HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-04-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Environment and Food Production Areas) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 3 April 2025.)

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION (Taylor—Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Housing Infrastructure, Minister for Planning) (11:01): In closing the debate, I would certainly like to thank the previous speakers, the 14 members who participated in the debate. It is an important debate for our state, particularly because it is important for housing supply and it is also important for the protection of the state's farming land, its food production area and the like. We have to get the balance right and we have endeavoured to get the balance right. We want to make sure that there is a long-term window for housing in this state, to make sure that housing supply—the huge investments that have to go into housing supply—is adequately catered for, and that means that by its nature you need to think in a very long-term way. You have to push your thinking out into the future decades in order to make sure that there will be the supply of land and, most importantly, development-ready land.

It should be noted that some of the land that Renewal SA has on the market in Playford Alive, for instance, was first bought with grants given to the state government by the Whitlam government in 1973-74 or so, so just two years after my birth—and it gives you an idea that we are putting that land on the market some 50-odd years later, just the nature of land supply in cities. We have to think very, very carefully in a very, very long-term way about that.

This bill basically realigns the EFP boundaries to ensure that there is a consistency between the GARP and the EFPA, and that is a very, very important thing to do for the state, for landholders, for developers, for farmers, for everybody. It is a consistent set of boundaries by which everybody can be guided, which is basically formed via the State Planning Commission's comprehensive analysis on this. To reassure members and the house, there was a robust methodology applied to the boundaries and to the areas identified for housing. Over 100 datasets were formed as part of that analysis.

The State Planning Commission engaged with local government to ground truth those datasets, to make sure that the council strategic plans were in alignment, to make sure that that analysis was not just done through a multicriteria analysis but that there was real ground truthing involved. The establishment of that multicriteria analysis put real rigour around the land identification process.

Of course, all of that land that was identified in the Greater Adelaide Regional Plan was reviewed and endorsed by the State Planning Commission and by the government. We have been through a rigorous process. It has been a longstanding process from the discussion paper, launched over a year ago, to today. Of course, that is an important process to go through. We have thought about this very carefully.

Among the matters that came up in the bill also was the issue for farmers. I grew up in a farming community. I have talked about Kapunda and going to Kapunda High School. Many of my best mates in high school, many of whom are still friends today, were farmers. They were people who were part of multigeneration farming families who had real ties to the land, and I can absolutely understand their apprehension about farming activities continuing.

Existing land uses will still remain after this bill. Nobody is forced to cease their farming activities. A person's farm will still be their farm and they can continue farming as long as they wish. Land that is identified for future housing, of course, will have a limited land division overlay over it to make sure it cannot be broken up into unusable allotments. We want things to be either farmland or housing supply. We do not want to end up in a middling area where neither purpose is fulfilled.

We want to make sure that the land that is subject to the changes in the EFPA and the land that is identified for housing will still have to go through a rigorous code amendment process. It will still have to go through the provision of infrastructure, which we know is challenging for this state. We know from practical experience, since the Housing Roadmap to today, how comprehensive, thoughtful and, frankly, how expensive and technically challenging it is to provide water and sewerage to new land coming on the market. It is not an easy process. We still have to go through all of that before this land is development-ready, and that will take some time.

I did talk a little bit about the buffer area between development areas and farming land, and I think this is something that the state has to think very carefully about. I have committed to putting in place an adequate planning overlay within the system to make sure that the buffer is there between residential housing ending and farming beginning. That will be particularly important at Roseworthy, and it is a concern at Murray Bridge as well.

Where we have residential communities, we want to make sure that we have a good buffer zone between residential land or housing ending and the farming beginning. I have also expressed that to developers through the UDIA and made them aware of that. I am confident that we can have the primary producers, the grain industry, the UDIA and the Master Builders all working together to get a planning overlay that works for the State Planning Commission. I am confident that some of the understandable issues that were brought up by members in their speeches can be addressed.

Just before I close the debate and we go into committee, I would like to take this opportunity to thank people for their tireless efforts on both the Greater Adelaide Regional Plan and this bill: David Reynolds, Craig Holden and the State Planning Commission. It has been an extraordinarily busy time for the State Planning Commission: they have been doing not just the Greater Adelaide Regional Plan but other matters as well. I also thank very important people in my department: Sally Smith, Brett Steiner, Ben Sieben, Ben Murphy, Marc Voortman and the whole GARP team at Planning and Land Use Services.

This has probably been the most intellectually challenging and busy time to be a planner in the state government's employ. I might add that with the Greater Adelaide Regional Plan we are really only getting the plan. As important a milestone as that is, it is just getting to halfway through the journey because, of course, plans are only as good as their implementation. We have a whole lot of actions coming out of GARP that will be particularly important and will keep planners busy for the next years to come.

It is really important that, as a state, we acknowledge we have a very good planning department in this state. They punch above their weight, they do really good works and I think it is important for both sides of the house who have benefited from their hard work over a number of years to acknowledge their hard work and continue to support them to do this really important work for our state. With that, I close the debate.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr TEAGUE: I might just take the opportunity to first acknowledge the government's work in this area. The minister has just summed up the second reading debate. It is understood that the amendments to planning arrangements, particularly in this area, are the source of fairly thoroughgoing consideration, bearing in mind that there are very keenly felt views about how we manage the retention of our state's valuable food production areas and deal with the competing interests including, in this case particularly, the opportunities for residential growth in our state. It is with that in mind that there are amendments on file that we will get to at clause 4.

The opposition has given very careful consideration to the government's proposed changes and has identified in broadly three areas where augmentation with improvement resulting can be achieved. Those are, for the purposes of the debate, firstly, a couple of very discrete areas in the area of Murray Bridge, secondly, a block of area west of Highway 1 in the Adelaide Plains Council area that I might describe broadly as Dublin changes and, thirdly, on the Fleurieu and a number of individually identified titles in that area. So there are three categories of expansion to those areas that are the subject of expansion that the government has identified.

In terms of covering the field at this point, I think it is important to emphasise that the name of the game in this regard has been that we should at all times characterise our consideration of all this as productively as we can, with a view to avoiding, as far as possible, politicising what we all agree is a matter that we should all end up being proud of as South Australians, which is what direction our state is taking and how we are providing for all the interests that are apparent, whether they are characterised by opportunity or by challenge or by the balancing act between the two of them. The opposition is committed to that task and we will be interested to hear from the government about those three areas of improvement in particular.

I have received an indication just now from the government that, for the time being and as presently structured at least, they are inclined not to support the particular form of the amendment that I will put subsequently. But I just want to say at the outset that there is an opportunity that may occur in the course of this debate—and I hope that the contributions we will hear in the course of the committee will continue to shed light on those opportunities—if it is necessary between the houses and on return to this place, to look at the merits of those proposed changes.

Of course, it is the government that has the resources to be able to identify where there may be technical challenges notwithstanding an otherwise meritorious proposal. If there are substantive reasons why the government, as it has advised, has reasons to oppose particular changes then let us hear that in the course of the debate. But I want to emphasise the opposition's commitment to working towards improvement, so where there is bipartisanship that can be achieved the opposition will continue to work towards those outcomes. For the purposes of clause 1, I will perhaps leave it there.

I would otherwise flag that the amendments, such is the necessity of the structure of them, are consequential upon each other. The real core of the matter for the purposes of the debate is to be found in amendment No. 2, which sets out those particular areas. It would be I think to advantage for the purposes of the debate in the committee for there to be an opportunity to address each of those areas, albeit as a matter of process, if the house is so advised, and we would need to do so in the course of the debate on amendment No. 1. But we will get to that when we get to it.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 and 3 passed.

Clause 4.

Mr TEAGUE: Again, I just hop up at the outset at clause 4 to set the scene. Clause 4 is where we find the government's substantive amendment to the environment and food production areas for Greater Adelaide. That is by way of an amendment to section 7 of the act according to the plan—and I do not know if it has been deposited or it is going to be, as presently advised—that is numbered G9/2025. That plan, G9/2025, is going to set out the government's proposed EFPA changes.

Because we are dealing with particular areas of land at a granular level we are describing certificates of title by volume and folio, and that is perhaps relatively easily seen in the macro view by looking at a map and seeing lines on it, but the subject of G9 is changes to those specific certificates of title and folio numbers one by one, and it may be that there are discrete issues associated with an individual certificate of title even, let alone broad areas.

To put it clearly, the opposition is interested in looking at both a broad area analysis, and if there are particular issues associated with those individual titles then let us identify them as best we can. As I say, without descending into a debate about the amendments that I will move in due course they would amend G9 in the three ways that I broadly categorise them: firstly, in relation to the Murray Bridge land; secondly, the land that I have characterised as Dublin; and thirdly, that that I would characterise as Fleurieu and that is the subject of very many certificates of title and folio numbers, so much so that it is the subject of a proposed additional schedule A1.

For the moment—and I know others will have questions going to those areas—I would ask the government perhaps to just give an indication as to how it came to land on G9. It might be an opportunity for the minister to indicate that by reference to the broad and if there are particular issues that might be associated with individual certificates of title, then I welcome that for the benefit of the committee as well.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I thank the opposition for their question. I did talk a bit before in my second reading explanation about the multicriteria analysis, which is always, I guess, planner speak for a good process by which to identify land. Essentially, the inputs they put into that multicriteria analysis are really about: is it flood prone, can you get infrastructure to it, is it sort of broadly contiguous with the city's growth, does it conflict with the Hills Face Zone, does it impose on good agricultural land? There is a whole range of analyses which the State Planning Commission, through Planning and Land Use Services, identified. That began with the discussion paper last year, which was a public document of 170-odd pages, and I think got, from memory, about 700 submissions from the public, councils and the like.

It began with that discussion paper. That is important, I think, for a debate of this nature because you do want a degree of public understanding and community consultation, knowledge and awareness. We endeavoured to do that. It had the areas that, broadly speaking, were identified for discussion and analysis. Then we took submissions and obviously made adjustments—the State Planning Commission, I should say. Craig Holden is the Chair now and was the Chair appointed by the previous government and a person of good standing in the community and particularly in the building/architecture area. That is the way we determined the land on which we were putting housing.

In terms of the boundaries of the EFPA, how we determine that in the course of this bill, of course we are looking at preserving good quality agricultural land. We want to put in land that is subject to natural hazards—that is basically flooding—environmentally sensitive land, and there is a fair portion of that in some of the areas under discussion in the amendments, and land that is of cultural heritage to Aboriginal people. Obviously, the issue of the cost of infrastructure is also factored into, in particular, the Greater Adelaide Regional Plan, but also into the boundaries of the EFPA as well. That is broadly speaking before.

I talked about my speech. In terms of the datasets, in all those datasets there are constraints. Flooding is a constraint. Probably the best illustrative way of describing this is if you look at Two Wells. It grows north. The reason why it does not grow in the other directions is primarily because of it being flood prone. They are the things that the State Planning Commission has done as background assessments.

In terms of the opposition amendments, which we will get to, I think there are, broadly speaking, two reasons why the government will oppose them in the house. Firstly, I do not think it has been subject to the same kind of degree of consultation. That is not a criticism of the opposition: I just think it is useful to talk about these matters quite comprehensively.

The second issue is that all the areas are essentially in one amendment. Each of these areas is in quite a different part of the state and has different constraints or different issues that might apply to it. So that is the reason the government will be opposing the opposition's amendments, but I take what the deputy leader said about bipartisanship. It is certainly important in terms of the Greater Adelaide Regional Plan, and we have had previous iterations of the plan that both sides of parliament have adopted effectively in government.

I was talking before about some of the land that had been bought during the Whitlam government being sold today, finally being released today. Not just bipartisanship is necessary: multigenerational policy thinking, even within parties and across the party divide, is needed because cities are incredibly complex entities. Housing supply, from its debate, has lots of facets to it, lots of policy intricacy, challenge and complexities to it. There is a diverse range of opinions about how we tackle those challenges. I suppose that is a longwinded answer to the opposition's question, but that is principally the approach the government has taken.

Ms PRATT: Minister, on the same clause, clause 4(1), I have some early observations with a question to follow, noting your contributions at the second reading. It was pleasing to hear a reference to Roseworthy and recognition that a buffer zone is likely to be considered by the government. But I will parrot back to you some comments that I have been capturing through the most recent discourse in committee about a commitment from the government to preserve good quality agricultural land, which I would argue is what my community is fighting for in the region of Roseworthy in consideration of this bill.

The term 'golden mile' has been used in committee by Craig Holden to the minister, I believe. It will not be lost on the minister that the farming community of Roseworthy—and when we say 'Roseworthy', not the township but, of course, the farming precinct as it extends east towards the Barossa, north towards Tarlee and west out to the farming fields of Mallala, Balaklava and Pinery. These are communities that, while they live a long way from the town of Roseworthy, feel very strongly about a bill that they see will affect them in not just their own farming lives but those of their children.

There is certainly no criticism from me about governments being required to be aspirational and visionary. A 30-year plan on anything is a good start, but to be a broken record, Roseworthy, Roseworthy, Roseworthy is a community that, whether it is on talkback or in the media proper, is a community that is heightened and concerned about its farming future.

In terms of the minister's reflections on the opposition's amendments, I believe that the government has in good faith considered the amendments as a package: the maps that I am referring to and the proposals by the opposition to propose more land to be considered within this amendment bill. I wonder if the amendments—even between the houses, but hypothetically the amendments as they are, or the maps—had been packaged differently to be presented separately or in isolation.

Can the minister speak to the government's reflection on maps relating to the Port Wakefield corridor, Dublin in particular? What concerns or impediments or objections does the government raise, and this is my question, about the amendment as it relates to the Port Wakefield corridor and the minister's comments that Two Wells, for example, can only extend to the north because it is flood prone? I note reflections in this house about the establishment of Riverlea and the traffic lights that exist there, but I would argue that was also a flood-prone area.

I see an opportunity for the government of the day to direct property developers in any of these areas to build that infrastructure first, whether it is a flyover or more slip lanes along the Port Wakefield highway. We see from Lower Light to Windsor all the way through to Port Wakefield extra U-turns or arrangements to accommodate a high-traffic area. In a packaged comment back to you, minister, as the member for Frome representing both Two Wells and Roseworthy, those communities have expected strong advocacy in the house on this bill and in good faith the opposition have put forward suggestions for some bipartisan debate.

There are good suggestions being made by the opposition to test the government's appetite to look more closely at Two Wells and the expanding community with infrastructure around water, freight and transport corridors, and that it is well positioned to carry more houses, more families, more business and more employment zones, and we see the proposal being considered for Dublin as an example of that. So if the amendments had been put forward separately, what objections has the government landed on that make the Dublin proposal unwelcome or unsupported?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I thank the member for Frome for her question. I guess this goes back a bit to what I said about the multicriteria analysis. We had a 170-page discussion paper and there was an opportunity for people to properly debate the State Planning Commission's discussion paper and all the different propositions that were put in there. I think that was a conscious decision by the State Planning Commission, one that I supported and I thought was important.

I think one of the issues for planning is that sometimes we have not been so good at talking about all the thinking that goes in behind any proposition. It does not matter whether it is in a township or in a city, the more you talk people through it—and the changes in composition of society alone are comprehensive. One of the biggest drivers in housing supply at the moment is the collapse of the household formation rate, for instance, which nobody talks about but is tremendously important, and that is basically older people ageing in place, living longer, and the divorce rate. I am not making a comment about the divorce rate, but if you go from 70 per cent of families being nuclear to only 50 per cent, your housing supply has to expand to accommodate those constellation families.

In terms of the nature of the amendments, as I said before, they are all in quite different parts of the state, and so if you asked me about them separately I would give you different answers. In terms of the area the member identifies, principally there are these constraints: first of all, conservation. This is quite an important area for the Adelaide International Bird Sanctuary. There are birds that fly all the way to Siberia from our coast. There are quite fascinating nature and conservation parks, so it is environmentally sensitive and important.

There are natural hazards. It is mostly flat, low-lying topography, shallow saline groundwater profiles, and it is traversed by the Gawler and Light River flood plains, and so that is an issue. There is also the cost of infrastructure, which is twofold. It is not just grade separations and traffic treatments, expensive as they would be, but also water and sewer. The difference in Riverlea's case is that water can flow from the tanks at Craigmore, and at Sandy Creek there are a bunch of tanks on the hill—a very famous pipeline on the hill. Water flows down the plain through Andrews Farm, down Curtis Road, out to Riverlea.

The other advantage Riverlea has is it is relatively close to Bolivar. Those two things make it somewhat different to land to the north. The infrastructure costs are high, once you start having to do what is called rising mains or pumping for water. They are the principal reasons why that particular section of the amendment would not find support with the government.

Mr PEDERICK: I am a little bit flummoxed by the government's opposition to this clause. We had multiple meetings on this side of the house in regard to trying to get some realistic outcomes to some amendments to this bill and where we thought we might end up in a bipartisan space, but obviously it sounds like that is not going to happen, which is disappointing, to say the least.

Before I get to my question, I want to reflect on what happened in 2016 when this planning bill was amended. As I have said in this place before, we were 50 clauses into committee when the environment and food production areas were introduced by the former Attorney and I could see then that there were going to be issues down the track. It is interesting, after we have seen the history of what happened with Monarto over 55 years ago and the proposal, which I think was quite visionary, but it should have gone another 15 kilometres down the road and enlarged Murray Bridge at that point.

One thing I was pleased about when the EFPA was introduced—because there was not much I was pleased about—was the fact that Gifford Hill was exempted because that will be very important as part of the Greater Adelaide Regional Plan moving forward. I want to acknowledge the work of the Murray Bridge Racing Club. I am so glad they worked from 2003 to get that area in place; it will become the centre of a great development.

I also acknowledge that some significant areas will be exempted from the environment and food production area for housing and the Grange development plan moving forward. I met with Grange recently and they were very keen to get on with the project. It was announced last year that there will be 17,100 homes, and it is, as far as I am concerned, the right area to be getting developed. Obviously, it needs the appropriate infrastructure in place, and I will talk about that a bit more later. I certainly appreciate some of the exemptions being made there.

The minister is certainly aware of some of the food processors in the area who are a bit concerned about buffer zones. This may be decades out, but people do need to be cognisant of the fact that there are areas like mine, a value-add area, an agricultural producing area, but then that second tier of food processing, or food production. Certainly, not the least is the Costa mushroom factory, which probably supplies close to 50 per cent of Australia's mushrooms. It has made a significant investment in that area of at least $200 million, and I would suspect it is wanting to invest into the future.

I appreciate there are also some amendments in this plan to develop the area around Northern Heights to the north of Murray Bridge. The issue I had at the time this was introduced was it was quite an arbitrary measure, from somewhere around Kapunda all the way to Goolwa and Victor Harbor. It was like a blanket position was put in place. If you look at what happens with housing development, rezoning and that kind of thing, there are a lot of hoops people have to go through anyway in getting something done. In fact, it just seems ridiculous that sometimes a housing application in an area zoned for housing can take two years. It just seems ridiculous to me that it takes that long, certainly during a housing crisis. The minister outlined some examples of why that is in place, and I acknowledge that.

We certainly had some good thoughts. I did contemplate some other land. I thought, 'No, I will try to be realistic,' and I identified, as is written in the next amendment, two titles in Murray Bridge—Certificate of Title Volume 5941 Folios 798 and 799—which just border the current border of the Rural City of Murray Bridge. Because they were not in the Rural City of Murray Bridge, according to the planning bill that is currently in place, they cannot be developed. I was trying to be realistic and go with a minimalistic approach. I looked at these two sites of several hectares. I do not have the numbers with me at the minute, but it is not a very large area. I thought it would have been a realistic amendment in regard to directly adjacent land in Murray Bridge that could be developed if that was the way to go.

As part of the Greater Adelaide Regional Plan—and it will be in decades to come—there will certainly have to be a lot more land opened up and realised. It is a long way down the track, I will admit, but we have the potential to be part of the growth, and I am happy to work with that as long as I am here. But I am a bit dismayed that I essentially looked at two titles, and the government is going to vote them away. In relation to these two titles, could the minister give his direct reasons why the government is not happy with the amendments in relation to these two titles in Murray Bridge?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I thank the member for Hammond for his speech, his passion for Murray Bridge and his engagement with council and the racing club. I think there is already a great deal of bipartisanship in regard to my interactions with him, not just in Murray Bridge but in other places. You have been a good contributor and a practical contributor to planning debates in your area, so thank you for that.

In relation to the two allotments the member identifies in the amendments, these areas are identified in the structure plan as providing future tourism accommodation, recreation and public open space uses, which are not inconsistent with the EFPA. The EFPA does not stop those uses; it just stops residential development.

In regard to the particular allotments the member talks about, if they were presented in a different format we might have been able to have a more agreeable conversation. In this instance, because they are grouped together with other areas, it makes it difficult for the government to support the opposition's amendment. That said, I do not think the inclusion of these areas in the EFPA will prevent the uses that will be of benefit to Murray Bridge, but equally if you took them out of the EFPA I do not think it would be the end of the world either. I think it is not of great consequence in terms of the overall integrity of the EFPA.

I would be happy, once we are through the house, to have further conversations with the opposition regarding Murray Bridge. I want to support Murray Bridge, because the rural city of Murray Bridge has been one of the best councils in the state—the first place an infrastructure scheme has been identified for instigation, and that is a really important thing. These infrastructure schemes are the way out of the sort of situation we see in Mount Barker and Angle Vale, where you have too many landholders, too many developers and land deeds are not keeping up; I do not want to see another Angle Vale or another Mount Barker.

I am happy to talk further with the member about Murray Bridge in particular—that would be fine. I understand his passion and practicality in the issue, but unfortunately in this case it is grouped together with Dublin and with the land specified in schedule 1A, so that by its nature means that the opposition has given us a package deal, so we have had to treat it as part of that package.

Mr PEDERICK: I acknowledge the minister's comments. Yes, I have had quite a bit of interaction with the minister and his office and I certainly appreciate that. It is involved in the next clause, but it is all part of the two clauses. The section involving Murray Bridge is exclusively 1A(a). I may be being selfish, but it could be exiled out on its own quite simply, because it is there in the amendment and I would ask the government to look at that.

Besides that, the minister indicated it is an area that could be developed for tourism or other suchlike. Could the minister expand on the potential use for these two blocks if they were not to be part of our amendments. They come under their own discrete subamendment of a subamendment, as everyone can see from the amendments. I would appreciate more feedback on that.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The land in question is part of the Murray Bridge structure plan, so it is already identified as being ideally located for future tourism accommodation, recreation, public open space, and the like, and for housing, and the EFPA does not prevent that from occurring. The council is interested in using it for that purpose. I do not think this area is ruled out for the sorts of development that will support Murray Bridge. As I said before, it is an important issue, and I am happy to have discussions with the member subsequent to the bill passing and us dealing with the amendments. I think we have to treat the amendments as a whole, as a package deal. It is hard to extract things.

The second thing—and I do not want to be critical of the opposition—is the bill identifies a map submitted by the minister to the GRO, and the reason we have done that is because of the difficulty with putting the land into a bill. That is why we went with the map submitted to the GRO, because it would be hard to attach a map to a piece of legislation.

I think the way of moving forward with the land at Murray Bridge, in particular, if we were to look at that again—and I would want to talk to the council and others just to make sure that everybody was comfortable moving forward—if you were to deal with that on its own, you would do it via the minister's map in the GRO. It would be easier to do that rather than allotment numbers.

There is always a danger with an allotment number; not in this case, but I fear that in other sections of the amendment if you were to just deal with allotment numbers things could go wrong. I would rather deal with a map; there is a lot more clarity with a map.

Mr PEDERICK: I thank the minister again for his answer. Allotment numbers are quite specific: there are title numbers, and you register them with the titles office. I still do not quite get it that you can use a map and not use the individual title number approach. As I said, when the EFPA areas came in it was basically council areas from around Kapunda through to the South Coast around Victor Harbor.

I guess it is more of a comment than anything. You may want to expand on what you have just said, but I would have thought allotment numbers, as we have specifically identified not just with my two title numbers but others throughout the amendments, are as specific as you are going to get. That is my comment.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: One of the difficulties is that if you use CT numbers, as the land is divided the CT number will change and that will make it very hard to track back for future generations—because this will be a longstanding bill. That is why we went with the GRO map, because the advice from the department was that it was the clearest way of defining out the EFPA and making sure we have a practical bill.

One of the other changes we are making—I do not know if it is in this clause, but in other clauses—which I talked about in the second reading speech, is that the original bill had that if the EFPA ran through an allotment you could not divide anywhere along that allotment. It made it very difficult for landowners in that case. We have thought carefully about the way we would identify land in the bill, and I think the map submitted to the GRO is the right way to go and the most coherent way of doing it.

Mr BASHAM: Can the minister confirm that under the substituted section 7(1) there is no statutory requirement for an audit or an independent assessment of land quality for altering the EFPA boundaries via the new plan G9/2025?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Going forward there will still be the normal review of the EFPA—I think that happened most recently under the former deputy premier and minister for planning—and the State Planning Commission goes through a process to do that. The only change between previous reviews and future reviews will be that because we are removing the urban consolidation test that test will not apply.

It will be, I think, easier for the commission to fix known anomalies. I do think it is important for the State Planning Commission to have that flexibility. I know they take their responsibilities about the review very seriously, and all the other tests still apply.

Mr BASHAM: Given that clause 4 alters the variation criteria to rely on for the Greater Adelaide Regional Plan, and I know the minister has touched on the multicriteria land suitability analysis that has been done, can the minister go into a bit more depth about that and is the minister prepared to make that assessment available to the opposition to actually understand what has gone on?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: In relation to the member's question, in terms of the Greater Adelaide Regional Plan going forward, obviously it gets reviewed periodically and there are new iterations of the plan, and that is an important thing. It is a digital plan and helps guide government departments and the like, but one of the things we did as part of this process—and it was a comprehensive process with significant investment by the government to do that. We could have just done a more simple update with a less rigorous approach, but because we thought carefully about the urban consolidation target, the 85:15 rule, we did not think that was appropriate for the growth of this state any more. We thought that it was unnecessarily guiding development, and we think infill and greenfield are broadly the same in terms of housing supply, but the issue is: do you have housing supply?

We have accommodated housing supply to high population rates, so we do not think that the task for future iterations of the Greater Adelaide Regional Plan should be challenging. We have identified effectively 60,000 extra homes that we thought would be needed, and we have done that. We have looked out into the future in the best way any government can in a very comprehensive manner.

In terms of the multicriteria analysis that the State Planning Commission used, as I understand it their criteria and part of their analysis is actually up on the PlanSA website now. The opposition raised this in a number of their speeches and in their briefings with me, and I think it is perfectly reasonable—I do not think there is anything to be gained by not having that as transparent as possible. There are some commercial-in-confidence things and cabinet processes which, by their nature, are confidential, but we have put as much of the information out there as we can, and I am happy to send the opposition a link to the relevant section of the website.

Mr BASHAM: Will the minister commit to a regular audit and publication process of primary production lands in order to ensure that the EFPA boundary decisions are based on transparent and up-to-date evidence going forward?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Future iterations of the Greater Adelaide Regional Plan will be public documents and, of course, any changes to the EFPA that were recommended by the State Planning Commission to a minister. So you would need to have the regular review to have the State Planning Commission recommend to a minister to make changes. The minister would still then need to come into the parliament and table those changes, and they can be disallowed. So, importantly, there is still parliamentary oversight of those reviews. There is a government-stated policy position and then there is also a process of the parliament that would maintain that into the future as well.

Mr TEAGUE: I hasten to say it feels like hopping up and closing debate on clause 4. I think the government has heard from members in relation to specific matters, the subject of amendments that have not yet been moved, but I think we are all enlightened by the minister's response.

It is clear to say that there is a fairly obvious appetite for continuing constructive work in this space. At the high level, the minister has indicated two primary reasons for the government's attitude to the amendments, the first being that they might not have captured the same level of consultation as the 170-page document did. Perhaps an answer to that might be that as representatives we are each responsible for our different electorates and the response to the consultation as a whole has painted a picture about the various priorities—I think that perhaps almost goes without saying—so there might be a fair degree of confidence about proposals that have been put, albeit emanating at an amendment stage, from an opposition source.

The second one goes to the practicalities of it all being that they are put as an all-in-one and I hear the minister about that and obviously there are means of identifying those three aspects: as I have bluntly put it, Murray Bridge first, secondly Dublin, and thirdly the Fleurieu changes. I might just indicate that, from the opposition's point of view, that aspect of the committee stage is particularly helpful and we certainly embrace the minister's sentiments in terms of further work.

In terms of one other observation of the minister in that regard, this being multigenerational planning, I think we have all come to be familiar with the idea that the EFPA, from its conception, has been characterised as something that does not get changed very readily, or all that often, with the four-year review process, but otherwise we have this legislative opportunity. I indicate that the opposition will continue to work in the course of this process in the house and between the houses with a view to the possibility of meritorious change.

I just add, to the extent that any specific error has been identified in what has been put forward, in terms of the spelling out area by area, that is perhaps most apparent at (c), that it be the subject of the new schedule. If not in the course of this debate, then between the houses, if that can be done that may overcome a present barrier in the government's view of the matter. I am still conscious that the amendments have not been put, so I look forward to doing that in due course.

The CHAIR: As you will have noticed, I have allowed a free range in this debate for clause 4 in the spirit of bipartisanship, so I am happy to entertain both amendments Nos 1 and 2, if you like. You are moving that way?

Mr TEAGUE: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Teague–1]—

Page 3, line 4 [clause 4(1), inserted subsection (1)]—Delete 'On' and substitute 'Subject to subsection (1a), on'

Amendment No 2 [Teague–1]—

Page 3, after line 15 [clause 4(1), after inserted subsection (1)]—Insert:

(1a) Despite subsection (1), the following areas of land are not environment and food production areas:

(a) the land in Certificate of Title Volume 5941 Folio 798 and Certificate of Title Volume 5941 Folio 799 (being land at Hume Reserve Road, Murray Bridge);

(b) all land in the area of the Adelaide Plains Council west of the A1 Highway (known as the Port Wakefield Highway or Princes Highway);

(c) the land specified in Schedule A1.

(1b) To avoid doubt, nothing in subsection (1) or (1a) is to be taken to prevent the Commission from varying an environment and food production area (whether the variation involves creating (or adding land to) an environment and food production area or abolishing (or removing land from) an environment and food production area).

For completeness, I indicate to the committee that amendment No. 3 is wholly consequential and, depending on the outcome on amendments Nos 1 and 2, I would not propose to move amendment No. 3. I just address those briefly. Amendment No. 1 inserts a reference to a new subsection (1a). That's all amendment No. 1 does for the sake of the structure of what would be the new section 7. Subsection (1a) then sets out, and importantly—discretely—those three areas, and that is the subject of amendment No. 2.

Amendment No. 2 includes what would be a new subsection (1a): (1a)(a) being the Murray Bridge changes, (1a)(b) being the Dublin changes and (1a)(c) being the Fleurieu changes, as I have characterised them. Subsections (1a)(a) and (1a)(b) are spelt out completely and are whole to the subsection. Because (1a)(c) involves so many discrete areas, it is described by reference to what would be the new schedule.

So for the sake of the record and for the committee, anyone who is wanting to see the land that is the subject of (1a)(c) will need to acquaint themselves with what would be the new schedule A1, which would be the subject of amendment No. 3, being the insertion of that as a new schedule after clause 6. I note that the subject matter of those discrete amendments has already been the subject of the debate in the committee and, of course, of the debate on clause 4 generally. So I move amendments Nos 1 and 2 standing in my name.

The committee divided on the amendments:

Ayes 13

Noes 21

Majority 8

AYES

Batty, J.A. Brock, G.G. Cowdrey, M.J.
Ellis, F.J. Gardner, J.A.W. McBride, P.N.
Patterson, S.J.R. Pederick, A.S. Pisoni, D.G. (teller)
Pratt, P.K. Teague, J.B. Telfer, S.J.
Whetstone, T.J.

NOES

Andrews, S.E. Bettison, Z.L. Brown, M.E.
Champion, N.D. Clancy, N.P. Close, S.E.
Dighton, A.E. Fulbrook, J.P. Hildyard, K.A.
Hughes, E.J. Hutchesson, C.L. Koutsantonis, A.
Michaels, A. Odenwalder, L.K. (teller) O'Hanlon, C.C.
Pearce, R.K. Picton, C.J. Savvas, O.M.
Szakacs, J.K. Thompson, E.L. Wortley, D.J.

PAIRS

Tarzia, V.A. Stinson, J.M. Hurn, A.M.
Boyer, B.I.

Amendments thus negatived.

Mr TEAGUE: Just to indicate the result of the division: as I indicated beforehand, amendment No. 3 standing in my name is wholly consequential, and as I said to the committee before—

The CHAIR: I want to actually move clause 4 as it is.

Mr TEAGUE: Sorry?

The CHAIR: We need to actually adopt clause 4 as printed.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, but we can do that. Just for completeness, I know I said earlier that I am not going to move amendment No. 3, therefore we are in a position to adopt clause 4 as it is.

The CHAIR: Alright, do you want to do the whole lot?

Mr TEAGUE: Sorry?

The CHAIR: What are you trying to tell me, member for Heysen? We need to finish clause 4 because we had actually put clause 4.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, I am indicating, as I did before—

The CHAIR: Yes, I understood that.

Mr TEAGUE: —for completeness, that I will not move amendment No. 3, and so you have a free hand, Chair, to get on with completing clause 4.

The CHAIR: Thank you; that is what I was trying to do. We are in vigorous agreement.

Clause passed.

Clause 5.

Mr PEDERICK: Minister, I just want some explanation around clause 5, which talks about the regional plans and the supply of housing and services, certainly in regard to the provision of infrastructure and the cost of infrastructure, noting the issues we have, just in general, in this state, both in getting supply of water infrastructure in and sewers installed as well.

The minister might be able to help me with this. I understand that private providers will be able to put in water and sewer infrastructure. That is fine, I guess, in the short term, but in the longer term there is one concern that because the private providers will put that infrastructure in they will get the funding for that—which is fair enough—like the on-costs of supplying water and sewer services.

But what will impact the state is the fact that SA Water—this is probably part of the problem—has consistently over the years, no matter what colour of government, probably put $250 million to $300 million out of their revenue into general revenue. This probably would have not assisted with having enough infrastructure put in place over time.

I am looking for an explanation of how that private infrastructure works. It may not be just sewer and water; it may be road connections, for instance, or something else, I am not sure. Can the minister outline how that will work and what the effect will be on state revenue into the future?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The member has invited me to make, I suppose, observations about more than just the bill. What I would say is that the bill and the Greater Adelaide Regional Plan are just that: one is a plan and one is a piece of legislation. People often confuse them. I have a copy of the 1961 plan in my office, and there are elements of that plan that I think are great. The would-be northern expressway is like a gun-barrel highway. It is straight down. There is no weaving through around the salt plains. It is straight down to the Port River at what would be the Port River Expressway now. Then you look at what they might have done to Adelaide itself and you are less enamoured with it.

The difficulty is that you have your plan, but what the member is actually talking about is the implementation of it, which is by state infrastructure: utilities like SA Water, but also now NBN, SA Power Networks and gas. There is a whole range of services that are needed, notwithstanding council infrastructure and state government infrastructure.

One of the most important things in the Greater Adelaide Regional Plan is that we have identified what many of the growth areas will need in terms of social infrastructure. We have identified infrastructure benchmarks, but that does not actually build a school, it does not build a hospital and it does not build a road. That has to be done as part of the code amendment process.

What a good state plan will do is identify what needs to occur, but implementation and the doing bit of it is incredibly complex and difficult. Take the member's comments about SA Water over generations of government. I think that is true. I think the Premier of this state said that, and I think we are all broadly in agreement, but the problem is not that SA Water pays a dividend to government. That was part of the corporatisation process. It is inherent in having a state-owned corporation that they would pay a dividend to government. The issue is not that they pay a dividend to government. It is that we are not sufficiently looking forward to what growth actually costs

If we had been looking forward—and I have been critical of the previous government, but I am happy to be critical of the one before that as well—if I had a time machine and I could go back in time, I would get them to put in just $250 million to $300 million worth of infrastructure, because that is what it would have cost at the time. I am now putting in, I think, effectively the infrastructure for myself and two of my predecessors. That is effectively what we are doing in the southern suburbs.

In Southwark, we are putting in $20 million worth of upgrades, and in the north of the state. But that does not get us around the issue that infrastructure provision is expensive, that we have many parts of the state that have infrastructure constraints, and I would just caution against the idea that private providers or council providers are some sort of Holy Grail.

I think local government needs technical assistance. I think some councils have done an excellent job, some have done a sort of middling job, and some have done a very poor job. If you go to Coober Pedy, it has a very challenging set of infrastructure issues there. I think where we have left this to the private sector, we would want to be careful. I do not support private sector provision of potable water in the metropolitan area, in the Greater Adelaide regional area. I do not think that that is intellectually coherent or economically effective or a safe thing to do for the state.

If private sector provision of sewerage is undertaken, I think we have to be very careful about two things. First of all, it needs to be done to SA Water's standard. That is absolutely critical because if it fails SA Water will inherit the system. You would not be able to have a suburb sewerage fail; the state government or whoever was wearing the minister's hat at that stage would not have any alternative but to intervene, so it has to be done to SA Water's standard.

The second thing, and I think we have to be very cautious of this, is you still get charged for the sewerage portion of your bill but you are just paying it to a private provider. There is regulation under ESCOSA to make sure they do not charge too much, but there is no provision for them charging too little. If a private provider charged too little for sewerage at the beginning to make it attractive to home owners but then you found that you had a very large investment upgrade at the end of the sewer system's life and so your bills would go like a hockey stick—they accelerate because they are cheap at the start and very expensive at the end—I think that would be a public policy failure as well, so just a note of caution.

I suppose there are constraints in the system. We are doing our best as a government to deal with those constraints. The opposition's policy, I think, would be to exacerbate those constraints because they have a stated policy of rejecting a 3.5 per cent increase, which means that you would have to find that money from infrastructure or from somewhere else. It does not come out of the air. It would have to be found either by higher taxes in some other area or higher debt: they are the two choices.

Utilities around the world work in the same way. They borrow to put in infrastructure. They charge their customers for the use of that infrastructure. They pay a dividend to their owner, and that is no different to the arrangements we have in this state.

Mr PEDERICK: I acknowledge the minister's answer, but I think the stark reality is there is so much development needed and the state is certainly behind in sewer and potable water infrastructure. Surely—and I think it is going to be a reality—private suppliers, whether it is for potable water or sewer supply, can do that under a regulated operation with inspection or whatever, because I think it is going to be the stark reality for the developments we have. Obviously, there is the development in the north, whether it is Concordia, Roseworthy, and certainly at my end of town at Murray Bridge and Gifford Hill. Under a regulatory process, I think that is the stark reality of what it is going to have to be, but I am open for any further comments, if there are any.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Only that it is the next iteration of the discussions that we will have post GARP. There are a number of implementations that come out of this, and it is an issue that comes up nearly every week. Either local members bring it to me, developers bring it to me or local councils bring it to me. Knowing the northern growth front as I do, I am well aware of its effect around the place.

I am not against the private sector provision of wastewater. I think it can be done. It is done in other states and other parts of the world. The issue will be about having it done to SA Water standard and with good regulation around it. I think that is an important and ongoing conversation that the state will need to have.

Mr BASHAM: In relation to the new section 64(2b), can the minister confirm whether the identification of land for housing growth will involve an assessment of the productivity and suitability of agricultural lands before recommending expansions into the EFPA areas?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: For the State Planning Commission to do (2b), they have to be referred to (2c), and in particular to (2c)(f), which is about that exact issue. They would take advice from PIRSA and from other entities about the nature of that.

Mr BASHAM: In relation to that assessment of the land, will the assessment include looking at, yes, it may be good agricultural land, but is it actually achievable for it to be in agricultural production? There are many parcels of land around that are no longer used for agriculture because of their locality in relation to other developments, etc. Will there be the discounting of its suitability for agricultural land based on its rainfall, soil type and those sorts of things if its location is not necessarily suitable for it to be farmed because it is hemmed in by other constraints?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Again, the answer is the same. When the State Planning Commission is doing (2b), they have to take into account all of the provisions of (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h) in their consideration. I know the State Planning Commission diligently apply themselves to this. It does not matter what the membership is. You tend to put people with a great deal of experience in this area, planners and the like, and they think carefully about all these issues before they release land from the EFPA.

Other than dealing with anomalies, there should be little cause to return to the EFPA because we have accounted for housing supply for the next 30 years. We have found areas in this process that were not previously identified. Kudla is a good example, with 11,500 homes, as is Northern Park Lands and the like. We have set out to find sufficient housing supply. We have identified that housing supply. What we are doing in this act is bringing those two things into perfect alignment over the next 30 years. What happens in subsequent reviews is we will be looking at areas of anomaly. From previous briefings that I have had, I think there are fewer than 10 properties that come up as true anomalies. Outside of that, that will be the process.

Mr BASHAM: Will the minister ensure that all data and investigation reports underpinning the regional plan's housing supply forecasts and land release proposals are made publicly available, to assist in parliamentary and community scrutiny?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The methodology is already online, and that is the amount of information that we can release without looking at commercial confidentiality and cabinet processes and the like. I would prefer, as we have done in this whole process from the discussion paper onwards—and bear in mind, the 170-page discussion paper is probably the most comprehensive discussion paper and identification of land that we have ever had. We were quite deliberate on that to ensure that there was a sophisticated, public discussion about planning in this state.

I think that we are challenged by our economic circumstances, because they are good at the moment and so that will inevitably attract people. In the previous 30 years there were industrial shake-outs and the like, and that has affected our population base. I think we have done a comprehensive job all the way along about being transparent. We have been as transparent as we can be and we have released as much information as we can. When members have asked me about specific reasons why we have excluded Port Wakefield or Murray Bridge, I have been happy to outline our concerns with that.

Clause passed.

Clause 6.

Mr BASHAM: Can the minister explain why the exemption from section 125(10) for the EFPA-related land division proposals is necessary, and whether this risks increasing uncertainty for the affected landowners?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: What this is doing is closing a potential loophole in the previous acts. It is turning off deemed consent, because where you have planning applications in character preservation areas like McLaren Vale, the Barossa Valley or the EFPA, you need a concurrence of both the State Planning Commission and the local council, and if you keep deemed consent then it is possible to argue that, effectively, 'I had deemed consent because the council hadn't met,' or something like that. This is endeavouring to pre-empt a problem that might occur in the future and to make it very clear that if you have a planning application in these areas you have to get both SCAP and council approval. So it is a protection for local government, in effect.

Mr BASHAM: Is there a defined alternative timeframe for deciding development applications on land previously subject to EFPA restrictions but now outside those boundaries under the plan G9/2025?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I am advised that there are prescribed timeframes—but they are of varying length, depending on the nature of the application—and that there is a general requirement to act expeditiously.

Mr BASHAM: Will the minister consider setting a maximum timeframe for decisions relating to transitional EFPA lands to provide certainty for applicants during the boundary change process?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: In regard to land that is being removed, if they have a development application already in and there is a timeframe, and that is handled, I think, by the transition provisions in the act, going forward it will just be the normal process and they will be assessed against the planning act.

Clause passed.

Schedule 1.

Mr BASHAM: Can the minister clarify whether transitional protections for development applications lodged before the commencement day will be extended to ensure applicants are assessed under the most applicable land overlay?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: If you have a development application in the system, the transitional provisions will basically protect people's existing rights, so if you are putting up a hay shed, or something like that, it will all happen as a matter of course. When we remove the EFPA provisions, we are putting in a limited land division provision. The reason why we are doing that is because we do not want land that we have identified for housing growth to be broken up into two-hectare blocks, or something like that, like rural living. We needed to take off one set of constraints but we had to put in this new limited land division overlay so that the land was properly allocated for appropriate housing supply, which is essentially residential subdivision.

Mr BASHAM: In light of schedule 1 allowing for piecemeal disapplication of land division overlays, will the minister commit to publishing a forward schedule of when areas of former EFPA land will be reassessed?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The way it will work going forward is that a limited land division overlay will prevent a disaggregated move away from farming, so farming will continue in most of these areas as it does now and then what will happen is landowners, developers and others will apply for code amendments or the council will make code amendments or the government might make code amendments. That process will take some time.

The other part of it is the matter I was talking about with the member for Hammond, which is the provision of infrastructure. Even if a code amendment is initiated, as part of those code amendments you cannot get land rezoned effectively by code amendment unless you have infrastructure provisions in place, so it will be quite a comprehensive process going forward. I think that giving a full coherent timeline on that would be challenging because we are talking about vast areas, whole communities, and of course 30 years' worth of growth.

If I had my housing hat on, there is nothing I would like better than people competing on price and quality. I think that is important. But if you look at the infrastructure constraints, that is a challenge and also you would have to go through this comprehensive code amendment process, which we are going through in Concordia, for instance. Concordia was first identified in the very first plan in 2010 and I am the minister who in 2025 is going through the process of rezoning it. So I cannot give the member a timeframe. All I can say is the timeframe is the 30-year plan.

Mr BASHAM: Does the government intend to undertake any further plans or suitability assessments before amending the Planning and Design Code to remove overlays from the former EFPA land?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The code amendment process is the process that we would follow. Typically what happens with that part of that process is people make submissions to the State Planning Commission; the State Planning Commission will make recommendations to the planning minister, whoever that person is—hopefully it is me; it is me at the moment—and then the minister has a discretion about whether they initiate the code amendment as it is given to them or whether you initiate it with conditions. Then, obviously, there is a range of investigations as part of that: transport and a whole range of other investigations, such as local government, flood mapping, water and sewers, the whole works. There are a whole lot of investigations depending on the nature of the land.

There are no time limits on a code amendment, so sometimes code amendments go for some time. I recently signed off on one that was actually initiated when the honourable member was in government. Sometimes they take some time indeed. That is because you are doing all of these investigations.

Code amendments come in all shapes and sizes. Some are very small, discrete and easy to resolve, but when you are also using effectively the same mechanism to do Concordia, which is 10,000 homes and 25,000 people, it is a much more comprehensive and coherent process and thinking has to go behind it. So that would be the process, for instance, with Roseworthy, if you were going to expand Roseworthy. If you were going to expand Two Wells, there would have to be a code amendment, and when the code amendment was applied, the limited land division would be removed as part of that process.

Schedule passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION (Taylor—Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Housing Infrastructure, Minister for Planning) (12:47): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (12:47): I would just like to make a few comments in support of the bill, and I would like to make some observations arising from the debate during the committee stage, which I think is really important. It is particularly important for the people who live in the area of Roseworthy and those surrounding farming districts which are affected by this proposed change.

The important point I think needs to be made is that in terms of the proposed Liberal amendments which were defeated by the committee and the house, they actually did not make any changes or amendments to that proposal. A lot has been said both publicly and elsewhere about how horrible this proposal is, but the Liberal Party amendments in this place did not alter that one iota. In fact, the proposal, as I understand it—and I am happy to stand corrected—is to actually take other farming land out of the protection zone.

I think it is really important to understand that if we are going to advocate for communities we should do it in a transparent and honest way. The judgement that has been made, as I said in my second reading speech, here is: how do we actually increase housing supply? How do we enable people to have affordable housing? Part of that affordable housing is the cost of infrastructure.

One thing that became very clear in the minister's comments and answers during the committee stage was that to actually agree to the Liberal Party amendments would come at a huge infrastructure cost, particularly in the Dublin areas. I am not so familiar with the areas south of the city or the areas of Murray Bridge, etc., but certainly the proposal to allow further expansion of housing development in the Dublin area would actually come at a huge cost to either the developer, which would make the housing unaffordable, or the taxpayer, which means that somebody has to pay for that infrastructure in the end. It just does not happen. The transport infrastructure could perhaps be shared, but the reality is it would cost a lot more than what has been proposed by the government.

If we do believe in affordable housing and the right of everybody to have a house, I think it is important to make sure the land supply is such that it is at the lowest cost possible to the people who need to build a home. With those comments, I would like to reinforce and support the bill. I also acknowledge the weaknesses in the Liberal Party amendments because they do not actually save Roseworthy from development but add a lot of infrastructure costs to any potential buyers in the Dublin area. In other words, it is two negatives rather than any positives at all.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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