HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-02-09 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

WILLUNGA BASIN PROTECTION BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 25 November 2010.)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (20:27): I rise on behalf of the opposition to speak to the Willunga Basin Protection Bill that was introduced by the Hon. Robert Brokenshire. It is almost two years since the Hon. Robert Brokenshire first introduced this bill. I put on the record on 13 May 2009, I think, a detailed contribution in relation to the opposition's support for the bill at that time. I note that my colleague, the Hon. Michelle Lensink, made some contribution last year and indicated that we would be supporting this bill again.

It is interesting to note that the government chose not to support the bill prior to the last election. Notwithstanding the fact that the government had the member for Mawson, Leon Bignell, wanting to try to secure or save that particular seat, we were surprised that it did not see fit to sit down and negotiate with the Hon. Robert Brokenshire. I think goodwill was expressed in this chamber from both the opposition and the minor parties that—

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan: We won anyway, you might notice.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Hon. Bernard Finnigan, the Leader of the Government, interjects that he won. I think that some very sneaky and underhanded tactics were used down in that electorate. I note that today it was reported that Leon Bignell mentioned in caucus on Monday that they were starting to really smell out there in elector or voter land and that they were in real trouble in the south.

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan: It wasn't reported; it was nonsense set up with parliamentary privilege.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: He didn't deny it; people haven't denied it.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: The only 'source' you would have is tomato sauce on your pie, Mr Lucas.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The government did not support the bill, and it said that it was committed to council—I assume that is the local council—to help find other mechanisms to achieve a similar outcome. We pursued the minister through estimates and asked how discussions between the department and council were coming along. As late as October last year, he was still unable to confirm that a working group had been set up. There still have not been any commitments from the government about providing an alternative protection for the Willunga Basin, or least investigating one, although today I did hear that the Premier was tweeting about the Willunga Basin and the Barossa Valley, which, I think, is timely, given what our sources (which are of the highest quality) tell us about some of the things Mr Bignell said in caucus and that they are very concerned about hanging on to the seat of Mawson at the next election.

Of course, we have the significant issue of Seaford Heights, which has arisen since the last time I spoke on this bill. It is another interesting issue that Mr Leon Bignell, the local member, has become the champion of saving the community from this dreadful development, yet it was sold on a tender process to the successful tenderer prior to the last election. I am not quite sure where Mr Leon Bignell was during the last election campaign, but it seems as though he may have just been keeping his head down and keeping quiet because he did not particularly want the local residents to realise what the government was up to.

I am informed that one of the reasons the DPA was rejected by the council was a failure to consider Seaford Heights in conjunction and as part of the Willunga Basin. I drive past that particular site quite often and I think it does have some importance in the context of a gateway to—

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan: It's been that way for years.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Hon. Bernard Finnigan interjects it has been that way for years. If Leon Bignell had any pull, you would change the zoning in your government. You are in charge now. You always harp back; the more things change, the more they stay the same.

The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Opposition should not be misled and respond to interjections.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have not been misled, Mr President, but thank you for your guidance. Within a day and half, the Hon. Bernard Finnigan is exactly the same as the Hon. Paul Holloway, blaming something on a government that was in government, sadly, almost a decade ago. They have had nine years; it is a bit rich to blame governments of 10 years ago. We did not put it up for sale or for tender; that was your government. It was your government that sold out the people of the Willunga Basin.

It is interesting to note that, when you sit down and talk with some of the people down there, such as the McLaren Vale Grape, Wine and Tourism Association, they are quite concerned about how the government intends to protect the character of this area. There is a whole range of issues yet to be canvassed in relation to the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's bill. We do not see it as being a perfect solution at all, but it is a step in the right direction, and I think we need to look at what the government has done in Mount Barker, where a rezoning has taken place.

The council wanted 400 hectares. It was quite happy to have that at this stage, and I suspect, over time, would have been prepared to look at a bigger area, but no, the government saw fit and has earmarked some 1,300 hectares for rezoning. So you can see some real inconsistencies. This was an electorate that the government was desperate to hang on to. Of course, in the Mount Barker area, we have two extremely well qualified, well-respected and loved members—Isobel Redmond and Mark Goldsworthy. So, clearly some of these decisions were made with a political bias.

It is interesting to note that, when you sit down and talk with the McLaren Vale Grape, Wine and Tourism Association and some of the other experts—I had the opportunity to sit down with Philip White recently, a renowned wine writer, to talk about the importance of certain pieces of land in the Willunga Basin—clearly some areas are much better for producing wine, and high-quality wine, than others, and some areas perhaps should not have been used for vineyard production.

I think that this bill does, in some way, address the issues that have been raised by the association and by Philip White and other interested parties, where perhaps it might be time to look at the basin as a whole and work out the areas which are best suited for viticultural production and which will produce the finest wines and the less suitable areas which were perhaps planted up when the industry was going through a rapid expansion phase. Maybe there needs to be some assessment of whether there is a long-term future in having viticulture or perhaps some other type of horticultural production in those areas.

People talk about the Tour Down Under. If you look at the Tour de France, you will often see the cyclists going through the countryside and they will come to a little village that has perhaps three and four-storey dwellings. That is something that the government has not addressed at all. It has talked about TODS and infill in some areas in the city, but maybe the discussion needs to be around having some very small but much denser population in this area. I think the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's bill sets out a framework for having a very broad-based, all encompassing group of people to develop a better plan for the area.

In my contribution before the election, I indicated that we saw this as a step in the right direction not only for the Willunga Basin but for the Barossa Valley, and possibly even some of the other important agricultural and horticultural areas in the state, where we really need to work in partnership with the people who live and breathe the activities in those communities to come up with a plan that protects those important areas, so that they can be not only economically viable but also provide some tourism amenities and some certainty for both business and private investment.

Certainly, we have seen that the Napa Valley has a reasonably well-structured management plan and legislative framework that allows the Napa Valley to retain its character and yet provide some certainty for investment for not only horticultural and viticultural pursuits but also for commercial pursuits.

It was a little interesting, just as an aside; I have just rechecked the 30-year plan. The 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide talks about 560,000 extra people living in Adelaide. Of that, there will be about 80,000 in the southern Adelaide region, which of course is from Mitcham down to Willunga and 36,500 of those are on transport corridors and in TODs, so we are looking at about 40,000 people which really, over that area, it is not very many, and not very many in comparison to the 140,000 and 180,000 in some of the areas to the north.

Yet, during the election campaign, out of nowhere, the government announced a half a billion dollar duplication of the Southern Expressway. That flies in the face of the 30-year plan, because why would you spend half a billion dollars on an expressway if you do not plan to have further development or further population growth? We were somewhat confused that the government, while wanting only another, perhaps, 40,000 people in the southern area, was prepared to spend half a billion dollars extending the Southern Expressway.

Incidentally, when the Premier announced it, he was unable to explain how it was to be funded. When the Minister for Transport was asked how it would be funded, he was unable to explain it and said that Kevin was the 'money man' and eventually treasurer Foley turned up at another press conference and said it was in the unallocated capital in the forward estimates, which I am reliably informed is code for 'We actually don't have any idea how we're going to fund it, but we thought we'd better make the announcement to try and save Leon Bignell's skin.'

The Mayor of Onkaparinga has also stated concern that there is no indication for long-term plans that would include parking for rail; we have the extension of the rail line to Seaford. While this is not directly related to Willunga, it is on the edge of the Willunga Basin, and there is this view that you take the rail line down there and then suddenly it is much easier to live in the Willunga Basin, McLaren Vale, Willunga and other small communities and then commute to a railway station. So, again, the government's plans do put a lot more pressure on this area.

It does indicate that the government really does not have a plan. The Hon. Robert Brokenshire has indicated with his Willunga Basin Protection Bill that he wants to be part of a solution and the opposition certainly wants to be part of a solution. I hope that in about three years or slightly more than that we may be on the other side of the chamber where we can actually have some hands-on work to help protect the Willunga Basin, the Barossa Valley and any other areas that are important.

As members would know, I was a farmer and involved in the farming community before I came into this place and I have always respected the high value, high rainfall parts of South Australia. They are important. This year we have had a very good season but South Australia is often described as the driest state in the driest continent and we seem to be having an unprecedented growth spurt in some of the high rainfall, high quality areas. I think there are a lot of areas in South Australia relatively close to Adelaide that are not particularly high quality land; similar rainfall but not high quality land.

If the government decides to support this bill—although given that it has not done so in the past I suspect it is unlikely it will tonight, but I suspect it will pass the Legislative Council—I do hope that new minister Rau is prepared to consider what the Hon. Robert Brokenshire is trying to achieve with it. I think there should be almost a ranking of the quality of land in the high rainfall areas so that the better value land should not necessarily be ruled out for development forever but maybe a larger number of hoops or some higher hurdles have to be jumped through or over to get that across the line and to get that to market for development or for change of land use.

The Hon. Iain Evans, the member for Davenport, has often spoken to me about the Hills Face Zone and the issues of being unable to change land use within that zone. He knows orchardists who have pear orchards and would like to change, because they still want to farm, but because it is a change of land use they are finding it almost impossible to do so. I think people need to be flexible.

The opposition thinks that the broad-based committee that the Hon. Robert Brokenshire is proposing may be a little bit cumbersome and a little bit unwieldy, but I think that what we need to aim for is a real partnership between the community, local government and the state government to make sure we protect those areas, look after them, treasure them and allow economic development at the same time, whether for tourism facilities or horticultural development. Alternatively, as the Wine and Grape Association has said to me, there may be areas in the Willunga Basin that may have been planted to grapes when things were booming, but it may not be the best possible use for that land, so perhaps it is time to sit down in a rational way and look at ways of tweaking that land use for the best outcome for the region.

With those few words I indicate the opposition is again happy to support the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's bill and we do hope that this time the government does not just pay lip service to it and the Premier's tweets that we have seen today are actually more than just tweets; that he actually puts his money where his mouth is and comes to the table—or new minister Rau comes to the table—and brings about some sensible reform that sees some protection of areas such as the Willunga Basin, some of the Adelaide Hills and, of course, the Barossa Valley.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (20:43): I would like to acknowledge the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's attempt to again introduce the Willunga Basin Protection Bill 2010. As indicated by the honourable member, this was raised in the council over 12 months ago. I think it was actually February 2009. This time around the intent of the bill has not changed. The intent of the bill is to circumvent the existing legislative framework for development approvals and add layers of bureaucracy and red tape to the process.

The Development Act 1993 provides the state's legislative framework to manage land use and development matters. The planning strategy provides a spatial land use direction to guide future growth to accommodate people, housing and jobs, while the development plan, which must demonstrate compliance with the planning strategy, provides the policy framework for assessing applications for development.

When this debate occurred in the council last year, one of the key recommendations of the planning and development review was under way, namely, the preparation of the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide. This council is well aware that the government formally released this plan in February this year following a long and intensive public consultation process. The planning strategy is a comprehensive and forward-looking plan not seen in decades that will position this state to respond to pivotal changes in the economic, demographic and social landscape.

The strategy clearly recognised the importance of the Willunga Basin as a prime food and wine producing region, tourist destination, key regional employment area and coastal settlement that supports affordable housing and choice in the region as well as containing areas of environmental importance. The strategy contains a number of specific policies to support this, including:

using measures, including planning controls, to protect important primary production areas such as the Willunga Basin;

the urban boundary guiding the extent of urban development in the region;

protection of the hills face zone and open space system; and

that Bowering Hill be reserved for agriculture, viticulture, tourism, tourist accommodation or biodiversity related uses.

These policies are reflected in the Onkaparinga council development plan as statutory planning policy and can be strengthened through the council's section 30 review.

Any adjustments to the planning strategy and subsequent changes to the development plan are each subject to statutory public consultation process. This provides the community with the opportunity to provide formal comment on strategic or policy proposals prior to any decision being made.

Furthermore, the Willunga Basin Sub-Group of the Government Planning and Coordination Committee has been established. The committee consists of chief executives of various state government departments, the local member of parliament (Mr Leon Bignell) and the mayor of the City of Onkaparinga (an ex Liberal member in the southern suburbs). I also note that Mr Tim Horton, the Commissioner for Integrated Design, will also be a member of the Willunga Basin Sub-Group.

The task of the Government Planning and Coordination Committee Willunga Basin Sub-Group will be to investigate the best ways to protect the Willunga Basin in line with the policies enunciated in the planning strategy. Using existing structures and systems is a much better approach than introducing new statutory committees, unnecessary referrals, and a new bureaucracy that would inevitably increase red tape and increase costs to the community.

The protection of the Willunga Basin and its key environmental areas such as the Aldinga scrub reserve has been in place for many years. The current policy applying to this region is therefore a longstanding one that recognises the value of the areas and the aspects that contribute to this.

The proposed Willunga Basin Protection Bill is designed to transfer statutory planning and development functions from the minister and council to the Willunga Basin protection committee. It would do this by providing the committee with the responsibility of determining the land use strategy and policy applying to Willunga Basin through developing the Willunga Basin plan and provide it with the power of direction over all development applications in the region. The new committee would only have very limited expertise in planning matters, with only one member required to have such experience.

The introduction of the proposed Willunga Basin protection committee would introduce a new layer of bureaucracy. It would slow development assessment processes in the region, with all development proposals requiring referral to the committee. Further, the introduction of the basin plan would duplicate the planning strategy and development plan and create some confusion as to the relationship of these, particularly if there are inconsistencies.

The bill as it currently stands contains some technical issues in its relationship with the Development Act 1993. In particular, section 33(1) of the Development Act 1993 cites the various matters that a development application must be assessed against, including the development plan. In the bill's present form there is no call-up in the Development Act 1993 or development plan to give Willunga Basin plan statutory effect.

I therefore recommend that the bill not be supported based on the following reasons:

The current legislative framework under the Development Act 1993 provides consistent and transparent processes for land use matters across the region and state.

The bill proposes to shift the responsibility for planning matters in the region from elected representatives (for instance, the Minister for Urban Development and Planning and local government) that are accountable to the community to an appointed committee that is not accountable to anyone.

The introduction of the proposed Willunga Basin Protection Bill would introduce a new layer of bureaucracy. It would slow development assessment processes in the region, with all development proposals requiring referral to the committee.

It could potentially set an unmanageable precedent for other regions.

The planning strategy for Greater Adelaide clearly recognises the importance of the Willunga Basin, as I have outlined earlier. There are better mechanisms to ensure that all factors are considered when planning for the Willunga Basin's future, including using the existing Government Planning and Coordination Committee to ensure that a whole of government approach is used to confirm the future of the basin.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (20:50): I thank all members for their contributions, not only today but previously when this bill was put up, and for discussions I have had with colleagues in opposition, in government and on the cross benches. Given the time of night, and the fact that the bill has been debated quite extensively in the media, the local community and the parliament before, I will not use too much more time.

However, I ask members for their indulgence in summing up and making some comment with respect to the government position and where I see the government, to a significant extent, continuing to hoodwink the state as a whole when it comes to the protection of the Willunga Basin and other regions, such as the Barossa Valley and Mount Barker and, particularly as a southerner myself, what I see as some pretty ordinary politics by the government for a significant period of time with a community in the south which has, by and large, for some time now supported Labor at the polling booth.

The government opposed this because of local people, who have lots of expertise. We have people with expertise in conservation, the use of natural and other resources, conservation of land, landscapes, buildings, heritage places, social and socioeconomic issues, urban and regional planning, tourism, water security, industry, economics and agriculture, and within that committee we have a number of people the minister can still put on in their own right as a government.

This is not groundbreaking. I acknowledge that some members are saying that they would like to have seen some fine tuning of amendments but the principle of the bill they support, and I thank them for that. I think the reason the government does not like my bill is that it does, I admit, put a lot of the big picture decision-making—and I stress 'big picture'—for the future of the Willunga Basin back into the hands and control of people, and this government does not like that.

Over the last eight years we have seen a government that has walked away with arrogance from community calls for protection and for their voice to be listened to. That is the crux of what the government is unhappy about with this bill. I resent the fact that the government believes that people who would be nominated on this, including the mayor or a representative from the council who, when this was last discussed with the City of Onkaparinga, endorsed and supported this bill and the principles related to it, are not informed.

I commend the Hon. Mark Parnell in particular, and the Greens were fired up in Mount Barker, along with others. The Liberal Party was up there as well. We were stretched with resources on how much we could push forward the protection of a range of areas—Willunga Basin, Barossa Valley and Mount Barker. I know the Leader of the Opposition was up there at several meetings with the Greens.

Look at what happened there because we did not have any protection or a voice from the people: we were not only railroaded but absolutely railroaded in the so-called democratic standing committee of the parliament. Interestingly, there was no recognition of what the people were calling for there. It is getting late. It is at the eleventh hour when it comes to protecting the Willunga Basin and, frankly, this government has had nine years to protect the basin and it has not. The truth is that it has failed. I want to put on the public record where it has failed.

The former government, of which members know I was a part, started to work towards protection of the basin. Some of the land directly—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I know they are getting upset and nervy now and starting to interject because they do not like the truth. They do not like the truth.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: But, sir, the protection of the Willunga Basin started under the former government, and I will tell members when it started. It started in 1993 with a memorandum of understanding, which should have continued through this government; and, clearly, now legislation had to be put in place, but that was broken. The Paxtons, as a family, purchased land directly to the north-east of the Seaford Heights development that was rezoned under the former government to stop it from becoming housing, and there was no planning and no sweetheart deals with developers done.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Sir, I know that they are getting anxious and upset, but there were no sweetheart deals done with developers then, and the community was listened to.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order!

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: And the really important reason we need to support this bill now is that we have got to put an end to sweetheart deals with selected developers (some of them huge donors, as we have just seen come out) to the tune of millions—$4 million, nearly $5 million in donations to the government at the last election. We have got to stop that, and that is why local people should have a say and some input.

I just want to finish with a couple of other interesting points, because a whistleblower from then minister Holloway's office—and I thank that whistleblower because, clearly, they had a passion and genuine concern about what was going on with respect to the non-transparent commitment to the protection of the Willunga Basin.

I received a piece of documentation from that whistleblower, and what the government actually asked the department through minister Holloway's office was, 'Tell us every reason we can have to oppose this bill.' They did not actually say, 'Can the department have a look at this bill? Tell us what's good about the bill, tell us what's bad about the bill, and maybe we should look at some amendments.' But, if indeed the government genuinely supports the protection of our food bowl and our future agricultural security, one would have thought that a democratic government would have said to the department, 'Tell us the pros for the Brokenshire bill; tell us the negatives for the Brokenshire bill', but, no.

What the Labor government did was to say to the department, 'Tell the minister's office—so that the minister can come in and oppose the bill—every reason why he should oppose it', and they struggled to give reasons. So, they came up with things like, 'Oh, well, this committee would have the power to make a decision on someone in McLaren Vale putting up a tool shed.' I mean, what an arrant nonsense that is. That is not what this is about at all. That is with the powers of the council and it will remain with the powers of the council. This is about the big picture.

I will just say this as well, because this is my passion. This government has not been focused on sustainable agriculture and now, with the work of many of my colleagues in this chamber and in the other house and with the community, it is panicking. So, what do we see? We see the Premier forced only yesterday into a cabinet reshuffle because of the infighting and the hatred now that we see between the left and the right.

What happens? Well, the Premier comes out yesterday and says that the Deputy Premier is going to have this food marketing portfolio. Now, where is the resourcing for it? Where was the request for that? Where was the strategic direction for that? The answer is: no funding, no request, and no strategic direction. The reason the Premier did this is because he is starting to get bitten in the polls when it comes to issues around food security because the media are now picking up on this.

Then, today (and I gave notice to the government two weeks ago that I wanted to put this bill up for a vote and get on with it and see really whether the government is genuine), I am out there on the tractor early this morning, listening to the ABC, and there is a twitter from the Premier—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: A tweet.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: —a tweet from the Premier saying that he is now considering legislation, not guaranteeing it, because he sees the importance of protecting the Willunga Basin and the Barossa Valley, and he does not want to see concrete slabs all over our prime agricultural land. Well, where was the Premier a couple of weeks ago with the Mount Barker issue in the parliament here?

If he was genuine about that, he would look at the productivity opportunities in the Mount Barker area; they are equal to the ones in McLaren Vale and Willunga. Do you know what the difference is? The difference is that the electorate of Light encroaches onto the Barossa Valley. They are worried that when the redistribution occurs, in the Barossa Valley part, it will perhaps tighten up that seat of Light and they are thinking that the people of Gawler are getting pretty upset about the fact that all this encroachment is occurring. So, it is a marginal seat. Then in regard to the McLaren Vale/Willunga Basin, the Premier thinks, 'Marginal seat. Not sure where the redistribution is going to go. Lots of lobbying from lots of groups. I'd better do something.'

I say here tonight at 9pm on 9 February that if the Premier really wants to do something, he should push this quickly through the lower house if it gets approved here tonight. Make some amendments; show some initiative. If the government wants to make some amendments, if I can get my colleagues to support this bill tonight—because the government has again tried to find excuses—it will be down in the lower house tomorrow and the Premier can implement some amendments and this bill can be passed and we can have protection of the Willunga Basin.

I challenge the Premier, in the few weeks where he could get this bill through if it is passed here tonight, to put a moratorium on any further development in and around the Willunga Basin. Put a moratorium there tomorrow because the Premier can go to Executive Council and he can get it signed off tomorrow, if they are genuine. That is the thing that rips me apart and annoys me: our community is being misled by this government and I want to highlight why because it is time the community knew what is going on. Not very long ago when the former leader was there—

The Hon. R.P. Wortley interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT : Order! The Hon. Mr Wortley has had his opportunity.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: —and I want to remind my colleagues of this, the former leader, the Hon. Paul Holloway, said, 'We don't need this because we've got the Greater Adelaide plan.' This was the first excuse for not supporting this bill. Well, I am sorry, government, but a lot of people do not like the Greater Adelaide plan because it does not protect your very best agricultural land from urban sprawl. Then the pressure builds, and things are happening so, all of a sudden, now they are saying, 'Well, maybe the Greater Adelaide plan doesn't protect, so maybe we'll consider legislation.'

There was another thing, because the pressure was also building—and I thank the South Australian community and they know who they are, all those people who put in that effort to support this concept in this bill. They said, 'Oh, we'll set up a committee and we will get this think tank and we will play around for a couple more years and then we might look at legislation.' So that comes into the mix. Now we hear that a private member may be introducing a bill similar to this, anyway, but then that might sit parallel to a government bill (if the government actually introduces a bill) or it might drop off—we are not sure.

Frankly, the community is sick of the 'mights'. They have lost their trust. They want the politics out of it. I said to the government, 'If you don't like this bill because it's got my name on the top of it, put in your own bill right now and I'll pull my bill and I'll back and support your bill.' But where is their bill?

I just want to finish on about three key points. Yes, this does give power to the people—and it is time we started to get some power back to the people—but it has checks and balances in it as well and that is what it is about. It does integrate with the overall planning and development act where required, and the parliamentary counsel gave me solid advice on that. It would not have been drafted this way had it not been for that advice.

The other point is that it is modelled on the Napa Valley, and what has happened in the Napa Valley is not brand-new. I was over there looking at recycled water in 1998, from memory, and that is when I first got this idea. Now the government is talking about the Napa Valley. The Napa Valley has been protecting that region for 35 years, I think, or at least 30 and they have just extended it now for another 20. It does also take in, sadly, at the moment where the fires are in Perth in the Swan Valley.

I just need to finish with these key points. While we are debating this right now, the government has instructed the City of Onkaparinga and Planning SA to accelerate subdivisional development approval for extensive housing within the area that this bill would put back to control, between Aldinga and Sellicks. I want to say to the house that, in all the forward planning, none of that was supposed to be considered for development for 28 years, and now they are accelerating that. Also, at the same time with the Seaford Heights development, I wrote to the former minister saying that if we are legally locked into the number 1 section of that development, then make sure you put a big buffer there but please rezone the balance.

I have not got a response back from the minister yet. Guess what, sir? Not only have they accelerated the approval for part 1 of the Seaford Heights development, they have also accelerated and are ensuring that approval goes through for 2 and 3. So, they are not listening to the community and they are deliberately accelerating subdivision in the area so that, when they do either have to support this bill, or they come in with their own bill, they will have done the dirty deed and permanently damaged the basin. I have two more points. The Willunga Basin does not fit with the Barossa Valley.

This legislation can be mirrored into other important areas like the Barossa Valley, and there may be overarching policy opportunities that are common for Mount Barker, the Fleurieu Peninsula and all the intensive food production areas such as the Willunga Basin and the Barossa Valley. We have done studies on this, including the Napa Valley, where you have got the Napa Valley and the Sonoma Valley. The Sonoma Valley is actually different in the way it is protected from the Napa Valley, because they are not like for like, and the same has to apply with the Willunga Basin.

This bill has had a lot of effort put into it. The community is screaming out for an opportunity to protect. I appeal to my colleagues here tonight to support the passing of this bill, then put pressure on the government to amend it, pass it or bring in their own legislation. We will all have the opportunity in this house to let the people in the south and the South Australian community know that there is a bill passed by the Legislative Council, that we are not going to hoodwink the South Australian community and that the pressure has to come back onto the government.

You cannot just tweet and Twitter your way through life. You cannot tweet and Twitter your way through government. You have actually got to be open, honest and accountable with the people. I thought that was the pledge in 2002. Well, let us see some openness, some accountability and some honesty, and let us see this bill passed by the government so that we get to protect an area before we have nowhere for food production in the future. I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I will ask the question on clause 1, but I refer to the remuneration that the member is proposing. Clause 7 provides that a member of the committee is entitled to remuneration, allowances and expenses determined by the Governor. What level of remuneration is the member thinking is appropriate for this committee, and what type of expenses? We will face a very parlous state of state finances when there is a change of government, so we need to be mindful of how much these things are going to cost.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I thank the honourable leader of the opposition for his question; it is a fair and reasonable question. The advice that I was given in the drafting of that is that it would be minimal, but it would cover their sitting fees and any travelling expenses that are required. It is very similar to other committees that are up with the government.

It will not be a slush fund remuneration like some of the situations we have seen with this government, where people get $30,000 or $40,000 to chair a committee that hardly ever meets and, surprisingly, is often chaired by a former member of parliament, most of the time, but not always, from the government. It will not be anything like that, I can reassure you. It is just the basic coverage. It is no different to the money that is now covered for people on advisory committees for water allocation plans, and the like. It is a standard government approved basic remuneration.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: So, the member is confident that the people that he is suggesting have been nominated: one from the City of Onkaparinga, one with relevant experience in urban planning and development nominated by the minister, two from the McLaren Vale Wine, Grape and Tourism Authority—

The CHAIR: Order! I think you have jumped to clause 9.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I am just asking a range of questions at clause 1.

The CHAIR: I intended to put clauses 1 to 6, but if you have more questions on them then you had better ask them.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I am interested in the member's response that it will be a minimal contribution, because I expect that somebody with relevant expertise and experience in urban planning and development nominated by the minister will not want to be a volunteer. To get good quality expertise you may well have to pay more than just sitting fees, unless they are somebody nominated by the minister who is just a puppet for the minister. So, I am wondering how the member is considering having a minimal financial contribution to the committee, yet having a robust independent committee as well. How do you see that happening?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: My answer to that, first of all, is that a lot of these people are actually dedicated, passionate people with expertise who have already put a lot of effort into trying to protect the Willunga Basin and other areas within the state, such as the Southern Community Coalition, which is the head peak group of the environmental organisations within the area. They do not look at remuneration for themselves for this, they look at outcomes and results.

The fact of the matter is that when you look at someone nominated by the minister as a representative—the government spends a lot of money on Thinkers in Residence—it has the opportunity to bring in expertise that it is already funding. As part of the time that the Thinkers in Residence are here the government could bring somebody like that in because it has budgets for it. In fact, to give you another example, there was a lady that I understand the government was going to bring over from the US, I cannot remember the name of the lady now, but it became a little contentious—

Honourable members: Laura Lee.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Laura Lee, that's the lady. There was plenty of money for Laura Lee. The fact of the matter is that there was not a lot of scrutiny around that appointment, other than the media, and then it was dropped and she did not come. The way this is set up there is a genuine opportunity for the government to bring some expertise into this through the other funding that it has capacity for. The people with expertise and passion, who I have spoken to, only want basic covering of their costs, and there are opportunities for the government to bring these other people in. If Laura Lee had the expertise—I think she was going to redevelop the River Torrens precinct, or something, from memory—there is plenty of money there in other accounts. The government has the opportunity, through the minister, to put those experts on.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 and 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: In regard to the Willunga Basin Protection Committee, I note that under clause 4(h) the member has suggested that a person nominated by the Southern Adelaide Economic Development Board be part of the committee.

I understand it is an active board and has been in the southern suburbs for some time, but my understanding is that it has been more to do with the urban areas of the south rather than the agricultural areas. Did the member at all consider substituting or adding to that economic representation by having on the committee a representative from the Regional Development Australia board for the Adelaide Hills, Fleurieu and Kangaroo Island?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I thank the honourable member for his points. It is possible, if this is passed, that that is something I could pursue in the other house with the member that would have responsibility for carrying the bill. The Southern Adelaide Economic Development Board is a little unique; it does have a good track record and it is not defunct like a lot of the business enterprise centres that have been pulled in the realignment of the review last year or the year before.

To give you an example, I think one of the key representatives on the Southern Adelaide Economic Development Board at the moment is Mr Norm Doole, who is a viticulturalist and an active leader in the Willunga Basin proper. I think you will find there are people like Pip Forrester who have been very successful on that type of board, with a focus on food and food production. She formerly had the Salopian Inn and is key in all of the food development down there.

I take the member's point. I would be happy to raise it as an amendment in consideration, if someone wants to put it up in the other house. However, after a lot of deliberation, I think that the Southern Adelaide Economic Development Board does have the credentials to have a real focus on that Willunga Basin. It is an interface between the urban economic opportunities for the south and the rural economic opportunities for the south.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: I thank the member for that explanation. I would request, however, if the bill is passed through this council, when he seeks a sponsor for it in the lower house, that he does raise the possibility of including a representative from the Regional Development Australia board, given that those boards now have financial connections and other connections to all three tiers of government, so that they would have a contribution from local, state and federal governments in those RDA boards. I would suggest that the honourable member take up that possibility with whoever he gets to sponsor the bill in the lower house.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I am happy to take that into consideration and discuss it, if it is passed here tonight, with the carrier of the bill in the House of Assembly.

Clause passed.

Clauses 5 to 11 passed.

Clause 12.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Clause 12 relates to the staff of the committee. It provides:

(1) There will be such staff of the committee as the committee thinks necessary for the proper performance of its functions.

(2) A member of the staff of the committee is not a member of the Public Service, but the committee may employ a person who is on leave from employment in the Public Service or with an instrumentality or agency of the Crown.

(3) The committee may, with the approval of the minister administering an administrative unit of the Public Service, make use of the services, facilities or officers of that unit.

What staff does the member think will be required for this committee to meet, to function and to act as the secretariat for the committee? Flowing on from that, where does the member envisage the committee will be based? Where will the staff be located? Will it be of that magnitude? If the staff are to be accommodated somewhere then where are we going to see the budget line?

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan: What colour socks will they wear?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Well, they may not wear socks, Mr Finnigan. I am just interested to know what resources will need to be allocated to provide the staff, accommodation, office equipment, motor vehicles, etc., if the member thinks that will be necessary.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Clearly, the committee cannot do the work it needs to do unless it does have some support in the form of admin staff. I would expect, just from discussions I have had, that you would need to have probably two dedicated officers assisting in administration, meeting agendas, getting minutes out and all those sorts of things.

Of course, we do have the Office for the Southern Suburbs, which is already funded, and that office is given specific projects. Whether or not you support the Office for the Southern Suburbs, there is funding there. That office has been given projects and opportunities for things such as arts development in the past, which is one example. This is a very important responsibility, and it would be easy for the government. Of course, it is up to the minister of the day, who obviously has the final sign-off. That is what governments and ministers are about, that is, the final nitty-gritty of how many support staff you can have.

I believe they would be able to utilise the structure of the Office for the Southern Suburbs and even second the people there if they wanted to do so; it would not be the first time that would have be done. As far as meeting places go, I have not thought a lot about it, but there are examples of places where they could have their secretariat: it could be at the Office for the Southern Suburbs; it could be at the goodwill of the Onkaparinga council, which has facilities at Willunga; and there is also the tourism and wine tourism great development at McLaren Vale, where their office is located.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I understand what you are saying; that is, you see the best way to achieve this would be to relocate the Office for the Southern Suburbs from its CBD location, with its, I think, 1½ staff members, and have it located out on the ground, delivering a service to the communities in the southern regions.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: If you are going to have an Office for the Southern Suburbs, I would have thought that you would have the office in the southern suburbs—the same as if you had one in the northern suburbs, Port Augusta, Whyalla, or wherever it is. There are plenty of government opportunities for that. I do not think that will be a real issue. If the worst case scenario occurred, it would not be hard for these people, some of whom work in Adelaide anyway, to come to the Office of the Southern Suburbs in the CBD. I am sure they can work out those finer points if it gets to that situation. If you are really committed to an Office for the Southern Suburbs with a focus on the southern suburbs, you probably should have the people resident in their working time in the southern suburbs.

The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: Still on the staff of the committee, can the honourable member give us some indication of possible terms and conditions of employment and budgets? It is all a bit wishy-washy and up in the air trying to work it out.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: It is wishy-washy, the honourable member says, as to where the budget would come from. In fact, it raises a very good point and it is something I was talking to my colleague the Hon. Dennis Hood about. It is something I intend to bring to this house in the near future, based on what happened in Canberra, and that is to give the parliament here access to Treasury so that we can see where funding is allocated and what financial requirements will be needed for the plethora of government bills that come into this house day in, day out with no costings and no assurance to this house whatsoever about what staff will be involved, where they will be housed and what the costings will be. Then we find at the same time that we get people such as minister Conlon, who can spend $495,000 upgrading the Roma Mitchell House ministerial suite, which I went into numerous times—

The CHAIR: The member should answer the question that the honourable member asked.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Sir, I am getting to it: $495,000 that one minister spent will be more than they will need for this committee. The bottom line is that I expect the government to be reasonable without being ridiculous in funding this. I know that the budget is there for it, if the will is there for it. The will is there for it when they want a project up and they are prepared to put plenty of funding into it.

The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: I note that the Hon. Robert Brokenshire was a former minister and still has the wonderful skill of dancing around the question and not really providing an answer. Can we have some indication, some figure? Is it half a million dollars for the committee and its structure and its staff? Is it half a million per annum; is it $2.7 million? You must have some figure rather than just saying, 'It will be a reasonable figure.'

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: A reasonable and fair figure to be able to do the job. I say to the council that I very much look forward—and I make a commitment to this, subject to not burning my colleagues off—to questioning every minister and every bill that this government brings in from now on for the rest of this term and not supporting the bill until we get costings.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! The Hon. Mr Gazzola.

The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: Perhaps I can put it this way: can the Hon. Mr Brokenshire describe or define 'reasonable terms of conditions'?

The CHAIR: I do not think he knows what it is going to cost but, if he does, he should tell us.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I do not know the absolute last dollar cost but I can assure you that it will not be anywhere near the hundreds of millions of dollars that are wasted year in and year out by this government.

The CHAIR: That is three out of 10 for that one.

Clause passed.

Clause 13 passed.

Clause 14.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: This is in relation to the plan itself. Clause 14(1) provides:

The committee must, within 12 months after the commencement of this act, prepare and publish a plan (the Basin Plan) in relation to the Willunga Basin.

Subclause (2) provides:

The minister may extend the time within which the committee must prepare the Basin Plan being no more than 18 months after the commencement of this act.

I know I am jumping to clause 15, but I need to talk about this in context. Clause 15 provides:

The committee must publish a draft Basin Plan...within 6 months of the commencement of this act.

My experience, especially with this government (and if it is supported it will be this government that delivers this committee and develops this plan) is that the draft process is more important and often takes longer. I am also interested to know what type of consultation and community engagement the member envisages.

I am also wondering whether the timeframe for the establishment or the preparation of the basin plan is to be no more than 18 months but only allowing six months in the act to define a draft plan, which is the one where you have the most, if you like, community engagement and where all the detail will be sorted out. Is the member interested in looking at some amendments in the other chamber that may change that timeframe or does he think that is a suitable timeframe?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I thank the honourable member for his question. On an issue such as this, I am happy to listen to comment from the community and my colleagues, given that this has passed and is going to the other house for discussion with the carrier of the bill. However, the reason we have put time lines on this is because there will be lots of consultation. I expect that there will be public meetings with the essential requirement of some advertising, as well. The difference with this plan, compared to a lot of other things the government does, is the passion and the power would be, to a large extent, from representative groups coming up with a vision and the draft plan. They will be working back through all of their organisations. So, it will not be like the water allocation plans that hardly anyone seemed to know about until they found out about a draft.

The reason this has timelines on it like that is that, with the water allocation, it took the government three years more for the Western Mount Lofty Ranges water allocation plan to come out than the act required. In other words, the government was in breach of the act by three years. When the government finally put out the draft plan, it put it out in November and wanted responses from all the interest groups, sectors and landholders by the middle of January. That gave them very little time.

The draft is what stimulates the debate, and that is why I had six months for the draft. I am prepared to listen to fair and reasonable input on that and discuss it in the other house, but we have to have timelines on these things because, first, we have to protect this basin, we cannot let it just drag out and keep subdividing it like the government is doing at the moment; and, secondly, we also have to be fairly hard and fast and focused in doing the job properly but having some timelines on it. I think 18 months is not a bad timeline. We will not have a situation where the government lets things drag on by having timelines in there; otherwise we could be subject to still more development because the government would stretch it out.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I guess what the member is doing with the plan is saying that nothing would change until the plan was adopted. There will not be, if you like, a stopping of the clock for any changes of land use in the Willunga Basin, if this is passed by the House of Assembly and we go through a period where a development approval is in place. Yes, that can go ahead, but does the honourable member envisage that the clock will stop until the plan is prepared and adopted or will it just go on and, as he pointed out, the frustration may then be that it will be a long, slow process to prepare the plan and a whole range of land use changes could take place?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: The advice given to me is that we have to get this legislation through, and then we have to get a plan through that protects and looks after the long-term future. In the interim, the current planning laws are there and you have to work within them. That is why I said in my summing up, and when thanking members for their contribution, that I call on the Premier to lead the way now and discuss a moratorium with the new planning minister.

The government can put a moratorium on tomorrow. I would love to be able to implement a moratorium myself, but the advice I have from parliamentary counsel is that members of parliament are not in a position to implement a moratorium; all we can do is try to get long-term protection in there as quickly as possible. In answering this, I also remind the Leader of the Opposition that, if the government were to stick to the memorandum of understanding that is still there, as well as putting on a moratorium, then we would be protecting the basin as best we could while this plan was developed.

I spend a lot of time with a lot of people, including in my office with parliamentary counsel, and I am advised that we do not have the capacity to implement moratoriums. We have to rely on the government to be honest now. If this bill is passed here, there is a strong message from the Legislative Council, on behalf of the people, that we want protection for Willunga Basin, and it will be on the government's head if it does not listen and heed what happens here tonight.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Just a question in relation in clause 14. I notice that subclause (4) provides that details of this new plan become part of the development plan; so they become part of the rules against which development has to be judged. Then subclause (5) provides that the provisions of the Development Act that relate to the preparation of plans do not apply. One of the things that no longer applies is parliamentary scrutiny. Whilst we all know that this parliament has never, in 17 years, thrown out a development plan, I think there is still merit in some level of parliamentary scrutiny, and I acknowledge the honourable member for ensuring that, in clause 15, a copy of the draft plan is laid before both houses of parliament.

Perhaps a question you can take on notice for your dealings with the other house is whether we can incorporate some final check and balance by way of parliamentary scrutiny once the plan is finalised, perhaps along the lines of a disallowable instrument. You would hope that this new plan would be so much more superior to the development plan that the government has prepared that no-one would want to disallow it, but in order to make sure that we have proper scrutiny I would ask you to take that suggestion on board.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I thank the honourable member for his question. His colleague was in here; he was busy doing something else for a minute, but I did acknowledge the effort that he and other members put into the Mount Barker region. Following what has happened in Mount Barker, where we saw guillotining and effective non-listening to the community, I am very happy to take it on board if it is passed tonight.

There are so many examples recently coming up—the bund argument at Lake Albert is another one. We took the government at its word on that. What have we got now, and who do they put up to defend that today? They put up Allan Holmes, the CEO, on the radio this morning—not good enough. I think the honourable member made a good point, and I will certainly take that on board, given that it is passed tonight and discussed with the carrier of the bill in the other place.

Clause passed.

Clause 15.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I have another issue for the mover to take on notice. I am encouraged very much by what he said about public consultation and how it will be more thorough than what we have had. I would hope that the public meetings that the mover envisages would be held would not be just passive exercises where a mute table of suits listens to the community but where the community also has the chance to ask questions of the committee about why certain things are or are not in the plan.

I just point out a slight inconsistency: the public consultation period under clause 15 must be at least eight weeks, but the community has 12 weeks to put in submissions. Those two dates need to be consistent, otherwise you will find the public consultation period finishing before the right to make written submissions has expired.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Again, I thank the honourable member for his contribution. That is a point that I acknowledge needs to be looked at, and I will take it up with the carrier. I do want to reinforce and support what the Hon. Mark Parnell has said. It is time that the parliament had the power back on behalf of the community that we are democratically elected to represent and that the community is given as much power as it can, which is the intent of this bill.

In summary, if this bill gets through it is groundbreaking from the point of view that it is removing the so-called faceless men in suits who go there and stonewall communities on behalf of the government, and it would actually open up democratic debate again, which would be a pleasant reinvigoration for South Australians.

Clause passed.

Clauses 16 to 18 passed.

Clause 19.

The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: It seems quite a strange clause, but basically it provides immunity to committee members for any act or omission done or made in good faith and in the exercise or purported exercise of powers or functions under this act. I wonder if we could hear the mover of the bill describe how he arrived at this, because the liability ends up with the Crown.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: The advice that my legal officer got from parliamentary counsel is that this is a standard clause that you will find in many government bills. If someone wants to go outside the norm and create a criminal offence or something, then they are subject of the criminal offence. To protect people doing a job that they are engaged and appointed to do, my advice is that this had to be in there as a standard immunity.

Clause passed.

Clauses 20 to 23 passed.

Schedule.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: I do not wish to delay the committee much longer, but it is just a very simple question relating to part 2 of the schedule in relation to the amendment to the Development Act 1993. It states that the 'Willunga Basin means the Willunga Basin area as defined in the Willunga Basin Protection Act 2010'. When you go to the interpretation at the start of that bill, it says the Willunga Basin means ‘the geographical area that is defined as the Willunga Basin in a plan deposited in the GRO by the minister for the purposes of the act'.

I presume that the Willunga Basin is entirely within the City of Onkaparinga, but I have learnt not to presume anything, so will the minister define that for the committee? I am not sure whether it actually spills over into a couple of neighbouring council areas.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I thank the honourable member for his question, and his assumption is correct. The whole of the designated Willunga Basin region now is entirely in the City of Onkaparinga.

Schedule passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (21:43): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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