HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-09-19 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CHARACTER PRESERVATION (MCLAREN VALE) BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 18 September 2012.)

New Clause 8A.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 4, after line 27—After clause 8 insert:

8A—Restriction on wind farms

Despite the Development Act 1993, a proposed development in the district consisting of construction of a wind farm is noncomplying development of the purposes of that act.

This is actually a wind farm clarification and, despite the Development Act 1993, a proposed development in the district consisting of construction of a wind farm is noncomplying for the purposes of this act. In this section, wind farm means a faculty for the harvesting or harnessing of energy from the wind.

What I am really seeking to do here is to put all landholders back in the position that they were in before the DPA was imposed, except as otherwise confined—obviously, for example, subdivisions under this act. The interim DPA restriction on wind farms as noncomplying is to be retained, so I was just trying to absolutely clarify and confirm that wind farms were being focused on with respect to this bill. My understanding is that The Barossa Council and the wine industry sector support this amendment.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: We do not seem to have a copy of the amendment.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: While the minister is organising herself I will speak to this amendment. I am sure that I, on behalf of the Greens, probably agree with the Hon. Rob Brokenshire that there are some forms of development that are inappropriate in the Barossa and McLaren Vale. The type of development that consists of 10, 20, 50 or 90 massive wind turbines is probably inappropriate in those locations. I imagine that that is what the Hon. Rob Brokenshire primarily had in mind; that is, where the character of areas is being protected, massive wind farms are probably inappropriate in those two locations. However, we do have a problem with the way the honourable member has drafted the amendment, because what he seeks to do is insert a new clause 8A, which provides that:

Despite the Development Act 1993, a proposed development in the district consisting of construction of a wind farm is non-complying development for the purposes of that Act.

One of the difficulties we have is that the term 'wind farm' is not actually defined in the Development Act. In fact, it is not even defined in the development regulations where one of the schedules to the development regulations has a list of commonly-used terms (and they are defined) and this is not one of those. The only reference in the development regulations to a wind farm is in schedule 8 of the regulations which, as members are all thoroughly aware, is the list of all the different types of development where various authorities need to be consulted.

What it says in schedule 8 is that wind farms have to be referred to the EPA. You can understand why that makes sense because, if there are noise issues and the EPA is the noise regulator, that is an appropriate referral, but for the purposes of schedule 8, there is a definition of 'wind farm'. I am not saying that therefore, as a matter of statutory interpretation, this definition will apply to the honourable member's amendment, but what it says is that 'wind farm' means an undertaking where one or more wind turbine generators, whether or not located on the same site, are used to generate electricity that is then supplied to another person for use at another place.

What that definition, I think, is seeking to do is to make sure that a person who has a single turbine or even a couple of turbines on their own property for generating their own electricity is not regarded as a wind farm and therefore is not caught by this need to refer it to the EPA. But there are circumstances, especially in more remote parts of the state—and I am not sure how much of the Barossa or McLaren Vale this would apply to—where people are off the grid and they are self-sufficient and it is possible for farmers, usually, to install a single generator.

I should declare an interest from about 10 years ago where my late brother-in-law was the agent for one of these wind turbine companies providing small wind turbines for farmers who were off the grid. The difficulty I have is that if, for example, two farmers decided to get together and put a single turbine on their boundary and share the electricity that came from it, then under this definition in the development regulations, that would be regarded as a wind farm.

We are not talking about things that are 100 metres or 150 metres; we are talking about towers that are not that high. They are certainly a bit higher than the old-fashioned windmills that we see on the landscape, but they are basically steel structures. They can be raised and lowered with a utility; it did not require a massive construction team on site—pretty small-scale stuff—and that would be caught.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Hon. David Ridgway says that you would not get enough energy to run a fridge. In fact, you can run a fridge; you can run a household. Many of these off grid systems actually have battery backup.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: And solar.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Some of them have solar as well, but what they do is generate electricity when the wind is blowing and then store as much of it as they can in batteries. We are talking about people who are energy self-sufficient. They are off the grid and they are primarily farmers.

People will say, looking at the Hon. Rob Brokenshire's amendment, 'Clearly he did not have that in mind. It was not individual farmers with individual turbines.' He can speak for himself—maybe he did have that in mind—but where I think this amendment would have been more appropriately drafted is if it did in fact refer to what they call the industrial-scale massive wind farms where the blades are 130 metres across or whatever, which I think are inappropriate for these locations. However, the amendment as drafted does not have a definition of wind farm.

It has the potential to exclude even small-scale wind generators that are designed just for one or two farms and, whilst it does not prohibit them, it says that they are noncomplying and we know from the discussion that we had with the minister yesterday that noncomplying does not mean you cannot do it but what it does mean is that the odds are stacked against you being able to do it. It means there is a presumption against being able to do it. If the relevant authority, whether it is the council or the Development Assessment Commission, decides you cannot build it, you have no right of appeal.

In fact, it is a tougher standard to meet, and I think there is the potential, given that there is no definition of wind farm, for legitimate, renewable energy projects that do not impact on the character preservation qualities of these districts to be unfairly discriminated against. I do not believe that it is the member's intention to wipe out or make it difficult for small-scale, renewable energy projects to go ahead (I think he has his eyes set on the bigger facilities), but given that difficulty with the way this amendment has been drafted the Greens will not support it.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Unfortunately, the government is not able to support this amendment either, although we are obviously sympathetic to what the member is trying to achieve. However, we will have to oppose it because of the legal ambiguity around the definition of wind farms and the fact that there is some overlap with the development plan, albeit unintended. In terms of a policy principle, obviously this government is supportive of the underlying principle. In fact, the minister has already made wind farms noncomplying in both districts. We believe it is probably better and safer to leave wind farms in planning policy rather than try to incorporate it into a statutory or legislative framework. So, unfortunately we are not able to support it at this time.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate that the opposition will support the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's amendment, but I suspect that he may not be successful in getting it through this chamber. However, I want to put on the record that we have seen this government's love affair with wind farms, and now we are seeing an ever-increasing concern in the community about their inappropriate location. In early days they were more remote; now they are being proposed closer to human habitation. Of course these two areas are to be preserved for their iconic heritage and tourism—all the things we discussed yesterday—so it would make absolute sense to make sure that wind farms are not allowed in these particular areas.

I suspect the government, if it has any sense with its statewide ministerial DPA on wind farms, may well declare the Barossa and McLaren Vale—these protection zone areas—as areas in which they do not wish to see wind farm developments. I think the statewide DPA will probably have some zones—the Adelaide Hills and Mount Lofty Ranges, the Barossa and McLaren Vale—where they may well say that it would be inappropriate development. The opposition is very happy to support this on the basis that we want to signal to the community that we think that this government has gone over the top with its passion for wind farms and that there are some areas of this state that simply should never have wind farms.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The Hon. David Ridgway is quite right: we are considering the locations of wind farms in our state DPA and we are looking to exclude those areas from having wind farms. Our intention is to use that planning mechanism as a way of dealing with preserving the integrity of the character of these districts.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Just a few points on my colleagues' comments in the chamber. First, while I am not in a position to pre-empt what may come up with respect to the wind farm committee, which the Hon. David Ridgway chairs and on which some of us sit—the Hons Ann Bressington, Mark Parnell and myself—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: And Carmel Zollo.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: —and of course the Hon. Carmel Zollo—two key points with wind farms are relevant: first, the concern that many residents have about their location and, secondly, the issue of the former premier's DPA on wind farms, which actually gave unprecedented support in favour of developers. We know now that, even if in the future there is a change by the government, like the Leader of the Government has just said, with respect to the Planning Act and wind farms, all of those companies that have put forward applications since former premier Mike Rann allowed for applications without third party consideration and so on will be able to develop those wind farms.

Some of us in the south put a lot of effort into opposing a wind farm up on Sellicks Hill, right on the edge of the area covered by this particular McLaren Vale character preservation bill, the reason being that it was in the wrong area and totally different from an area such as Starfish Hill, down towards Cape Jervis. It created a lot of angst in the community, and there was a big effort by the community to stop it. There was a lot of support from the government to allow the developer to roll this over. In fact, one developer sold the concept to another developer and probably financially did alright out of that.

The concern of quite a few people I have spoken to with respect to McLaren Vale and the Barossa Valley and the preservation of the character is that, if these wind farms were to get up in those regions we are talking about, it would have an enormous impact on the character of the region. I take the Hon. Mark Parnell's point about the drafting—and I strongly support and place on the public record my appreciation of parliamentary counsel—but this was the best way we could draft it. But the emphasis is on wind farms.

As a farmer myself, there is no way I would want to see someone who wanted to put a Davey-Dunlite on their shearing shed, for example, to generate some power being prevented from doing that. I would argue that, under the intent of the wording, that is not a wind farm: a wind farm is erected with the intent of commercial gain and selling that power on, not someone who is not on the power grid or who wants to go into renewable energy for themselves.

I could foreshadow recommitting this to give us a chance to talk about some rewording of the second part of my amendment with respect to the area where it deals with the individual situation. However, the advice is that, for all intents and purposes, this clause is to ensure that it continues to be noncomplying ongoing through this bill. I understand that the City of Onkaparinga, as an example, understands that noncomplying under the Barossa/McLaren Vale interim DPA will lapse once the bill is through. But the problem there is that it could then be complying, and I think this is a good way of protecting these two regions.

If we are going to have a character preservation bill, why not make it noncomplying for a wind farm development? As the Hon. Mark Parnell said, they can still get approval for that, but it just puts up a few more hurdles for them. It is probably an interesting change to put a few hurdles in front of these developers than the other way round, where the hurdles are all put in front of residents. I still commend the amendment to the committee, but I foreshadow that I would look at recommitting with an amendment if during a division this new clause is not passed.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I have a brief observation on the Hon. Rob Brokenshire's remarks. Whilst I focused my remarks on the difficulty with interpreting the phrase 'wind farms', there is a more fundamental issue at stake here, and that is that, when we step back and we look at these bills and what they are trying to achieve, there are two fundamental things we need to make sure go through with this legislation, and most of the other detail, I think, is for another day and for another forum. The first thing we need to make sure is that we get the boundaries right and that we make sure the boundaries are in texta colour, not in pencil that can be easily erased.

The second thing is that, if these bills are about stopping urban sprawl, the heart of urban sprawl is land division, and that is why land division is singled out in the legislation. What we could do is get out the whiteboard and go round the room and work out what other forms of development are inappropriate in the Barossa and McLaren Vale: cement works, toxic waste dumps. You could come up with a whole range of developments that are, I think we would probably mostly agree, inappropriate in McLaren Vale and the Barossa. Yet we are not seeking—or the government has not sought, and the Greens are not seeking—to add these forms of development to the list of noncomplying activities in the legislation.

As the minister has pointed out, they have already made a decision that wind farms will be noncomplying in these areas, and they are doing that through the DPA. Similarly, I think members will find that cement works and toxic waste dumps are also probably going to be noncomplying in the DPA. So at a fundamental level I think we are having a debate about the level of detail to go into the bill compared to the level of detail to go into the DPA. I wanted to put that on the record.

The other thing I want to put on the record again, given that I have said we are not supportive of this particular amendment, is that the Greens are strong supporters of renewable energy, but we believe that renewable energy should be sited in appropriate locations. We are also on the record as saying that we believe the community should be engaged in the process and not cut out in the way they were through the wind farm DPA. That is why I am on the record as opposing that DPA, for the way it cuts people out of genuine debate over the future of their areas.

The reason for me putting these extra remarks on the record is that I am not sure that—even with recommittal—this clause, even if we were to tinker with the definition of wind farm, would save it, from our point of view. I think we are going down a path of adding too much specificity to the bill; these are things that really need to be contained within the DPA.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will not be supporting the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's amendment.

The committee divided on the new clause:

AYES (9)
Bressington, A. Brokenshire, R.L. (teller) Hood, D.G.E.
Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I.
Ridgway, D.W. Stephens, T.J. Wade, S.G.
NOES (10)
Darley, J.A. Finnigan, B.V. Franks, T.A.
Gago, G.E. (teller) Gazzola, J.M. Hunter, I.K.
Kandelaars, G.A. Parnell, M. Vincent, K.L.
Zollo, C.
PAIRS (2)
Dawkins, J.S.L. Wortley, R.P.

Majority of 1 for the noes.

New clause thus negatived.

Clause 9.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Page 4—

Line 29 [clause9(1)]—Delete 'involved in the administration of' and substitute:

responsible for issuing statutory authorisations under

Line 31 [clause9(1)(a)—Delete 'a statutory authorisation under the relevant Act' and substitute:

such a statutory authorisation

Lines 35 and 36 [clause9(1)]—Delete 'obligations imposed on the person or body under this Act' and substitute:

objects of this Act in relation to the statutory authorisation

This amendment and government amendment Nos 14 and 15, which are consequential, clarify that a request for information can only be made under clause 9 by an agency responsible for issuing statutory authorisation in relation to that statutory authorisation. This will prevent unnecessary requests for information being made that are unrelated to applications for licences, approvals, permits or other authorisations under another law.

As an example, it will enable a natural resources management board to request information from a council in a district that is relevant to understanding the character of the district as it may apply to and affect the application for, say, a water licence in the district. However, a board would not be able to request information that is unrelated to an application before the board, nor would an agency which has no responsibility for issuing statutory authorisations. This amendment is being proposed consistent with the request by the Barossa Council in relation to the Barossa Valley bill, with the support of the Onkaparinga council as well.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 10.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Page 5, after line 3—After subclause (1) insert:

(2) In conducting the review, the Minister must (in such manner as the Minister thinks fit) consult with, and consider any submissions of, relevant councils.

This amendment requires the minister to consult with and consider any submissions of councils within the district in conducting the five-year review of the act required by clause 10. This amendment is consistent with the request by the Barossa Council in relation to the Barossa Valley bill and with the support of the Onkaparinga council.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Just a question in relation to this, this is the review of the act clause and the minister is proposing to include an obligation to consult. The words are 'in such manner as the minister thinks fit'. My understanding is that the Barossa Council and the government have had a task force to work through a number of these issues and my understanding is that the Barossa Council had requested a little bit more certainty that the consultation would be genuine, rather than simply 'as the minister thinks fit' which, at a worst case scenario reading, could consist of a phone call to the mayor the day before a decision is to be made and that might be all the minister thought was required for consultation. My questions of the minister are: what happened in those discussions, and what does the minister envisage is meant by consultation 'in such manner as the minister thinks fit'?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The consultation may involve things like written communication, meetings, forums, discussions, whatever is deemed to be appropriate for that particular issue and situation. Parliamentary counsel's advice was to go with the option of not being overly prescriptive and burdensome, and ultimately the decision is that of parliament. If parliament is not satisfied with the process that has been undertaken, I can absolutely guarantee you there will be complaints from stakeholders made to members of parliament, and ultimately parliament can be the judge of that to ensure that that process has been adequate.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I guess the definition of 'as the minister thinks fit' means that if a minister chose not to consult, they do not have to consult. They could just make a decision without consulting.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: No, not at all. The advice I have received is that they are required to consult; however, it is the manner in which the consultation occurs that the minister has some discretion over. Ultimately, as I said, parliament has the ultimate say as to whether or not that process has been satisfactory.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: My understanding is, as the Hon. Mark Parnell alluded to, there was a task force set up when the Barossa Council wrote to all members saying they wanted this bill opposed. There was a task force of, I think, planning officers, council officers and others. In effect, there was a level of frustration in the Barossa Council that not one of the recommendations that was put forward from that task force has been adopted in this legislation.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Absolutely not so. The member is misinformed. In fact I think there are 25-odd amendments that incorporate, in some way or another, the issues of concern that came out of those forums. So, it is outrageous that you would suggest otherwise. It is just mischievous.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I appreciate the minister's answer, where she said that because this clause is effectively about a review of the act, it will ultimately be up to the parliament as to whether or not the act is eventually changed. To go back to the process, whilst I appreciate that the minister may have taken advice that being less prescriptive about consultation mechanisms might be desirable from a drafting point of view, I think this parliament still wants certain assurances that the most modern and inclusive public consultation practices will be followed.

Those practices include public calls for submissions. When the submission are received, they are to be put on a government website so that everyone can see what submissions are made. Clause 10 of this bill requires that:

(3) The Minister must cause a report on the outcome of the review to be tabled in both Houses of Parliament...

Now, we would expect that the report on the outcome of the review would also include a report on the process of consultation that was undertaken for the review. So, can I get the minister to further elaborate on what the government has in mind in terms of consultation. The minister has mentioned a range of things that could happen, but to pose the question directly: firstly, will there be a call to the public and to local council for formal submissions, and secondly, will responses to those submissions be made publicly available on a website?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The minister is required to consult, and there is a reasonable general understanding around what consultation would entail. Consultation means that you are communicating with appropriate stakeholders and availing them of adequate information for them to input into decision-making. There are a whole range of ways to do that, and the advice is that it is foolish to be over prescriptive. A lot can now be done electronically, so there is no need to be calling public meetings and the like.

There are also problems with making submissions publicly available. There are some instances where the submitters are providing very commercially confidential or other sensitive information that they are happy to share, but not have published on a website. So, they might accept that some part of their submission be made publicly available but not necessarily all.

So, again, it is very difficult. Obviously, our objective is to be as open and transparent as possible wherever we possibly can, but there are real-life limitations around that that are very difficult to write up and prescribe in legislation. So, that is why we have gone down this track. However, as I said, there is a reasonable standing and expectation around what consultation entails: that is, that you must provide adequate information or exchange of information to enable people to be informed about something that is relevant to them and for them to have an opportunity to input their views, and that their views have to be considered.

It is not just a paper exercise, but they have to be considered in some way and there has to be some rationale for accepting, rejecting or doing otherwise. That is a reasonable understanding of what consultation is and that, I guess, is already captured. The other assurance is that, in terms of the five-year review that is required within this bill, the results of that review are required to be tabled in both houses of parliament, so that is a publicly available document.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I will not talk about my further amendment to this, which you highlighted before, until you call me for it. However, I did want to ask the minister a question with respect to this amendment of the government and also to alert colleagues to the fact that (and I apologise for this but it has come up as part of this deliberation here now) there is a late amendment to this clause I have just tabled to colleagues in the chamber.

There are concerns that, whilst we acknowledge through the minister, any changes have to come before both houses of parliament, the amendment of the government states that 'the minister must, at intervals of not more than five years'. I ask the minister: given the way it is drafted, is it therefore quite possible that your government or a future government minister could decide in 12 months to start reviewing the township boundaries?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that, yes, it is possible but it would be highly unlikely. The wording reflects the five-year review period for the planning strategy in the Development Act and that is the intention—to set that outer parameter. Yes, what the member proposes could happen but, as I said, it would be highly unlikely and improbable.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Further to that, if minister Gago were the minister for the next five, 10, 15, 20 years, then I might feel a little less concerned, but governments come and governments go. As a former minister myself, I am very much aware that ministers come and ministers go but that communities and the parliament stay; therefore, what we have now is confirmation that we could actually have a review as early as 12 months or thereabouts.

There is concern in the southern community (the McLaren Vale and wine region, tourism, and conservation coalition within that area), as I understand it from contact I have had with them—and it is different from the Barossa Valley, where I understand they are probably more comfortable with the five-year issue. I do not believe that the majority of the key stakeholder representative groups that have done the work on behalf of the community would be happy with that potential risk, and the risk is that you could get someone wanting to buy some land on the peripheral fringe of the township boundary who then spends a couple of years putting pressure on the council and government to push out those boundaries.

Yes, there is the democratic process of both houses of parliament then having to approve, but we never know the future make-up of both houses, so I would actually feel, on that basis, that this should really be opposed. I again alert colleagues to the amendment I have put up where it would be 20 years and I will talk more about that when that amendment comes to be debated.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: In the interests of brevity, the bottom line is that a minister can basically decide to review an act any time they like, if they want to. I do not see what the member is getting hung up about. Basically, a minister can review any piece of legislation or any aspect of any piece of legislation whenever they like.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I have not so much a question as, I suppose, a couple of cases in point, regarding what I think the minister termed 'a general understanding of what consultation should look like'. Surely, but unfortunately, we need only look at the current cases of the Cadell ferry and the Blackwood overpass to know that governments cannot always be trusted to do the right thing when consultation occurs. Surely, while we do not want to be too prescriptive, there does need to be something of a stronger code in terms of broaching these issues when it comes to consultation.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 5, lines 4 to 7 [clause 10(2)]—Delete subclause (2) and substitute:

(2) The review must include an assessment of—

(a) the state of the district, especially taking into account the objects of this Act and any relevant provisions of the Planning Strategy; and

(b) the family, social, economic and environmental impacts of this Act; and

(c) the impact of this Act on local government in the district; and

(d) any steps that have been taken or strategies that have been implemented to address any negative impacts of this Act,

and may include such other matters as the Minister thinks fit.

This amendment codifies some terms in the review. Given the significant impacts of the bill, we seek to expand the current wording of the section so that, when the review takes place, family, social, economic, environmental and local government impact, and steps taken to remedy negative impacts—for instance, compensation—are considered in that codifying of the terms of review.

The reason for that is that we have been concerned for some time that family impact statements, local government impact statements and environmental impact statements are not always initiated and are certainly not transparent. They often become part of a cabinet document and we do not see them. Whilst I take the minister's point that they will be tabled—after the Hon. Mark Parnell, I think, questioned that—I think we have to implement an amendment that will ensure that those impact statements are actually delivered.

These two bills are clear examples of where there is merit in such specific assessment of impact on councils and I think it is only fair in the circumstances of the quadruple bottom line that we consider family, social, economic and environmental impacts. Just to make it really nice and tidy and know exactly what we have to consider in the review, I commend the amendment to the committee.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government supports this amendment.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I note that the government is supporting the amendment. I was not inclined to support it and I just wanted to put on the record briefly reasons for that. Whilst I appreciate that what the honourable member is seeking to do is to codify a list of important things that should be considered as part of any review, the difficulty I have with it is that many of the phrases and words used in this are just so open as to be impossible to address in any objective way.

If we take, for example, something I know the honourable member's party—the Family First Party—is very keen on, namely, family impact statements, I can give you two impacts straightaway: impact No.1—this bill is stopping subdivision in the Barossa Valley and McLaren Vale. If you wanted to take the viewpoint that there are all these cheap house and land packages, which are now off the agenda, you could come up with a review that says, 'This is terrible for families; we're still growing grapes in the Barossa when we could be growing houses, and they'd be cheap houses.' First, I do not accept that that is true, but the idea of a family impact statement in relation to a bill whose primary purpose is to prevent urban sprawl, makes no sense to me at all.

Similarly, when we are looking at the impact on local government, it is very difficult to know what impact that could be. We are debating the relative responsibilities and powers between state and local government, but it is difficult to know what other impact there might be. Perhaps if we were to cover the Barossa Valley and McLaren Vale with houses, the rate revenue would go up, so we could say that this is a negative impact on local government because they are getting less rates. I do not see that identifying these as issues to take into account will give us a better review.

Whilst I accept that the government has already agreed to this amendment, I think it is creating a bit of a rod for its own back, and I pity the person whose job it is to draft the review because they will have a dickens of a job trying to make sense of what the parliament is telling the reviewers to take into account.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: If the government is prepared to accept the amendment, the opposition also is certainly prepared to accept it. If we are to have a review it should encompass the whole range of components the honourable member has suggested.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

New clause 10A.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Page 5, after line 9—After clause 10 insert:

10A—Reviews relating to townships

(1) The Minister must, at intervals of not more than 5 years, undertake a review to determine whether any alterations should be made to the boundaries of the areas marked as townships in the plan referred to in the definition of township in section 3.

(2) In conducting a review, the Minister must (in such manner as the Minister thinks fit) consult with, and consider any submissions of, relevant councils.

(3) The Minister must cause a report on the outcome of the review to be tabled in both Houses of Parliament within 12 sitting days after its completion.

This amendment requires the minister to undertake a review of the township boundaries within the district every five years; in undertaking that review to consult with and consider any submissions of councils within the district; and, it is anticipated that this review could be undertaken, together with a review of the act and the five-yearly review of the planning strategy required under the Development Act 1993. This amendment is being proposed consistently with the Barossa Valley bill, following discussions with Barossa, Light, Adelaide Hills and Onkaparinga councils.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 5, after line 9—Proposed section 10A(1)—delete subsection (1) and substitute:

(1) The Minister may, not less than 20 years after the commencement of this Act, undertake a review to determine whether any alterations should be made to the boundaries of the areas marked as townships in the plan referred to in the definition of township in section 3 (and the General Registry Office at Adelaide must not accept deposit of any new plan for the purposes of that definition unless such a review has been undertaken).

I know that the government's advice on this would be that it has to come through both houses of parliament, so whether the government actually starts to do a review in one year, as the house has already been told, could be quite likely. It is legal anyway, but probably not likely but realistically it could. We have these pressures almost straightaway on the boundaries.

When members in this place supported the Willunga preservation bill that I put up before the last election, that bill was based on similar parameters to this bill, but I had a real focus on the Napa Valley in particular and also on the Swan Valley in Western Australia, and to a lesser extent the Sonoma Valley. I visited the Napa Valley and the Sonoma Valley back in about 1995 and 1996 and had a look at what was going on there. Interestingly enough, just in the last year or two I understand that the government in California has supported legislation to extend the protection of the Napa Valley for, I think, another 25 years.

Even if technically we knew that both houses of parliament would have to support any recommendations from a review, which any government may implement within one year or up to five years, by having this amendment in the bill the least it would do is signal to the members of parliament in both houses that, when the bill is implemented, it would be 20 years before there would be any opportunity to extend the boundaries of the township.

I think that would give substantial credibility to the bill, but it would also stop those people who might like to buy land on the edge of those townships and then apply pressure. We have seen that pressure applied in the last few years, in terms of developers. What a wonderful signal it would send if we knew we had continuity for the next 20 years and a real chance to assess the positive benefit of these bills.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government rises to oppose this amendment, which was lodged only a short while ago; nevertheless, we are happy to consider it at this point. Obviously, the government prefers its own wording around the review period. In the bill, it would mean that township boundaries are reviewed every five years. The amendment the Hon. Robert Brokenshire proposes would remove that scrutiny and that requirement to review every five years for up to 20 years. So, there would be no review of the township boundaries for 20 years.

As I said before, the reality is that a minister can review an act, or any part of an act, whenever they like. If a minister wanted to review these boundaries at some time, they could anyway. The real issue for us is that, if any changes are made to the boundaries, parliament has to approve them, and that is where the scrutiny is and the protection is, and those protections remain in place. I just do not think we should be hung up about the review process because that in itself is not arbitrary but, as I said, a minister can initiate a review at any stage anyway. The issue is parliamentary scrutiny, and that is in place and that is what is going to be important about the long-term integrity of these regions.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I appreciate what the honourable member is seeking to do through this amendment—to effectively say that, once these boundaries have been set through this legislation, there should be a degree of certainty. But I think the minister's point is well made in terms of the minister can review whenever he or she wants.

But if you want to step back a little bit, if this bill is about stopping urban sprawl, urban sprawl comes from two directions: it either comes from the outside in, or it starts on the inside and works its way out. What we would effectively have with this amendment is that the government would be able to review the external boundary and shrink it—in other words, allow urban sprawl to encroach into the Barossa and McLaren Vale—but it would not be allowed to even think about expanding the township boundaries out. My strong view is that I do not want either of those things to happen because I want urban sprawl to be constrained.

The Hon. G.E. Gago: I want to go up.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The minister interjects, 'I want to go up.' Well, given what the minister said yesterday in terms of the amount of land that is already within the township boundaries, I do not think there is a need for high rise in any of the Barossa or McLaren Vale townships for probably 100 years or maybe 200 years. I do not see high rise as being at all likely in those areas, but that is not to say that there is no scope for more densification within the existing townships.

But I think that the logical consequence of supporting the Hon. Rob Brokenshire's amendment is that we would open up the prospect of a review looking at shrinking the boundaries and urban sprawl from without, but we would prevent ourselves from having a discussion about urban sprawl from within.

Leaving all of that to one side, the parliament is the parliament and, if the parliament decided that it wanted to review the boundaries, it would delete this clause that has just been included. It would delete the 20-year clause and it would remain a five-year clause. I appreciate the honourable member putting on the agenda his view, which I share; that is, I do not want to see these boundaries tinkered with willy-nilly, I do not want to see them messed with. I think they should stand the test of time and we should not need to be adjusting them.

Having said that, in terms of parliamentary sovereignty if the parliament decides at some period in the future that it does want to mess with the boundaries that will be up to the parliament to do. I do not think this amendment adds anything to the protections that have been implemented through this bill, and the Greens will not be supporting it.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate that the opposition will not be supporting the amendment for very similar reasons as the Hon. Mark Parnell outlined. I think the biggest threat to these areas is increment from the external boundaries, not from the townships. We have seen that incremental nibbling away at Seaford by this last government. I accept that land had been rezoned for many, many decades, but this government chose to put it on the market and sell. Notwithstanding the very difficult times the previous Liberal government went through with the State Bank debacle, it still chose not to put it on the market. I think the biggest risk is to the external boundaries, not the internal boundaries. For the same reason, it appears that the parliament will have final say over the boundaries. I understand what the member is trying to achieve but, because it is very late amendment and we have not had a chance to consult on it, we will not be supporting it.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: In wrapping up, I thank colleagues for their contribution and want to qualify a couple of things. Certainly, this amendment has no direct impact on what would happen with the external boundary, because that could happen either way. In fact, what we are voting on here, right now, could happen if the parliament agreed to shrink the boundary. I would love to see a way where we could protect that in perpetuity but we can only work realistically—

The Hon. M. Parnell: We cannot protect the community from future parliaments.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: That's right; God help the community. I just wanted to put that on the public record. This amendment was not as a result of my own doing but as a result of representation I had from some of the key stakeholders. However, I will just leave this on the public record as well. If you look at Clarendon and Kangarilla as two examples of townships that have pretty well been left as they were for 100 years or so, that is the vision we have.

Anything we could do to reinforce that to future parliaments would, I think, be advantageous to future generations. I know for a fact (as we all know) that when we do consider what may happen in the future, members of parliament generally look back at the original legislation, the debate and the amendments, and then make their decisions based on that. I move this amendment as another strong foundation stone for the long-term protection of two iconic regions. That is in the best interests of the state.

Amendment negatived; new clause inserted.

Clause 11.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Page 5—

After line 13 [clause 11(1)]—Before paragraph (a) insert:

(aaa) make provision in relation to the referral of any application for development authorisation to the Development Assessment Commission for the purposes of section 8(2); and

(aa) prescribe fees in respect of any matter under this Act and provide for their payment, recovery or waiver; or

After line 28—After subclause (3) insert:

(4) Before a regulation is made under this Act, the Minister must (in such manner as the Minister thinks fit) consult with, and consider any submissions of, relevant councils.

These amendments are consequential.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Clause 11 is the regulation-making power. One of the questions which has been put to me and which I would like to put to the minister is: in this list of regulation-making powers, what powers will the minister have under this clause that the minister does not already have under the Development Act, given that we have now agreed that the Development Act minister is this minister? What additional work does this regulation-making power have to do?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The honourable member is very astute. There are no differences, I am advised—none whatsoever. We have been adhering to technical advice that brings about consistency and places the matter beyond any doubt whatsoever.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I thank the minister for her answer. I just want to double-check; if the minister could just clarify this one point. I want to look at the list of things in subclause (2) that the regulations may cover, certainly paragraph (a), in terms of prohibiting or restricting the undertaking of specific activities.

We have had a debate already that the planning system is not about prohibiting things: it is about making things non-complying. Can I just check whether the word 'prohibiting' in paragraph (a) has a different meaning? Paragraph (b) talks about being able to impose prescribed requirements or conditions. I just want to get the minister to check whether there is an equivalent power in the development regulations to impose prescribed requirements or conditions on development.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Just as a point of clarity to make sure that I have not misled this place, when the Hon. Mark Parnell asked the question I answered it in terms of reference to the amendments having the same effect as the Development Act, which they do. However, given the additional questions, the Hon. Mark Parnell is referring to the overall clause, and there are differences in the overall clause, as he has identified. Indeed, the issue of prohibition is more expansive than that of the Development Act but, ultimately, parliament will determine the appropriate use of that and, at this point in time, we have no intention to develop regulations around that. So, it would be a safety valve, if needed, at a later date.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I thank the minister for that clarification. Yes, I was referring to the regulation clause as a whole rather than the specific amendment. The specific amendment No. 18 refers to regulations making provision for the referral of any application for development authorisation to the Development Assessment Commission.

At this point, I might just make the observation that I think it is a power that is increasingly being misused by government: the ability to take away from local councils decision-making about certain classes of development and giving it to the state-appointed body instead, giving it to the Development Assessment Commission. We saw it some time ago in the City of Adelaide, where developments over $10 million were automatically taken from the council and given to the Development Assessment Commission.

I originally had an amendment drafted to restrict the ability of the government to nominate the Development Assessment Commission as the relevant authority; however, for largely technical reasons I did not proceed with it because the power already exists under the development regulations, where the government can put in a list of activities that have to go to the DAC rather than the local council. So it fell into the too-hard basket, I am afraid. I just want to put on the record that the Greens are increasingly concerned that more developments are being taken away from councils and given to the Development Assessment Commission.

Back on clause 11 as a whole, in terms of regulation, the minister has acknowledged that the regulations are more expansive, and that would be an argument for rejecting them, but I accept that the minister has said that they have no intentions to pass specific regulations at this point in relation to this bill. I guess, as I have said a number of times, if we are going to step right back, if we are giving these two areas a status that is greater than other parts of the state, then there is an argument for a regulation-making power that gives the executive more authority. Although I make the point as well, from a parliamentary point of view, it is certainly easier to knock off a bad regulation than it is to knock off a bad development plan amendment.

Given that many of the things referred to in the regulation-making power could also be done via a DPA, possibly the parliament has not lost out, but I just leave those as observations. The Greens will be supporting the government's amendment No. 18 and also amendment No. 19 (also to clause 11) because that requires the minister to consult with councils, although it does still suffer from the words that I referred to before: 'in such manner as the minister thinks fit'. However, the minister has elaborated as to her views at least on what appropriate consultation is.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The opposition will be supporting the government amendments.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Schedule 1.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Page 6, after line 8 [Schedule 1, clause 3]—After subclause (2) insert:

(3) Section 22—after subsection (4a) insert:

(4aa) Before making any alterations to the Planning Strategy to incorporate provisions which address any character values of a district recognised under a character preservation law (or to alter any such provisions), the Minister must (in such manner as the Minister thinks fit) consult with, and consider any submissions of, relevant councils (within the meaning of the character preservation law).

This is consequential.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Page 6, line 11 [Schedule 1, clause 4, inserted subsection (5a)]—Delete 'or incorporate'

This is consequential.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 6—

Lines 18 to 23 [Schedule 1, clause 5(2)]—Delete subclause (2)

Lines 27 and 28 [Schedule 1, clause 6, inserted subparagraph (x)]—Delete ', acting at the request of the Minister responsible for the administration of a character preservation law, '

These are consequential.

Amendments carried.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 6, line 34 [Schedule 1, clause 6, inserted subparagraph (x)]—Delete 'making the request'

The reason why I move this amendment—and there has been some confirmation both in the house during this debate and also with a letter that I have received from the honourable planning minister, the Hon. John Rau—is that once these bills are assented to, they will put a mechanism in place to bring in a new DPA which will then offset the problem that I have highlighted for some time on behalf of a lot of constituents. Other colleagues in this house have, too, and have had representation.

Whilst we understood the requirement to bring in an interim DPA to stop speculation of subdivision—and I strongly supported that—it was overkill to make non-complying the basic council merit-appointed planning processes which have actually caused a lot of difficulty in the regions when it comes to property values and banks' attitudes to loans they have had with constituents and so on.

This amendment is an important amendment, because there are over 2,000 owners who are potentially affected by this. To summarise what we are really doing with this amendment now, we are saying that the amendment would ensure that, as soon as bill is assented to, there would be certainty again, so people would not have to wait until the government brings in a new DPA.

In the government's response indicating its attitude to my amendment, I would ask the minister to advise the committee how long the minister thinks it will be before a new DPA would come in. I understand the intent is that they would try to get that DPA in within six months or thereabouts, but if six months becomes 12 months or 18 months that makes it quite difficult for these property owners.

So, protecting from sub-division and further sprawl, yes, but we should give people what I believe is a democratic right under the Westminster system, provided they have an envelope and meet the normal building and planning processes in a way that complies with council requirements. In my opinion, we should accelerate the certainty back to those people, and that is essentially what this amendment does.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government rises to oppose this amendment. The amendment purports to restore certain rights to landowners and directly overrule a development plan amendment currently in process. The government understands the need for certainty for landholders and the intent of the amendment; however, we feel that the amendment is partly based on a false premise and, in any event, is not the best way to address the concern raised by the member.

As I have already indicated in a response to a question from the Hon. Mr Darley, and as the Minister for Planning stated in the other place when he introduced the bills, the development plan amendment which this amendment seeks to overturn was put in place to prevent inappropriate urban development from occurring while parliament debates this legislation. There is not, nor was there, any intention that this freeze would remain in place once these bills have (hopefully) been passed by this parliament. If these bills are passed by parliament, subject to the advice of the DPAC, the government will return planning policy to the position prior to the bill's introduction.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Can the minister give to the chamber a guaranteed timeline as to when that new DPA would come into effect, so that the confusion and financial difficulties of up to 2,000 people can be rectified with some certainty? When would that actually be gazetted?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised it would be from the day the act commences, and I am advised that the minister believes that would be in the beginning of next year (2013).

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Page 6, lines 35 and 36—[Schedule 1, clause 6, inserted subparagraph (x)]—Delete 'or a township'

The CHAIR: I think that amendment is consequential, is it not?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Yes, it is consequential.

Amendment carried.

The CHAIR: Because of a clerical error we will go back and deal with [Brokenshire-7] 1, which is consequential. It has been moved by the Hon. Mr Brokenshire.

Amendment carried.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Brokenshire can move his amendment [Brokenshire-8] 1, which is consequential.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 6, line 36 [Schedule 1, clause 6, inserted subparagraph (x)]—Delete 'the relevant' and substitute 'a'

Amendment carried.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Page 6, after line 37—After clause 6 insert:

6A—Amendment of section 46—Declaration by Minister

(1) Section 46(3a)—delete subsection (3a) and substitute:

(3a) A declaration under this section cannot apply with respect to a development or project within—

(a) the Adelaide Park Lands; or

(b) a character preservation rural area.

(2) Section 46—after subsection (16) insert:

(17) In this section—

character preservation ruralarea means an area that is defined as a rural area under a character preservation law.

That is consequential.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 7, line 3 [Schedule 1, clause 7]—Delete 'responsible for the administration of the Development Act 1993'

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 7, line 4 [Schedule 1, clause 7(a)]—Delete 'that Act' and substitute:

the Development Act 1993

Amendment carried.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Page 7, lines 7 and 8 [Schedule 1, clause 7(b)]—Delete ' or a township, or part of the district or a township'; and substitute:

, or part of the district

Amendment carried.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Page 7, after line 13 [Schedule 1, clause 7]—After paragraph (b) insert:

and

(c) (in such manner as the Minister thinks fit) consult with, and consider any submissions of, relevant councils in relation to the matters specified in paragraphs (a) and (b).

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: That is consequential.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 7, after line 13—Insert:

8—Application of Barossa Valley and McLaren Vale—Revised—Protection Districts

(1) This clause only applies to a proposed development on an allotment that existed on the prescribed day.

(2) If—

(a) it would have been possible to grant development authorisation to a proposed development in the district in accordance with the provisions of the applicable Development Plan as in force immediately before the prescribed day; but

(b) the proposed development would not be able to be granted development authorisation in accordance with the provisions of the applicable Development Plan as varied by amendments specified in the Development Plan Amendment,

those amendments will be taken not to apply in relation to the proposed development (and will be taken to have never come into operation in relation to the proposed development).

(3) If it would have been possible to grant development authorisation to a proposed development in the district in accordance with the provisions of the applicable Development Plan as in force immediately before the prescribed day, any subsequent amendment to the applicable Development Plan must preserve the ability to grant development authorisation to that proposed development.

(4) In this clause—

applicable Development Plan means the Development Plan under the Development Act 1993 that applies to the location of the proposed development;

Development Plan Amendment means the Barossa Valley and McLaren Vale—Revised—Protection Districts Development Plan Amendment that came into operation on an interim basis under section 28 of the Development Act 1993 in accordance with the notice published in the Gazette on 11 April 2012;

prescribed day means 28 September 2011.

I have already spoken on this amendment.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government has already indicated its reasons for opposing this amendment previously.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I will not be moving amendments Nos 16 and 17.

Schedule as amended passed.

New schedule 2.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 7, after line 13—After Schedule 1 insert:

Schedule 2—Amendment of Development Plan

1—Interpretation

In this Schedule—

designated area means the area within the township of Willunga bounded by St Mary's Street and Green Lane on the western side, St John's Terrace on the southern side, St Matthew's Street on the eastern side and Kirk Street and a line running from the end of Kirk Street (directly along the prolongation of that street) so as to connect to St Mary's Street on the northern side;

Development Plan means the Onkaparinga (City) Development Plan under the Development Act1993.

2—Amendment of Development Plan

(1) The Development Plan is amended so that any land within the designated area is zoned Residential (Foothills) (R(F))—see MAP Onka/103 and MAP Onka/104 in that Development Plan.

(2) The Minister responsible for the administration of the Development Act 1993 must, by notice in the Gazette, make such amendments to the Development Plan as are necessary to give effect to subclause (1) and those amendments will have effect according to their terms and without any other step being required under the Development Act 1993.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government rises to oppose this amendment and I will give our reasons. This amendment, in essence, attempts to rezone a specific portion of land to remove it from the Hills Face Zone. There are a number of reasons why the government opposes this amendment, for similar reasons to Mr Brokenshire's earlier amendment. The government believes such an amendment would set up legal ambiguities and set an unfortunate precedent for interference in the zoning system.

However, the government does appreciate the issue that the Hon. Robert Brokenshire raises. The government is very aware that there are a number of areas which are part of the Hills Face Zone for historical reasons but which are essentially anomalous, as they do not form a visible part of the Hills Face proper. This is a result of the history of the zone which started life, as members know, as the limit of the former E&WS department's technical capacity to service new housing allotments.

Since first established, the zone has taken on an important role in preserving the Hills landscape as an impressive and ever-present backdrop to Adelaide's urban area. In many ways, however, this has been a product of happenstance rather than design. We believe that the best way to address this anomaly in the boundaries of the Hills Face Zone would be through a proper public inquiry and that changes such as the amendments are undoubtedly the least desirable way to address the issue. The government cannot support this amendment, but we would be happy to discuss further with the Hon. Rob Brokenshire and other members perhaps other alternative ways for these matters to be reviewed and addressed at a later date.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate that the opposition is sympathetic to what the Hon. Rob Brokenshire is attempting to do but, for very similar reasons to those the minister has outlined, we think it may set up a dangerous legal precedent. Some of the members of the opposition—Iain Evans and others—have raised that there are certain little pockets of the Hills Face Zone that are a bit like the one outlined by the Hon. Robert Brokenshire that really do not add to the backdrop to the city, as the minister spoke about, but have been captured virtually by the fact that they are in the Hills Face Zone.

Certainly the opposition would be very happy to work with the government and other members to work out some way of reviewing those odd little pockets that are a bit different from what we all love and treasure as the Hills Face Zone. We cannot support the amendment, but we will be very happy to work with the government, as the minister said, either to review or look at some way of addressing those anomalies.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I think that at the heart of this amendment is a frustration on the part of the honourable member that I absolutely share, which is that there are anomalous situations or just bad outcomes that come from planning schemes. The development plan does not always get it right and, as I have said earlier—and I will not repeat myself at any length—the parliament has very limited capacity to deal with bad zoning or planning decisions.

Members of the community have even less power to deal with them. In fact, the only option open to members of the public who think that the zoning rules are wrong is to bring what I think of as a due process-type appeal in the Supreme Court, or maybe the ERD Court, arguing that the process of zoning was wrong, but there is no ability to argue the merits of zoning. You cannot argue that this is in the wrong zone. Provided the minister has gone through the correct process, these decisions are, in effect, unimpeachable.

I agree with the remarks of other honourable members that we do need to have more discussion about the appropriateness of zoning in certain locations, but I would also like to have a debate in this place about whether the parliament and the community should try to reassert some control over planning schemes, and I for one am a fan of merits, appeals, against planning schemes. That fills a lot of departmental people and planners with dread, the idea that the parliament or members of the community would argue against a planning decision that was made in terms of zoning or the rules that apply to development, but I think that is the direction in which we will have to head, whereas the government is going in the opposite direction. It is looking for more ministerial power and control and less fettered discretion, and as a result the communities miss out.

Whilst I appreciate what the honourable member is trying to do, he has taken advantage (I do not mean that in a negative sense) of the fact that this bill is before us. He has identified a problem with zoning and sought to fix it. I think the question is a broader one, and I am keen to work with all members to come up with amendments to the Development Act that give communities and the parliament more control. For the reasons the government has outlined, we will not support this particular amendment today.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I thank colleagues for their contribution. I used this as a test. I place on the public record that there are a couple of families in one little pocket of the township who are totally disadvantaged in day-to-day activities because, when the township boundary was changed, the work was not done, as has been pointed out by the Hons Mark Parnell and David Ridgway. They are disadvantaged, even though they are within a township boundary, because of that anomaly.

Another family in the Barossa Valley have been to see me, the Liberal Party and possibly other crossbench colleges and also the government through Mr Piccolo, and no-one has been able to offer a solution to help these people. I went to the council on this. The council was sympathetic, but said, 'Oh well, we don't have the money to spend on a development assessment plan and all the work around that until another five years.' I went to the minister and the minister said, 'Well, go to the council.' Effectively those people are stuck between a rock and a hard place, and I thought this was an opportunity to at least bring some debate into the house and get some comment on the public record, which we now have.

I conclude by saying that I would still like to pursue opportunities for those two families and others who may be subject to those anomalies that have been highlighted. I think a process could be developed for the parliament to streamline those anomalies, and on behalf of Family First I would like to work cooperatively with the government, the opposition, the Greens and crossbench members, even if a committee was formed to see how we can address this and try to do some streamlining. It has been around for a long time and it is a significant disadvantage to, sure, only a small number but still important members of the South Australian community.

New schedule negatived.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women) (12:39): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (12:39): I would like to make a few comments at the third reading, although I suspect that I will not pursue what I was going to initially attempt to pursue. Last night, when we were debating this bill, I moved a suite of amendments. I guess my first amendment was a test clause for the opposition's amendments. I think we were making some reasonable headway. The minister said:

Yes, I have a new issue...we have spent a lot of time debating this, but this is actually a new issue that has been brought to my attention. That is yet another consequence of the Hon. David Ridgway's amendments—and I think I need to draw this to the attention of the chamber—in that his amendments will allow subdivision for residential purposes in rural parts of the district such as a prime viticulture area...Our clause [meaning the government's clause] 8 prevents that from happening. The Hon. David Ridgway's amendment removes that. Our bill provides for a statutory prohibition to subdivide in rural parts, so for instance in those areas that may be deemed prime agriculture or viticulture areas our bill will prevent subdivision for residential purposes. The Hon. David Ridgway's amendment will allow that rural area to be subdivided. I just thought I would add that as well.

I thought I would also add that those were the minister's comments. Those rural areas are covered by the existing development plans, although anybody, as members would be aware, could apply to subdivide. It would be a noncomplying development; nonetheless, they could still apply to do so.

On reviewing amendments, I am sort of indicating by this commentary that, when we get to the Barossa bill, I will withdraw my amendment that deletes clause 8 because it certainly was not the intention of the opposition. Other members were saying last night during the debate, 'Well, it's obviously a drafting error, and maybe you need to look at it.' I did not want to prolong things last night, but maybe there is an option to withdraw our amendment that deletes clause 8. Therefore, we would have the same outcome in that respect as the government but, in the Barossa bill, still pursue the minister's not having the level of control that minister Gago expressed last night. I am still a little concerned, and I will repeat again some of the minister's comments. The minister said:

I think that, for fear of being repetitive, I have made it quite clear that, indeed, the status quo does prevail in terms of processes for DPAs that apply to councils. However, the status quo does not prevail—these amendments [the opposition's amendments] change significantly the processes that apply to ministers.

What these amendments do will remove the power for ministers to be able to initiate DPAs; I have already taken pains to outline several times all of the implications and I do not need to do it again. That is the difference; that is the impact this has. I think we have repeated it now several times. I think the issues for members are clear in terms of the impact these amendments have, and I think it is time that we move on.

I asked one final question of the minister, as follows:

Is the minister saying that if the bill is not amended the minister will be able to implement a ministerial DPA in McLaren Vale or the Barossa?

The minister's response was, 'Yes, consistent with the legislation.'

What we were trying to do with our amendments was to remove the right of the minister to implement a ministerial DPA or to declare a major development and leave it to local communities and councils to control and manage. But, of course, it became apparent then that, by deleting clause 8, there was this opportunity for subdivision to take place, although I think it is remote because I do not believe that local councils would permit further subdivision.

Sadly, Family First members have left the chamber. I think what I might do is seek leave to conclude my remarks and catch up with the other members during the lunch break. If I do not have the support to progress this, the third reading will be a matter of a formality once we return. I seek leave to conclude my remarks.

The PRESIDENT: Is leave granted?

The Hon. G.E. Gago: No.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is not granted.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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