is the only thing it prohibits. It does not even address industrial issues any more, as the former bill did. How does it prohibit this? It prohibits it from the external perimeter of the zone by not letting subdivision come in, and it prohibits it from within by not allowing the townships to spill out, and it prohibits it by preventing stealthy subdivision by chopping pieces off large blocks and relabelling them, putting a house on them, and chopping them up again and again.

There are three risks: one is encroachment from exterior pressure; the second is expansion of the township; and the third is stealthy subdivision—hammerhead blocks (as, I think, the member for Schubert referred to), amongst other things. The legislation simply says that urban subdivision is prohibited; however, an agricultural block which does not have a dwelling on it can have a dwelling on it. That is not prohibited. People need to pause for that—'not prohibited', okay? People get hung up by the planning terminology which is noncompliant. That means that it has to go through a process: it does not mean it is prohibited. That is basically the entire effect of this legislation.

The member for Schubert and others say, 'Look, we're worried about what the special character is.' The original legislation attempted to go into that in some detail in the schedules to the original legislation. I had representations from the councils, including Barossa, which said, 'Look, we don't want you to tell us what the special character is. That's for us to know', and I said, 'Good. I agree with you.' I said, 'You shouldn't ask me, because if you ask me I'd probably say you all had to wear lederhosen.' So they said, 'Okay.' I said, 'If you don't want to wear lederhosen, you work it out for yourselves. That's fine,' and, as a result of that, we changed the bill. The new bill therefore leaves it entirely to them.

I am not telling anyone what their special character is. That is their business, not my business. That is their business, and they will continue to do that as they do now. They will continue to do that. This furphy about the townships suddenly becoming small Manhattans with multistorey buildings in them: again, it is a furphy, because the council continues to have control over the planning within the township zones. If the council does not want multistorey buildings it will not have them. It is that simple.

In relation to this particular measure, I did express my concern to the Barossa Council that it had occupied every point in the compass—the whole 360°—and it was now at about 180° from where it started. I did say to them that I thought it was disappointing that they did not keep me in the loop because I was addressing their last point of view, and by the time I had addressed that they had moved on to another point of view, which makes it rather difficult.

The answer to the suggestion, 'Why haven't you gone out and consulted yet again on this?' is that we have already consulted on it, and if we keep going out and consulting on it this will never end, because they do not have a fixed position. If you get a bit of string and a drawing pin and you start moving the string around in a circle, you get somewhere like where these people have been and will continue to go; so, there is no point in trying to stop it; it is just the way it works.

We did listen to representation from various people, and I have to say that it is quite amusing. This is actually quite funny. The other day, on 1 May, the Leader of the Opposition in the upper house, who is, I believe, the spokesman for the opposition in relation to planning matters, put out a stinging press release entitled, 'Hill of Disgrace', and in this he refers to the fact—and the member for Schubert did, too—that the actual Henschke winery is now not within the preservation zone although most of the vineyards are.

Just so that members are completely clear on why this happened, the original proposition put up by me included a line of sight thing which brought in a large area of the Mid Murray Council. The Mid Murray Council in representations to me said, 'Look, please don't leave us in. There's no development pressure here, anyway. There are no townships here, anyway. The protection is unnecessary here, because there is nothing here and never likely to be.' We said, 'Fair enough. Given the fact that there's not much pressure in that area and you don't want to be in, fine; we'll take you out. We'll adjust the boundary so it reflects the council boundary.' Here we are, listening to the council.

Mr Bignell: They love the councils.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: They love the councils, the opposition. We listened to that council. We gave them exactly what they wanted and out he comes with the boxing gloves on, the Hon. David Ridgway, hooking into me. The press release continues:

'But unfortunately all the money on earth won't buy you a sensible planning decision from this Government.'

The Barossa and McLaren Vale protection zones protect the two regions from wanton development—

we are on the same page there—

housing sub-divisions, industrial despoliation—

well, actually it doesn't; that is already in the current bill, but never mind—

and inappropriate commercial activity.

Again, no, that is up to the council, not up to me. Anyway, never mind.

'For the Eden Valley not to be included defies belief'

Defies belief! The press release continues:

'The government's protection zones are squiggles on a map drawn by the incompetent,' Mr Ridgway said.

So there we are. The incompetent are the people who drew up the council boundaries, by the way, because that is what we follow; that is point No.1. Point No.2: I was moved by this public missive from Mr Ridgway and so I thought I had best write to him. A couple of days later I did write to him and I said:

Dear Mr Ridgway

I write in response to your recent media statements regarding the draft Barossa Valley Protection District.

I note that you seem to be advocating changes to the eastern boundary of the protection district, so that the Henschke cellar door is within it.

Are you asking me as Minister, to return the eastern boundary to where it was before the representations of the Mid Murray Council were acted upon (i.e. to remove all land within the Mid Murray Council from the protection area)?

If this is your request I will happily amend the boundary accordingly as a matter of priority.

I am waiting for a reply. Do you know what the reply is? I got it today. You are not even supporting the bill! All this rubbish about complaining about where the eastern boundary is, is just so much rubbish, because you are not even supporting the bill! I have made an offer to move it back to where it was—no reply.

It is very difficult to take things seriously. In fact, I understand that the Hon. David Ridgway was speaking at a conference recently about treasures above the ground. He was a keynote speaker; I think it is actually today. Goodness me, it is today. He says, 'The subterranean riches cannot be ignored, but neither should the wealth that is close at hand, more easily discovered. I want delegates to take a few days at the end of conference to have a look at this around the state.'

He talks about what a beautiful place it is. Fair enough, but the person who wants them to go around and look at the wineries and everything else, the person who is asking me to include the Henschke winery in the protection zone (which I am happy to do when I get a response to my letter), that person leads the party in the upper house that today is saying, 'Lord, make us holy, but not just yet. Lord, make us holy, but not just yet. Yes, please preserve everything, but don't do it by law, because that's too hard to get around. That's too tricky.'

We are not being tricky; we have both hands above the table. We are doing exactly what we said we would do. We did consult with all the councils about this. We adjusted districts in relation to complaints made by the member for Bragg because she said they were already in the Hills Face Zone and did not fit entirely in that area. We said, 'Okay, fine, fair enough.' We took them out.

Mid Murray Council came in and complained about things. Fine; we took them out. It is interesting, though, that the member for Bragg mentioned the Cockatoo Valley, where her ancestors apparently farmed. I agree with her; it is a beautiful part of the world. Do you know what now? It is practically useless from an agricultural point of view. Why? Because instead of having broadacres there, it has been chopped up basically into hobby farms. If we are not careful, that is the way the whole Barossa Valley will go.

Let's make no mistake. That Cockatoo Valley precinct will explode if we do not send a very clear message that that sort of development, which inevitably then leads to the next sort of development, will ultimately eat away the Barossa from the inside just as much as the townships having no borders around them. I realise that for 100 or so years or more the council has managed the place, but, quite frankly, for the last 100 years the Barossa Valley has not been within a few minutes' drive of a city of one million and something people. It is going to grow by 500,000 in the next 30 years and they are going to be looking for somewhere to live. It has not confronted that problem before.

We have to realise that the pressure now on the Barossa is chicken feed to what it will be in 20 or 30 years time, and the same goes for the McLaren Vale region. So, we are either serious about it and say, transparently and publicly, that we are going to bookend the city (northern end and southern end), with no incursions by subdivision without parliamentary permission—not my permission, parliamentary permission. I would have thought the least we could do for the people who legitimately have a concern about this is to give them that level of security and transparency.

The people who are concerned about food security, urban sprawl and the transport and social consequences of a city that goes from Port Wakefield all the way to Victor Harbor—all those people with a whole range of different agendas and different issues—all come together on this point: protect these two regions from subdivision, and that is exactly what we are doing. Any future government is perfectly capable of changing those boundaries and changing those rules, all they have to do is march in here, with all the cameras on them and the lights on, and explain why, and answer the questions: 'Have you been asked by X, Y and Z to do this? Do you have any association with A, B and C?", etc. If they are happy to run the rubric of that, then they can change anything they like at any old time. After all, we change acts of parliament every day.

So, that is basically the proposition. All we are doing is protecting them from subdivision. The person who is being most impacted by this is the minister of the day—that happens to be me presently, but it will not be in the future. It means that the people who live in those two regions, and indeed the people of South Australia, will have an opportunity to have a public debate about any proposal to change those boundaries, or what can go on within them. It is as simple as that.

Whilst I understand the points of view made by some people today—the member for Davenport read out a number of letters from local government people—with the greatest of respect, I think a number of them have misunderstood what we are doing, or have been poorly advised as to what we are doing. The bill, after all, is only two pages long and only contains, I think, eight, 10 or 12 sections. It is hardly a serious and organised crime bill, for instance. It is a very simple piece of legislation.

As I have indicated, we will be pursuing both of these pieces of legislation. There will inevitably be a period of time between here and the other place, and I have indicated to the Barossa Council that it can have a couple of weeks to get back to me about yet another perspective it has on the matter. It has had many perspectives. The Barossa Council is like a diamond, it has so many facets. It is going to get back to me with yet another take on what its settled view is, and I will listen to that. If what it is putting is reasonable and does not do some profound damage to what we are trying to achieve, I will give it consideration.

I do not want to delay this anymore. These pieces of legislation have been sitting around for a very long time. There has been consultation for a year, one way or another, about this. It is time to get on with it. As I said (although it is more relevant to the next debate) in the case of the McLaren Vale bill, as recently as last week I was told by the mayor and the CE of that council that they were supportive of it. Indeed, I was specifically asked whether they had to be concerned about being held up if the Barossa one got stuck in the mud. I said, 'As far as I'm concerned, no, we will just keep going.' So, their position was: keep going, they want it. They are continuing to talk to us, of course, but they are fine.

This one is the one where the issues arise, and I guess we will see how things pan out over the next week or two, but any suggestion that we have not talked to these people is nonsense. We have had consultants in there. We have talked to them endlessly and they have raised their issues with us. We address them, and we come back and say, 'Are you happy now?' Then they have a new range of issues. We address those. 'Are you happy now?' 'Oh, yeah, we're happy now.' Next thing I know, at some public event, a representative of the council is telling people what a terrible thing we are doing to them. It is the first I have heard of it, and I hear it from a third party, so I go back.

Then more recently they have decided they have a new technique to communicate with me. It does not involve use of a telephone; it involves the use of a newspaper where, instead of picking up the phone and talking to me about something, they just tell the newspaper about it. We are now conversing through the front page of the Barossa Herald or something, which I guess is terrific for the Barossa Herald, but whether it is advancing this in any way is difficult to say. Anyway, I think I am probably about done on that. As I said, we will be seeking to push these through and we will no doubt have a bit of a chat in due course about the McLaren Vale bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.


[Sitting suspended from 12:58 to 14:00]


PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT