 |
Legislative
Council |
|
 |
||
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
|
Legislative
Council |
|
|
||
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister of Urban Planning, in both her own right and also representing the Minister for Environment, a question about planning and water quality.
Leave granted.The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: We have seen ongoing changes in the Mount Lofty Ranges. If anything, they have probably accelerated over the past decade or so: the population has increased, and the intensity of agricultural activities has changed, as has the nature of farming methods. All of these changes have had significant implications on water management issues in the region. The recent months have increasingly seen members of the Hills raise concerns over water quality in relation to the impact of chemical run off from pesticides, overflows from septic tanks and the increase of nutrients which can cause algal blooms.
Increased residential and agricultural demand and storage have had significant impact on Hills ecosystems and have seen an increasing reliance on Murray River water supply—a water supply, it is worth noting, that is also under threat. Thus the growing and multiple demands of this region have placed pressure on both water quality and quantity, and water management has become an important planning and environmental issue. A recent report by the EPA entitled `State of Health of Mount Lofty Water Catchments' found that:
A major Sydney type outbreak has only been avoided so far due partly to well designed and operated water treatment plants and partly due to good luck. I stress `partly due to good luck'. The report also found that planning controls have not been as effective as they could have been in improving water quality, and that there is some confusion amongst agencies and groups that are responsible for particular problems with the management of Hills waterways. Importantly, the report recommends stricter and clearer planning controls, greater accountability and responsibility to a single agency for water management, as well as a strong focus on protecting water quality in the Mount Lofty Ranges Regional Strategy Plan. I might note that the ERD, in examining the allocations of water in the South-East, noted that water allocation and planning were happening quite separately and independently and that it was concerned by that.Those recommendations are important in the light of strongly held beliefs in some quarters that the State development plans should be more integrated with the regional strategy plans to improve water quality and quantity across the State. They are important recommendations that also raise questions over the ability of State development plans to protect quality and quantity in different regions. These are questions that are all the more crucial given the concerns recently expressed to me by Hills residents that the current Mount Lofty Regional Development Plan is being enforced less rigorously than was originally intended. The Mount Lofty Ranges Review took place, as I recall, about seven years ago, and did seek to offer great protections for water catchment, but that does appear to have been undermined.
The Hon. Diana Laidlaw: On what basis do they say that it was undermined?
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: In fact, much of it was not actually implemented; for instance, transferable development rights, as the Minister knows, were simply not used and, in fact, developments—
The Hon. Diana Laidlaw: Are you in favour of them?
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Absolutely; I have been a strong supporter of them for a long time. Suggestions have been made to me over the past couple of weeks that the Government is currently reviewing the Mount Lofty Ranges development strategy. I note also that the Government is also looking at changes to the Development Act. I note in a paper released in relation to the Development Act that it was even suggested that more planning power should be delegated to the local level, and there was even one suggestion that it could be delegated to private consultants. That seems to be contrary to what is needed in relation to water quality. My questions are as follows:
1. Does the Minister believe that the current water management processes, and I include in that planning processes, best protect Adelaide water quality and quantity? 2. Will the Minister confirm that, despite an EPA report that argues for stronger planning controls on water supply catchments, greater accountability and responsibility for waterway management by a single agency, the review of the State Development Act has recommended further delegation of planning powers to local areas, and even to private consultants? 3. Will the Minister explain how such delegation to local levels and to private consultants would ensure that water quality for Adelaide, South Australia, was being protected?The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: I will look at the honourable member's questions in more detail, rather than give a reply off the top of my head, because the matters he raises are particularly important and somewhat complex between the two agencies; I understand that. But it always will be a problem, because planning could be integrated with any portfolio. It could be integrated with agriculture, for instance. It could be integrated with the housing area or with local government. It actually spans a range of very important areas. I have made this point before, but I stress again that planning controls of themselves will not address all of these issues, and that is why we have, let us say, the catchment boards, why we have the councils involved in terms of upgrading their PARs, and why there is intense interest at this time in industry, tourism, and peri-urban issues, planning and water issues, in the Adelaide Hills.
It is a sensitive area where traditionally there has been strong agricultural and horticultural history, and it has become an area that is much more popular for daily living and commuting to the city. It is an area where, with great care, we have to address water issues because of their importance to not only the future of the Hills but the water supply for this city.
The Government is highly conscious of the issues. I understand that the Minister for Environment has received the state of health report and is considering options. I will liaise with her about bringing back a reply: and this week I may be able to bring back a reply in terms of the planning issues. I must immediately clarify that any consideration with regard to private consultants and planning is only in relation to complying development and of a minor nature. The Hon. M.J. Elliott: Which is undefined. The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: But it is out there for consultation and further discussion. The honourable member has made the point that it is undefined: we will look at those sorts of issues. It is a proposal that can be refined.