HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-11-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

RIVERBANK FOOTBRIDGE

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. J.M.A. Lensink:

That the regulations under the Development Act 1993 concerning the Riverbank footbridge, made on 12 July 2012 and laid on the table of this council on 17 July 2012, be disallowed.

(Continued from 17 October 2012.)

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (22:20): I am going to speak very briefly. This has been moved as a matter about planning and proper approval. I will let the council know that I am advised that the footbridge was included in schedule 1A (development requiring building rules consent only), as Crown development applications are excluded from being made in the Parklands.

The majority of the footbridge is in the Parklands. The southern portion is located in the institutional zone where Crown developments are envisaged. The provisions excluding Crown developments applications from the Parklands were incorporated into the Development Act 1993 as a consequential change arising from the Adelaide Parklands Act 2005, and that was made in 2006. In the second reading speech for the parklands act then minister, the Hon. Paul Holloway, stated that the consequential changes:

...will prevent future governments using either the nature project, crown development or electricity infrastructure development powers to provide ministerial development approval within the Park Lands.

The second reading speech went on to state:

The intent is to have the development regulations 1993 subsequently amended, where necessary, to clarify the assessment of such projects in the future by either the Development Assessment Commission or the council, as appropriate, against the development plan.

The footbridge has been subject to significant design input regarding both the appearance and location of footbridge, both of which will ensure that it is an attractive and integral link to the Adelaide Oval. The footbridge still requires a building rules assessment and development approval to be issued before it can be constructed. This approach is consistent with the approach taken by the Adelaide Oval Redevelopment and Management Act, which preserves the need for building consent for structures associated with the development.

Schedule 1A has previously been used for a similar purpose: the relocation of the cooling towers associated with the Convention Centre redevelopment. As is the case with the footbridge, schedule 1A was used, as the cooling towers have been temporarily relocated from the institutional zone to the Parklands zone. A recent city council survey, reported in the City Messenger on 22 October, indicated that 60 per cent of residents supported the footbridge proposal. Having outlined those reasons, I can indicate that the government does not support the motion before the chamber.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (22:23): This motion raises a number of issues. It seeks to disallow regulations, but I think the real issue comprises questions that are broader than appear on the face of the motion, necessarily.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting:

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: That's encouraging, thanks, Rob. I could not let that go: it was hilarious. My view of the issues we grapple with in this motion is that two issues really arise. The first one is the question of whether the footbridge is an appropriate development in that locality and whether the size and dimensions are appropriate and, secondly, whether the process that has been used by the government to enable the development to proceed is appropriate. I will attempt to address those now.

There has been much public debate about the size and dimensions of the footbridge as well as the cost; some argue that it is too big and some argue that it is too small. I want to place firmly on the record that I am concerned about the cost of the footbridge. I think $43 million is the figure I have read in the media, like everyone else, and it seems an extreme amount of money for what is being proposed. I hope that the government has been as careful as possible in getting an appropriate cost for such a development because it really does seem an extreme amount of money. Obviously, in our state at the moment there are many people who could make very good use of such a very large sum of money.

However, for my part, my response to this motion is that I see the essence of the motion as a question of process rather than the merits of the footbridge itself. It is really about how the development is approved rather than whether or not we should have footbridge. I therefore consider the process by which the government has enabled the construction of the footbridge as my primary contribution this evening.

It is not a run-of-the-mill development, obviously. It is a major project and it is on absolutely prime public land. There are no standard guidelines that can be brought out and applied for such a development. I understand that it is unique. We do have very small footbridge, the so-called university footbridge at the other end of the Torrens, but this will be something that Adelaide has not seen before.

Certainly there are some political considerations, there are obviously engineering considerations and, obviously, there are also environmental considerations. I have therefore concluded that it is appropriate for the government of the day to form a view as to whether the public will consider this footbridge to be appropriate or not. If, indeed, the footbridge is in due course seen to be too big or too small or too costly (and I think one could easily argue that it is too costly), then the government will have to answer for that at the next election. Ultimately, it is the government's responsibility to get this right.

I have always been in favour of eliminating red tape in the development process. For some projects there is a need for detailed study and consideration of all the effects and consequences of the development. We have extensive development and planning laws and they are adhered to every single day by developers and people building all sorts of things around the state.

Mining projects are an example of projects in that category but, for major public projects where the advantages and disadvantages can be weighed up and debated by the public, my view is that the government of the day, whether it be Liberal or Labor, is entitled to make an assessment of the merits and stand by that assessment. At the end of the day, they will be judged by it.

My view is that we all need to be vigilant to ensure that those proposing any development are not required to jump through too many hoops and satisfy endless requisitions for what can be seen to be little purpose at times. Development approval should always be a streamlined process, eliminating delays and unnecessary investigations and reports. I have a general concern that as time goes by more and more requirements are placed on developers such that development in this state can be increasingly difficult. It is not just in this state, of course, to be fair: it is in other states and, perhaps, increasingly so in the western world.

The practical effect of the regulation that is sought to be disallowed is to add the project onto the Adelaide Oval redevelopment project such that no independent assessment is required. In that sense, the approval process is largely a political process. I consider that to be appropriate because the project is a major project associated with the Adelaide Oval redevelopment. The government has made a detailed assessment about the footbridge.

It is, after all, the initiative of this government to go ahead with the redevelopment of the Adelaide Oval, and the government has made that assessment. At some point a decision has to be made. To me, that decision is not likely to be better with any more reports, more considerations, more delays and even more expense. I am, therefore, unable to support this motion this evening.

In saying this, I acknowledge that the motion is being put forward with the best intentions. I appreciate that the footbridge is a development that has been the subject of much public debate and I can understand fully why some might oppose the footbridge as it is presently planned and, as I said, the cost in itself is very substantial. But, to me, the overriding principle is that development should not be hindered or delayed by extensive processes that amount to red tape, essentially, and not much else in many cases.

Whatever this chamber does, the footbridge will go ahead. The motion is not about the merits of the footbridge but about the process for approval. Family First makes no judgement about the merits of the footbridge in this motion necessarily but we do support the approval process that has been applied to this particular development and, for that reason, we will not be able to support this motion.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (22:28): I will be brief. Footbridge or no, this regulation must go. To exempt it from the act is avoiding the fact that the Parklands are special, so to this reg we say no. The Greens will be supporting the disallowance motion.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (22:28): I thank the Hon. Kyam Maher, the Hon. Dennis Hood and the Hon. Mark Parnell who, in one of his very short contributions, has shown his literary flair in verse. I will be very brief because we have a number of items on the agenda but I do want to place a couple of comments on the record. The Hon. Dennis Hood did rightly point out that we have issues with process. We also have issues with costs, and I think Family First shares some of those concerns. It is not part of the promise that was made before the election and, given the budgetary situation, the Liberal Party is very concerned about the way in which these regulations have been promulgated.

Schedule 1A of the Development Regulations 2008 are certainly worth honourable members having a look at because it lists all of the items which are included alongside the development regulations that will apply to this area. One of the things which I do not think has been covered by a number of honourable members is the issue of the Parklands. They should only be built on as a last resort, and any development that occurs on the Parklands deserves to have particular scrutiny.

I did, in my contribution on 17 October, say that I was going to be intrigued to hear why the government thought that this particular provision should be included in those development regulations, and I do not think I have heard any rationale as to why they were included in those particular regulations. I indicate that we will be dividing on this motion, and thank all honourable member for their contributions.

The council divided on the motion:


AYES (11)
Bressington, A. Dawkins, J.S.L. Franks, T.A.
Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. (teller) Lucas, R.I.
Parnell, M. Ridgway, D.W. Stephens, T.J.
Vincent, K.L. Wade, S.G.
NOES (10)
Brokenshire, R.L. Darley, J.A. Finnigan, B.V.
Gago, G.E. (teller) Hood, D.G.E. Hunter, I.K.
Kandelaars, G.A. Maher, K.J. Wortley, R.P.
Zollo, C.

Majority of 1 for the ayes.

Motion thus carried.

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