The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Transport and Urban Planning a question about the Brownhill development.
 Leave granted.
 The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Quite some time ago, I think it might have been some 18 months ago now, there was an application for a development on Brownhill that was rejected by the Mitcham Council as contrary to the Development Plan. I understand that recently that development has had some changes made to the proposal and is now seeking major development status from the Minister. I and many members of the community wish to know, first, what time frame the Minister is working on in terms of a decision on the matter and, secondly, what factors the Minister will take into account in determining whether or not this project, which I understand might employ about 20 people, will enjoy major development status and, as such, enable it to be built in a place otherwise contrary to the Development Plan?
 The Hon. Diana Laidlaw interjecting:
 The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: That gives the location.
  The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: Mr President, I am sorry about the aside but I had to confirm that the honourable member, in talking about the Brownhill development, was talking about Andrew Garrett's 350 hectare proposal for vineyards, some hotels and residential areas in the hills face zone: and we are talking about the same development. A proposal has been put to me in the form of an inquiry as to whether I would be prepared to consider that this develop-ment could be given major development status.
 The factors that I would take into account in determining whether or not it would be a major development are outlined in the Development Act. They are economic, social or environmental factors, and I must form an opinion that on any one of those grounds the project should be considered as warranting major development status. This week I have received advice from Planning SA on this matter and I am having further discussions tomorrow. I hope that in a short time I will be able to form the opinion, as I am required to under the Act, whether or not it warrants such status.
 The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I desire to ask a supplementary question. As the Act is silent on quantitative matters, can the Minister give any indication as to the size of investment, the number of jobs or anything else that would influence her one way or the other?
 The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: It is interesting to look at the provisions in the Act because it is left totally without any qualification to the opinion of the Minister. The one opinion I have formed about major development applications that I have received is that Parliament erred in calling such projects major developments, because it is often seen that they should be assessed in terms of jobs, dollars or size, because that is the way we look in the English language at the term `major'. In fact, it may be a small development but a controversial one, for example, as with landfill, which is hardly a big job or money earner. Nevertheless, most landfill applications have been deemed to be major developments.
 We are now undertaking an assessment of the Development Act. I know the honourable member has a keen interest in all these matters and, in the near future, he may wish to be part of the assessment of the Act, and the major development provisions should be addressed in respect of the terminology used. It would be unwise of me at this stage to highlight or even speculate about the matters I will be taking into account. I can say to the honourable member only that the fact that it is hills face zone is a matter that at all times I would take most seriously.

and Minister Laidlaw's final decision:  18 August 1998