HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-09-25 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Address in Reply

ADDRESS IN REPLY

Adjourned debate on motion for adoption.

(Continued from 24 September 2008. Page 223.)

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (15:23): First, in my response to the Address in Reply, I acknowledge the contribution of members and, in particular, I acknowledge the contributions of His Excellency the Governor, Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce, and the Lieutenant-Governor, His Excellency Hieu Van Le. In relation to the Governor, it is not only his contribution in the traditional role as Governor but also, of course, as a former member of the defence forces and a former head of the Defence SA team in South Australia. I know that he retains a very keen interest in that area and is a very valuable resource for the state in terms of developing—for the benefit of the people of this state—our defence industries.

The first point I cover is the future of the Address in Reply debate. It was a little disappointing that there were several members of the other house, and indeed I think the Hon. Mr Brokenshire from this council, who went public beforehand to make comments denigrating the fact that we have this opening of parliament. Ever since the state was first established, parliament has been prorogued on an annual basis, the Governor has reopened the session, and we have had an Address in Reply.

I note that it was reported on the radio that the Hon. Mr Brokenshire had said words to the effect that 'today is a costly wasted day because we cannot get on and put our bills before the parliament'. Notwithstanding that, I note that most members of parliament have spoken to the Address in Reply. Part of the reason why we have had the Address in Reply—and the benefit is more for members in the lower house than those in the upper house—is to enable backbench members, in particular, to raise any issue they like under the broad framework of the Address in Reply.

That has been a tradition in this parliament for 150 years, and it is one that I have always supported. If members do not want the Address in Reply and for us to have one continual session of parliament over the four years, then from the government's point of view we would not find any problem with that because it would mean that more time could be given to addressing government business. As a personal view, I think it would be a pity, particularly for members in the lower house where there are many more members and they have less opportunity to raise issues of interest to their electorate, if that longstanding convention were to vanish.

A number of comments were made during the Address in Reply, and I want to talk about one of them. It has become fashionable now for members of the opposition, particularly the Hon. Rob Lucas, to try to associate the word 'arrogance' with government. They are suggesting that, if you repeat the words enough, it might happen to come true, so they just keep repeating it—'government, arrogant; government, arrogant'—in the hope that somebody eventually will believe them.

What could be more arrogant than what we witnessed last night: the Hon. Rob Lucas, while calling the government arrogant, spoke for well in excess of an hour, sprouting corridor gossip. There was no listing of the policies of this government. It is surely arrogant for any opposition to be in this parliament, expecting to win government, without giving any detailed policies let alone the cost of those policies. That is what arrogance is. Arrogance is treating the people of this state with such disrespect as telling them gossip, and it was combined today with the questions we had in question time. If they really think that is a substitute for detailed policies, particularly well-costed policies, that is what arrogance really means.

Also last night, the Leader of the Opposition gave a fascinating speech about how the state has lost its mojo. I thought it would be worth having a look on the web to find some definitions. Some definitions of mojo that are given on the web are as follows:

it is a human-sized voodoo doll who encounters Serge in the basement of one of Serge's neighbourhood houses;

it is a voodoo spell that brings bad luck;

it is a magic power or a magic spell;

mojo is a term commonly encountered in the African-American folk belief called hoodoo;

a mojo is a type of magic charm, often of red flannel cloth, tied with a drawstring containing botanical, zoological and/or mineral curios, petition papers and the like; and

mojo is a video game that came out in 2003 for Playstation 2 and X-Box where you steer a marble through a series of traps in order to break all of the coloured blocks in a level.

This is what South Australia has apparently lost. Another definition has mojo as the name or an abbreviated name of several types of hot sauce that originated in the Canary Islands. It is predominantly either a red, most commonly green, or orange sauce. So, this is what we have lost.

Mojo is also a Marvel comic super villain, an enemy of the X-men, primarily in Longshot. That is probably about what the opposition members are—longshots. Created by writer Ann Nocenti and artist Art Adams, he first appeared in Longshot No. 3 in November 1985. Mojo is a popular music magazine published monthly in the United Kingdom. Mojo is an Australian advertising agency. Finally, mojo refers to mobile journalists; that is, staff or freelance reporters who write their stories from their communities thanks to technical tools such as digital cameras and camcorders. That is the definition of 'mojo'.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: To go into it a bit further, in the early 20th century the word 'mojo' meant voodoo or magical power, specifically one which gave the mojo's male possessor a sexual power over women. That is apparently what this state has lost. Of course, it began in 1957, when the word was given particular fame by Muddy Waters, whom not many in this place would remember. Muddy Waters was McKinley Morganfield, a well-known blues singer who grew up in Mississippi. His famous blues classic was 'Got my mojo working'. The Hon. Mr Ridgway spent the entire time—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Yes; exactly. I hope that interjection is recorded because that was the sort of thing that we have listened to in the Address in Reply debate. As I said earlier, I believe in the Address in Reply. It has an historical use, which enables members to raise issues of concern in their electorates, particularly in the lower house. But, when we have that sort of drivel, with the Hon. Rob Lucas spending half an hour naming anybody who had any relative or friend who was connected in any way with the shoppies union, and when we have this speech that we have lost our mojo, perhaps it is a tradition that has had its day.

Many things were said in the Address in Reply debate, and it is not really my role to respond to all of them. However, the Hon. Sandra Kanck, in particular, made a number of attacks on the planning reforms. The extraordinary amount of misinformation she gave us, I think, should not go unchecked. If we are to cope with the growth that this state will inevitably face, we need to be able to house our people. One of the big challenges that we face in our society at the moment is providing affordable housing, particularly for our young people.

I find it extraordinary that I should be accused of things by the Hon. Sandra Kanck for quite base political reasons, to get some traction. She has been out there saying that the Labor Party is too close to business, and making all these allegations. Our big challenge is to provide affordable housing for the people of this state. We can do that only in two ways: we can physically accommodate that housing only if we extend the boundaries of our city or if we have higher density.

Of course, the Hon. Ms Kanck is essentially opposed to both those options. She is opposed to any urban growth at all, and she has attacked the policies of this government in relation to trying to increase the supply of land, to keep pressure down on the cost of homes, and she is also opposed to infill. She attacked the decision that we made in relation to the Le Cornu development, because she claims the building is too high.

Effectively, the Hon. Sandra Kanck represents a very selfish and greedy position. What she is saying is that the people who are fortunate enough to have homes now should have a ring fence put around them, their property value should rise, and young people in particular, who do not have homes, should be left to defend themselves with really nowhere to go. They cannot look for new homes in the outer suburbs and there cannot be any further density. That really is an untenable proposition. I resent the accusations of sleaze that are made of this government being too close to developers when, in fact, it is her position that is the very selfish one of protecting those who are fortunate enough to own their own home. Those people, of course, want the value of their property to increase by putting a ring fence around them and ensuring that there are no options.

There were many misrepresentations in the speech about planning reforms, and one in particular related to character areas. The reforms arising out of the planning review the government has put forward will in many ways provide better protection to character areas within our inner suburbs—suburbs such as Unley, Norwood, Walkerville, Mile End and the like. The reason for that is that at present the only protection houses get is if they are on a heritage list and, of course, not every house in those areas is worthy of being on a heritage list—nor should they be.

In suburbs such as Unley there are many houses that were built before the Second World War (I think something like 70 per cent were built at that time), and it is those houses that give Unley and other similar suburbs their character. Under the government reforms, if a special code is applied over those areas, the type of development built within them can be controlled. So, we can ensure that any new housing put in there—perhaps to replace some of the 1960s abominations built within those areas, or if some of those old houses are simply not sound and need to be removed—is compatible with the character of the homes being removed. So, the reforms this government hopes to bring in will, in fact, give greater protection to the character of those suburbs.

Contrary to what the Hon. Ms Kanck said yesterday, I have met with groups such as Save Our Suburbs and others on occasions in the past, and I will be meeting with them again. The position they have put to me has always been that their major concern is the construction of new houses in character areas that are totally incompatible architecturally with the character of their neighbourhood. I believe their opposition is not so much to new buildings—because we all accept that as buildings age they need replacing or refurbishment—but that it is important that, within the special character areas of the city that make it what it is, those replacements reflect that character.

It is a very difficult exercise, and the government has been working with Unley council now for at least two years. Unley council has gone through and identified, I think, at least six different character types—ranging from federation to workers' row cottages to Tudor homes and to a number of architectural characters that define that city—and I believe that it has identified that at least 45 per cent of its city fits into those pre-Second World War character types. We have been working closely with Unley council to use that area as a pilot on how we can protect that character of inner-city suburbs.

At the same time, what we need to do in our planning reforms is make housing more affordable; we need to give our young people their chance. The planning review has identified that, because of the massive delays that exist within the planning system, if we can greatly reduce the time taken in giving approvals for uncomplicated houses and uncomplicated additions, there is the potential to save hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars over the next five years.

How we will do that is by trying to reduce the number of applications in our planning system. It is interesting to note that in 2006-07 within the entire state of Victoria there were 49,587 planning permits; in the same year in South Australia the number of development applications lodged was 63,468. So, there were over 13,500 more planning permits required in this state than in the entire state of Victoria. Of course, in Victoria there were 100,930 building permits required; so in Victoria there is this difference between planning permits and building permits. Building permits, of course, are essential to ensure that structures are safe. That example shows that a state three times our size actually requires fewer planning permits than we do. So the potential is there to gain savings which we can then pass on as cheaper housing—particularly for our young people. Indeed, a number of estimates have been made of the holding costs as a result of government reforms.

If someone buys a block of land and they have to wait for six to 12 months before they get approval for a house (for example, it might be a standard off-the-shelf display home that is always going to be approved), the holding costs of that will be enormous; they would have to rent a house while they waited for those approvals to go through. If they could get approval in a month or so, as they do in, say, Victoria, those holding costs would be significantly reduced. There will be huge potential savings if we can improve our system but, as I indicated earlier, that need not be at the expense of protecting the character of particularly our inner city suburbs, which make this state so attractive.

In relation to the planning review, contrary to some of the comments that have been made in the Address in Reply, the government has consulted very widely. I can tell the council that 44 councils (and these are preliminary figures) have submitted submissions, some of which are very detailed: 16 from government agencies; 27 from industry or consultancy groups; 47 from Save our Suburbs; 193 from a particular area of Glenelg; and a petition in Burnside.

There have been six other community group consultations; and also 80 submissions from the general public. The government appreciates the input that people have made into that, and we will be looking at all of those submissions. However, I find it disappointing that the thrust of the planning review should be met, as it was last night by the Hon. Ms Kanck, with hysterical diatribe about how this government is too close to developers and so on.

Yes, the government has consulted industry and developers, if you like. But who else is going to build houses for most people? I do not believe we will get to a situation where most of the people in this state will be building their own houses. So, whether we like it or not, we have to deal with the housing construction people and the groups that represent them. If we are to make housing affordable, we need to work with those groups, and this government is prepared to do so. We need to do that not just to lower the cost of residential housing, although that in itself is essential, but we need to ensure that the cost of housing in this state is competitive if our economy is to grow and we are to have jobs for the people of this state.

It has been commented on in the planning review that, in some places such as Melbourne, where there have been significant increases in land and improvements in reducing the time taken to get approvals (and I have referred to that earlier), in fact, the cost of the house/land packages in Melbourne is moving very close to that of Adelaide. We have been going up, and Melbourne has sort of plateaued. So, it is absolutely essential to keep our cost competitiveness so that we can provide competitive housing for the people of this state, and one of the best ways we can do that is to unlock these unnecessary costs because of delays within the planning system.

I certainly do not make any apology for going ahead with this. In politics, the easy path is always to do nothing. If you do nothing, I guess you do not get into any trouble, but you do not achieve anything. From my point of view, this is an exercise worth embarking on. Yes; it is very complex and difficult if we are talking about changing our planning to the extent we are to bring in this sort of code and all the detailed changes announced in the planning review. However, we have to do it, because it is essential for the future of this state.

I know that people such as the Hon. Ms Kanck and some of her supporters out there support a situation where we have no population growth in this state. That is their solution. In fact, I read somewhere in one of her press comments that the Hon. Ms Kanck looks back fondly on those days when we were accused of being a rust belt and that she considers they were actually halcyon days.

I do not agree with that, and I do not think that most South Australians agree with it. They want to preserve the character and uniqueness of our city, but they also want it to grow and they want to get the benefits of modern development. It is that balance that the government is seeking to achieve through its planning reforms.

As I said earlier, the Address in Reply is an opportunity for members of this parliament to give their views on a wide range of subjects. We are, of course, responding to the address that His Excellency the Governor gave in outlining the program of this government. Members opposite have been scathing in relation to its content. What they do not realise is that this state has set out a State Strategic Plan with almost 100 targets in areas such as increasing road safety, increasing wellbeing and improving economic performance. This state has specific targets in social, environmental and economic areas. We will not achieve some of those targets, but we are achieving many of them. With the focus that this is given—

The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: And this is what the plan is all about. The Hon. Mr Wade does not understand it. He is the shadow minister for road safety. What has been happening in relation to road safety? The road toll has been coming down. The reason it is down is that one of our targets focuses on that. The chief executives—

The Hon. S.G. Wade: It's been coming down since 1973.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Yes—it will go down only if you keep pressure on it. It will stabilise unless you look for new initiatives to reduce it. But so it is in a whole lot of other areas of government. In my portfolio we have targets for mineral exploration, in which we have more than succeeded. However, we have succeeded only because we had a specific program—the PACE program—designed to achieve it. And so we have with each of the other targets within our State Strategic Plan.

Contrast that with what members opposite have suggested. All they have done is criticise this government and said that there should be more money here and more money there. They have not yet come up with a single policy on anything that I have seen, other than one, and that is building a sports stadium. That is the only thing they have come up with. They have not costed a single thing. All they have done is knock and whinge. I think it is important within this debate that it be put on the record that this government, through its State Strategic Plan, has a series of specific targets, which the government is working on in great detail to achieve.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Dawkins is out of his seat. He will cease interjecting.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: This government, through its State Strategic Plan, is working on achieving a wide range of targets right across government, and they are locked into the very workings of government. Instead of just knocking everything, if members opposite do not like those targets or they are not going to work to them, it is about time they started to tell us—

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: They are worthless, are they—the targets? If that is the view of members opposite, they will just scrap all this and they will not have any target objectives to work away at. Yet, while this government has those targets and is making significant improvements across the board with respect to most of them, they are saying that they will scrap this, but they then have the gall to criticise us for not having plans. It just does not wash.

I conclude by again acknowledging the contribution of His Excellency the Governor, the Lieutenant-Governor and their spouses. I thank them for their contribution to the state, and I particularly thank the Governor for his address outlining the program for this session of parliament.

Motion carried.

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