HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-07-02 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

RIVER TORRENS LINEAR PARK (LINEAR PARKS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 16 June 2009. Page 2629.)

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH (11:32): I will be supporting the second reading of this bill. This measure will enable the government to extend the controls that currently apply to the River Torrens Linear Park to other significant government landholdings adjacent to waterways, including the Gawler River, Little Para River, Dry Creek, Sturt River, Field River, Christies Creek, Onkaparinga River, Pedlar Creek and Port Willunga Creek.

I believe that the River Torrens Linear Park is one of the most underrated achievements of our state. Thanks to the vision and persistence of local councils, bureaucrats and several governments, we have a river and a river ecosystem running from the Hills to the sea. The current cohort of planners and public servants are building on that legacy. The Mount Lofty Natural Resources Management Board is turning time back at Breakout Creek by replacing the drain (that the Torrens had become) to the sea with a series of terminating wetlands. However, as marvellous as it is, the linear park is just a taste of what could be achieved. This bill creates the possibility of extending linear parks in other areas around the creeks that I have just mentioned, but I think it also possibly lays the foundation, at least conceptually, for extending the idea of linear parks far beyond that.

Our city is built over concreted creeks. You can see stretches of these old living creeks in between the dead concrete drains that we have created in their place. You can hear them gurgling beneath the bridges and culverts when it rains. For almost a decade I have dreamt of uncovering those creeks and creating a network of wetlands and open spaces that will give Adelaide beauty, biodiversity and water. This expansion of the notion of linear parks at least starts to open governments to that sort of thinking.

Of course, it will not be easy. It will, in fact, require generations of patient and strategic land acquisition and possibly further legislation. It will only begin if a government has a vision and the will to set and pursue such a goal, and it will only continue if their successors share this vision. This linear park amendment bill is just one small step towards that sort of thinking.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (11:34): I rise on behalf of the opposition to make some comments on this bill. This is a measure that, initially, the minister's advisers said was not a priority and so we are yet to take it through our full party room process. I will make some comments and then seek leave to conclude my remarks to allow the party room to consider it and then conclude my remarks when we next sit.

The River Torrens Linear Park Act 2006 provided for the protection of the park and its preservation as an urban park. As the Hon. Mr Winderlich said, this bill proposes to extend that protection and preservation to other linear parks. The 2006 act that we are amending was established in response to the sale of the former UniSA campus at Underdale. There was no legislation dealing with the disposal of land in public ownership which formed part of the River Torrens Linear Park. UniSA sold the land, a significant area of which was located across the River Torrens, but extensive negotiations with the new owners and prospective developers secured continuing public access to the land.

The 2006 legislation required the state government, state agencies, authorities, and local councils not to sell land within the linear park out of government ownership without the approval of both houses of parliament. The boundary of that part was defined by a General Registry Office (GRO) plan. So, one can see the controls that are on the River Torrens Linear Park, and this bill extends the provisions of the act to other waterways in the state, namely, state government holdings in linear parks, so that they can be defined in a GRO plan, and the same provisions would apply to their sale.

Minister Holloway, in his second reading explanation, indicated that waterways already identified as requiring plans included the Gawler River, Little Para River, Dry Creek, Sturt Creek, Field River, Christies Creek, Onkaparinga River, Pedlar Creek, and Port Willunga Creek. They are the creeks or waterways that have been identified but I would ask: what other waterways exist in South Australia that could be captured with this legislation?

I note the existence of creeks in certain parts of the South-East and, of course, the Glenelg River forms part of the border at the very bottom in the South-East of the state. There are some other creeks, quite small ones that run only when there is some rain, but in the Spencer Gulf and St Vincent Gulf area there are a number of creeks that run into the sea. So, I am wondering whether any of these creeks are yet to be identified and captured under this bill.

The success of this bill would trigger departmental preparation of detailed plans for the parks and landholdings to be protected with the lodgment of a GRO—and that applies to Sturt Creek, Gawler River and all those we have mentioned. The minister has said that this will be done in close consultation with those government agencies with landholdings that may be affected.

From my recollection, the government, in the end, compulsorily acquired or negotiated with the owners to buy the land that was privately owned but was within the Torrens Linear Park. It is my understanding that the landowners were not able to sell the land back to the private sector or to subdivide or develop it. It is my understanding that, by virtue of the restrictions placed on it, privately owned land within the linear park will virtually end up in government ownership.

In his summing up, can the minister clarify for the council how privately owned land will be treated in any of these other waterways (and there would be more privately owned land on a lot of these waterways than was the case with the Torrens Linear Park, as it was known in 2006), and how will other government agencies be dealt with? If you are going to have linear parks along all our waterways, they need to be clearly defined, and the rights of landholders who have holdings within those parks and those whose land may even form a barrier for creating the linear park need to be protected. Will the minister also clarify how this legislation will impact on local government where its land fronts these potential linear parks?

As the Hon. David Winderlich said, the Torrens Linear Park is something we should all be very proud of. That linear park is probably under-utilised and is not really promoted as one of the great assets we have here in Adelaide. The protection, preservation and maintenance of the park is a collaborative effort between local government and the state government, and that includes protection from feral animals, feral weeds and pests, vandalism and stormwater protection—a whole range of protections are in place for the Torrens Linear Park.

I think the question needs to be asked: who will be responsible for the maintenance and care of these linear parks, or areas that will be defined with the lodgment of a GRO of these plans? Is it local government's responsibility to keep out weeds and vermin, or is it the state government's responsibility? It is an honourable concept, but I really do not know whether the government has fully thought through the cost to itself, the taxpayers or the local ratepayers for the maintenance and preservation of these sites.

Before I seek leave to conclude my remarks, I reiterate that I really do want the minister to clearly identify how privately owned land will be affected by this legislation. As I have said, I am sure there will be dozens of examples where private landowners will own land right down one side and out the other side of a watercourse, and there will be some steeper areas that may be in government hands.

I think that, to achieve a linear park similar to the one that we have in Adelaide, you need to have access to and ownership of the land from the headwaters of the creek, the waterway or the river to where the river finishes. The Liberal Party always wants to protect the interests of private landowners, so I would particularly like the minister to clearly explain to the council how privately owned land will be affected. Given that our party room has not yet fully considered this bill and that we will be taking it to our next party room meeting, I seek leave to conclude my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.


[Sitting suspended from 11:43 to 14:15]



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