HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-10-26 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Question Time

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (14:30): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Urban Development and Planning a question about residential development in industrial areas.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: As members would be well aware, last week we saw the release, I think under FOI, of a secret report or a report that the government had not wanted to release publicly which of course saw some major concerns raised about the Newport Quays development and particularly the risk of explosion and fire from the Incitec Pivot plant and also some ongoing concerns about air quality in that area in relation to Adelaide Brighton Cement works. Yesterday, the minister announced a further iteration of the 30-year plan which talked about development along major train, road and tramway corridors, and an article in The Advertiser stated:

The government will target major road, rail and tram routes within a 2.5 kilometre radius of the CBD—including Port, Prospect and Unley roads—for developments of up to five storeys.

It is well known that major road corridors in other states and other cities and overseas are also subject to significant air quality issues. My questions to the minister are:

1. Have air quality assessments been done for the major road corridors and have any other potential industrial risks identified?

2. If so, will the minister release those reports?

3. If not, will the government be requiring the EPA to do so before the rezoning process is completed?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister Assisting the Premier in Public Sector Management) (14:31): You would think that, after this length of time as the shadow minister for urban development and planning, the Leader of the Opposition would be aware of the processes involved in rezoning, and he would hardly need to ask the last question because he would know that, in relation to any rezoning process, government agencies including the EPA and other bodies are consulted as part of that process.

However, let me first of all deal with this nonsense that somehow or other there was a secret report. I am informed by the EPA that its policy is that, when it has reports such as the so-called secret report—which was so secret it was released under FOI through the usual process—it releases it after a process has been complete, which is appropriate. If we are going to have decision-making on the run, let us just do away with parliament and just have a poll on everything, where we just put everything on the web and get everybody to vote. Is that the sort of government that people really expect?

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: Don't tell people what's happening.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: So, in other words, you think that, along the way to making a decision, every issue that is available to cabinet and government should also be made public. It happens nowhere else in the world and for very good reasons. It is not the system we have evolved, so let us just end this stupidity that members opposite have got that somehow or other we are living in this new age where every bit of information should be instantly available.

To get back to the story, I will not be diverted, because it needs to be put on the record that the EPA policy, as I understand it, is that it releases reports such as the one last week either 12 weeks after it is submitted or at the end of the process, whichever is the quicker. The reason that there is that 12-week time frame, I guess, is so that there can be some reasonable process of decision-making. In this case, of course, once that EPA report was received, the Development Assessment Commission (DAC), following the inevitable interaction between agencies, put the process on hold and appropriately so.

In fact, the Leader of the Opposition was calling for my resignation because I presided over a body that did the right thing, that acted accordingly and properly in accordance with the law. That apparently is the criterion that members opposite use in relation to that. In relation to this so-called secret report, that is my understanding of the policies of the EPA. It is up to them; it is their report, essentially, and it is their FOI people and others who determine those policies.

In relation to residential development, of course, you do not allow development in industrial areas but you do have problems where residential zones interact with industrial areas. Unfortunately, there are some historical parts of Adelaide where there is too close an interaction between industry and residential areas. Unfortunately, that was the policy adopted during the fifties and sixties in this state—the Playford model where workers were located next door to the factories in which they worked. That was considered the appropriate policy of the day.

I do not wish to judge what was done at that time. I do not wish to go back and apply modern standards to that but it was, nevertheless, the policy in many areas. You can see it at Edwardstown, Kilburn, the north-western suburbs of Adelaide and, in particular, out towards Port Adelaide. There were also other areas where industry was located arguably too close to residential areas. There is no doubt that the most polluting of those industries—such as foundries, cement works and so on—are located in the north-western suburbs.

Fortunately, in relation to the inner city area, we do not have many of them, although we do have traffic issues. One part of this government's policies is to electrify the railways so it is along those corridors, in particular, that we are reducing pollution, both noise and air, in two very important ways. We will no longer have diesel trains, because they will be electric, and they will also be quieter because they are electric. Our rail corridors are really the key corridors with people living fairly close to those facilities. I have made that point on numerous occasions. We are the last city to electrify its urban rail network. That will give us the opportunity for redevelopment along those corridors because it will be possible to have people living closer than would otherwise be the case.

In relation to existing industries, there will be issues that we need to develop. You can go to Perth and look at Fremantle, which was a heavy industrial area that has been redeveloped, you can go to Darling Harbour and Woolloomooloo in Sydney, you can go to Docklands and Southbank in Melbourne and you can go to the Brisbane River—they are all doing it. However, for some reason, the Liberal Party in this state wants to sabotage this government and wants to sabotage the economy. That is their policy because they cannot get into government by offering anything positive. What they have to do is to try to wreck the economy. They have to try to stop it.

What can be done everywhere else in this country, and is done to the benefit of upgraded ports and to make them attractive, for some reason these people tell us cannot be done here. This is the leader—talk about leadership! The question was asked by the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow planning minister, and for him it is too hard; for him it cannot be done; for him we cannot do it. Presumably, we have to sit here and leave Adelaide the way it was, as some 19th century museum. For him it is all too hard.

Let me tell those members opposite who want to oppose everything—and the Liberal Party has really slipped in relation to that—they now stand for nothing. They now stand for a total lack of progress and it is getting known out there. It is getting known that the Liberal Party is in a state of paralysis. They do not know what to do. They are opposed to all development. As the Leader of the Opposition, as the key spokesman on development, he is becoming an embarrassment to his party.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I hope he stays there because the longer he is there, the longer he asks questions like this, the longer he demonstrates that the Liberal Party has no positive policy. They think that we have to stay as we are forever. They are truly conservatives. They are truly the Tories. They believe that everything should stay the way it was forever. This government is prepared to take difficult decisions. We will work through some of those issues in relation to our corridors. We are electrifying the railways at significant cost. That will enable people to live closer to these areas.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: If you didn't interject then perhaps we would finish a bit quicker. Perhaps if members opposite would listen things could be answered a lot more quickly.

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