HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-09-22 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

30-YEAR PLAN FOR GREATER ADELAIDE

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (15:26): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Urban Development and Planning a question regarding the draft 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: The minister has already addressed the issue of population projections in an earlier answer, but I would like the minister to respond to comments made by Richard Blandy recently, when he criticised the plan for Greater Adelaide at a northern leaders forum, which were published last week in The Advertiser. Will the minister respond to these criticisms and outline the government's objectives in setting a growth strategy for Greater Adelaide through a 30-year plan?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (15:26): I thank the honourable member for his question. As discussed earlier in question time, in July the government published a draft 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide for public comment—and I need to repeat that because a lot of people do not seem to understand that we are still going through the consultation period at the moment. That plan was put out there to foster debate and hopefully attract some constructive criticism from the community on how this comprehensive document could be improved.

This strategic document sets out a vision for growth and development of the Greater Adelaide region for the next three decades, including ways to accommodate a growing population, provide more housing choices for changing demographics, and tackle the challenges of climate change, rising fuel prices and water security. As the Hon. Mr Wortley pointed out, Professor Blandy has made some criticisms of the plan, including the economic analysis that helped frame many of the assumptions in our projections for growth.

There are three points I would make in response to Professor Blandy's comments. First, he appears to have misread and misunderstood parts of the 30-year plan; secondly, the economic modelling in the plan that he has criticised was undertaken by KPMG, one of the country's most respected modelling agencies; and, finally, the government does not and will not agree with Professor Blandy's view that there is no need to use planning to try to reduce carbon emissions as this problem will be solved by the federal emissions trading scheme.

I would like to deal with each of those points in turn. Professor Blandy claimed that 'elected local governments are replaced as partners of the state government by unelected regional bodies' in the plan. That is a complete misreading of it. The regional implementation forums to which Professor Blandy refers are made up solely of local and state governments. The purpose is to strengthen the partnership of state and local governments in delivering infrastructure and planning at a regional level. This will undoubtedly deliver better outcomes for the community.

In addition, some of Professor Blandy's criticisms appear to be of what he says are editorial errors in the plan; however, his editing criticisms appear to have confused the Background Technical Papers with the plan, despite the very clear labelling that they are not part of the plan. I am sure this is an honest mistake on his part.

In terms of the economic modelling, I would say that it is normal for economists to dispute each other's modelling. Historic growth rates are not the sole determinant of projected growth rates. In this case modelling was undertaken by the highly respected KPMG and relied heavily upon projections published by commonwealth Treasury which take into account the national trend towards a lower proportion of working-age population. The plan was modelled using input such as population scenarios endorsed by the cabinet, assumed impacts of transit-oriented developments, and the potential carbon pollution reduction scheme. The modelling projections are also in line with the Economic Development Board's economic statement.

I believe it is reasonable for the government to rely on such eminent sources. In addition, Professor Blandy claimed that the growth and manufacturing sector in the plan is high when compared to past trends. Again, the modelling was undertaken by KPMG and is a good news story for South Australia. Increases are expected as demand is maintained for defence goods, electronics and other manufacturers related to energy efficiency and renewable energy, alternatively known as advanced manufacturing.

It would appear that Professor Blandy might have been referring to an old definition of 'manufacturing'. I am advised that Professor Blandy has commented that there is no need for the state government to use planning tools to try to reduce carbon emissions by encouraging more use of public transport or more carbon efficient buildings. He says that this is unnecessary because the federal government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) would rectify the matter.

The government does not agree with this proposition. Whilst the CPRS will put a price on carbon and therefore seek to drive down demand, it is not a magic bullet. We will all need to pull our weight and we must find ways to reduce emissions and assist South Australians to access more affordable living and use fewer resources into the future.

The government is very keen to strengthen Elizabeth's role as an economic and activity centre in the region. We are planning to have Elizabeth as a transit-oriented development so that people are able to live, work and play within the development but also use public transport for necessary trips. I think that covers the point raised earlier by the Leader of the Opposition that Elizabeth, of course, is one of the key 13 identified sites for transit-oriented development. Professor Blandy's suggestion of a second CBD is perhaps unrealistic when we look at the ageing demographics of the Greater Adelaide Region.

Finally, despite suggestions that the government failed to consult the community before publishing the draft, I can assert that the plan is the culmination of extensive consultation with local government, state government agencies, and key industry and community organisations. Three rounds of regional forums were held with councils across Greater Adelaide that discussed opportunities and constraints confronting councils in meeting the challenges of housing a growing population and facilitating regional economic growth. While elements of the plan are not explicitly attributed to councils, their input was an integral part of developing the direction of the plan.

Again, I would encourage all South Australians to obtain a copy of the draft plan and lodge a submission with the Department of Planning and Local Government. It is where we all live, so it is important that people have their say, but it should be based on fact.

I add that I think it was Professor Blandy who made some public comments in relation to the future of Bolivar as a site. That was raised with me some time back by Stephen Haines, the Chief Executive Officer of the City of Salisbury. As a result of that I had meetings with the chief executive officer of SA Water, but the information I was given was that SA Water had done some studies in relation to shifting that site and the economics did not stack up.

That is the reason why Bolivar is not in there, but I personally had some meetings in relation to that and it is a matter which has been considered. From a planning perspective it may well make sense to have development in that area, but obviously that will depend on SA Water's future plans for the site, and it has made it clear that, at this stage, it would not be economic to shift it.

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