I seek leave to make an explanation before asking the Minister for Urban Development and Planning a question about the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide.
The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: In February last year, the Sustainability and Climate Change Division of DPC produced a report called 'Desktop Assessment of Climate Change Measures', which analyses current government policy and which allegedly has links to the government's Tackling Climate Change strategy. Within the report, it states the following:
Plan for sustainable urban development that optimises previous investment in social and physical infrastructure, including existing public transport to accommodate the state government's population target of 2 million by 2050.
Furthermore, as minister, you issued a press release on 17 February relating to the 30-year plan, stating that one of its central principles is 'housing people in a greater mix of densities close to jobs, services and improved public transport links'.
Honourable members would be aware of the discussion that has been occurring in the media recently in relation to the Mount Barker DPA, and also proposed developments for Buckland Park and Aldinga Beach, which have been criticised for their lack of social and physical infrastructure, including lack of foresight into commercial and industrial zoning, appropriate roads, sewer networks and the fact that the residents clearly need to be car owners to have transport options. My question is: does the minister acknowledge that such development on our urban boundary is in direct contradiction to the government's own sustainable urban development policy?
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) (15:24): One of the key features of the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide is to encourage development as much as we possibly can, to push the envelope as hard we can, to get people living in walkable communities along transport corridors.
The objectives of the 30-year plan are to utilise the significant investment in the electrification of our railways to ensure that we have that development along those transport corridors so that people will have the benefit of that. Unfortunately, not every new house that is built in this greater city over the next 30 years can be built along those corridors. However, we want as many as we possibly can along those corridors, and that will involve some challenge in relation to development plan amendments and the like to ensure that we get greater density along those corridors.
That is what one of the key objectives of the 30-year plan is all about. We want to move from a city that is now 50 per cent infill to one that is 70:30, where 70 per cent is within existing boundaries. That will be a challenge. I have said every time I have had a question in the last couple of years that it will be extremely difficult. I hope the honourable member and other members will support the difficult decisions that will need to be taken to ensure that we get greater density within our existing city because, if we do not do that, we will have much greater urban sprawl. They are our choices: we have greater density within the current boundary or we have sprawl or, I suppose, a third alternative is that we do not grow at all.
What this government is seeking to do through the 30-year plan is to ensure that we utilise the significant investment in our transport infrastructure, which tends to be along corridors that are due for urban renewal. A lot of them are degraded industrial sites. They are right for regeneration over the coming decades, and that gives us an opportunity that most other cities in the country do not have.
I have talked to planners elsewhere about the problems that Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth face, and they do not have the opportunities that we have to get development in existing corridors. Invariably, when we do seek to get growth near transport corridors we get complaints, including some from members opposite. For example, at Cheltenham we can get people living in reasonable levels of density close to a viable transport corridor—and one which will improve. In relation to climate change generally, I would think that given what happened in the federal parliament late last year members of the Liberal Party would be quiet on the subject of climate change.
The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (15:27): I have a supplementary question. Will the minister outline what transport corridors Mount Barker and Buckland Park are located along?
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) (15:27): As I have said, not every one of those developments is along a transport corridor. In fact, it was made clear in the 30-year plan. For example, in relation to Mount Barker the maps indicate that one of the options we are considering is a special bus lane along the freeway to service that area.
In relation to Buckland Park, if members look at the maps in the 30-year plan they will see that it will take 10 to 25 years for the suburb to grow. It would be silly to build rail infrastructure, for example, to a suburb that is presently just open paddocks. Clearly, that will come as the suburb grows. When Governor Hindmarsh landed in Adelaide not all the infrastructure in Adelaide was in place. That is the way things happen. These suburbs grow progressively.
What we are doing for the first time in planning is saying that we will plan 30 years ahead and look at what the requirements will be so it will be a much more orderly process, rather than just letting it evolve in an ad hoc manner, as has been done to date. We are considering what the key infrastructure issues will be and how we can build those into the plan. That has not been done in the past—it should have been—but it will be done in the future. If one looks at the transport options, they are set out within the 30-year plan.
The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (15:28): I have a supplementary question. Is the minister aware of a time frame for the Bald Hills Road interchange upgrade?
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) (15:28): The government would plan to link key infrastructure such as that to progress in the development. We will set trigger points—and we have given that undertaking to the council. I have made public statements in relation to that. There will be trigger points, and they are now the subject of negotiation between the government and the council.