Attorney-General's Department, $109,678,000

Administered Items for the Attorney-General's Department, $98,533,000

Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, $560,412,000

Administered Items for the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, $7,928,000

Membership:

Mr Griffiths substituted for Mr Marshall.

Mr Duluk substituted for Mr Speirs.

Mr Tarzia substituted for Mr Knoll.

Minister:

Hon. J.R. Rau, Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr R. Persse, Chief Executive, Attorney-General's Department.

Mr D. Soulio, Commissioner for Consumer Affairs, Liquor and Gambling, Consumer and Business Services.

Mr A. Swanson, Executive Director, Finance and Business Services, Attorney-General's Department.

Mr J. Evangelista, General Manager, Liquor, Consumer and Business Services.

The CHAIR: Welcome back to this session as we look at the proposed payments for the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure and the Attorney-General's Department with the Minister for Planning and the Minister Assisting the Minister for Planning. I declare the proposed payments open for examination and refer members to the Agency Statements in Volumes 1 and 3. I call on the minister to name his advisers.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have to my right again, as I have had many times today, Mr Persse. To my left I have Mr Soulio, who is known to all of us as the commissioner. I have agreed with the member for Goyder that they are happy to proceed slightly out of the order here, whereby liquor licensing will be the first few questions.

The CHAIR: Hold on just a second. We also have?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Mr Swanson again. He is the numbers man.

The CHAIR: Are you going to make a statement of some sort?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No.

The CHAIR: So we are looking at the member for Goyder; are you going to make a statement or just ask questions?

Mr GRIFFITHS: Just ask questions.

The CHAIR: Sounds good.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I have one brief opening comment, if I may. This is not a shadow portfolio role that I hold, and I am happy for the change to occur to the timing, but I do want to make special note that this is the very first time the member for Davenport has sat in the chamber for estimates.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: What a lucky man.

Mr GRIFFITHS: There are young people who come in here who are excited about the whole process.

The CHAIR: He is the only one in the room who does not know what is about to happen.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Ears and eyes are open. On behalf of the Hon. Rob Lucas—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: He will require Mogadon this afternoon to calm him down.

The CHAIR: They are free this year, aren't they?

Mr GRIFFITHS: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 56, licensing. Although it does not appear as a discrete line item under expenses, does the value of expenses to be incurred by the sub-program include the cost of the government's announced review into liquor licensing?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, I do not believe it does. I will check, but I do not believe it does.

Mr GRIFFITHS: If it is not there, where is it allowed for as an expense item?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think at this stage, because we have not completed our work on it, we are not in a position to make that assessment. There has been no determination as yet whether that will be done as an internal or partially internal and partially external exercise. If it is totally internal, there will be no discrete cost; it will just be time of people who are already there.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I accept that as a response then. Minister, you said that the discussion paper will be released in September. Will submissions to the discussion paper be publicly available and when are the recommendations that stem from it intended to be released?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: My intention was to leave the discussion paper and the opportunity for responding out there for quite a while. I think this is potentially a very controversial area, in some parts anyway, and I think people should be given an opportunity to reflect on it and think about it. My tentative view was that we would not be looking at landing anywhere, in any definitive sense, until next year.

Mr GRIFFITHS: It was part of significant legislative change two years ago, I think, wasn't it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, but what I am talking about here is a top to bottom review of the liquor licensing arrangements in the state. What we did a couple of years ago was very important, but it was a modification of the existing arrangements that did not really purport to be a top to bottom re-examination of the whole thing, which is what we are thinking about.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Given that, and I think you referred to the potential for contractors to be used in your previous answer on this, is that still open? Is it an outside source that will undertake it to give a completely clean view?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have not finally come to a view about that; that would be something I would need to discuss with my colleagues ultimately. It strikes me that it is important that everybody who has a view about this feels that they are being given a legitimately fair opportunity to be heard. Exactly how we go about that is something I am still thinking about.

Mr GRIFFITHS: In the consideration you have given it already, are there any positions you hold true to that you want to be part of it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I can see advantages and disadvantages both ways. If you are going to commence this sort of thing, you do not want it to go on forever, so I am concerned about the thing being landed in a timely fashion. One of the risks associated with pulling things or putting things out is that they come back when they want to, not when you want them to. I think it is important that if we start this process that there is some sense of progress and that there is momentum. That is really the only thing I am clear about.

Mr GRIFFITHS: You want it to be outcomes focused?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Mr GRIFFITHS: For example, have you given any consideration to the potential for dry zones to be part of it, or alcohol in supermarkets, those sorts of things?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have not got to the point of having a specific draft to consider yet. I have asked the commissioner here and his people to do some work on giving me some ideas that might be thrown into a draft. It is conceivable that those things you have just raised might be in there, although we really did have a pretty good crack at the wine in supermarket thing a while ago, and it was one of those things that from my perspective did not end happily, so I am not necessarily in a hurry to go back and have a chew on that.

If we had a large group of people in the community who were highly agitated about that, and if we are having a complete global review of the act, then maybe it should be on the table. My tentative view at the moment is that if we are going to do a complete review of the act we should not start off with anything being out of bounds for the conversation. That does not mean that just because we are prepared to talk about it there is a high probability we are going to advance it, but I think if we are going to talk about liquor licensing in the broader sense we should have a lot of stuff in there.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Equally so, just because I mentioned alcohol in supermarkets as an option is not certainly Liberal Party policy on it either.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, I am sure it is not, and it certainly was not last year.

Mr GRIFFITHS: No, true, and I think you and I both had a conversation with people who hold a very different view on doing anything there too.

I now refer to page 57, under highlights for the 2014-15 year, dot point 2 refers to the completion of stage 2 of the liquor and gambling IT system software development. On page 15 of the same budget paper, I am informed, the table shows an upgrade to the liquor licensing IT system which has been completed as of June 2015. Can the minister confirm that this highlight as referred to is actually this upgrade?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The answer I am told is yes.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Is the minister able to confirm what the total cost of that upgrade was?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that the cost of implementing stage 2 was $1.5 million.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I note that there is a 2015-16 target on page 57 referring to the completion of stage 3 of the system. Can the minister confirm that the liquor and gambling IT system reference in the table on page 15, with an expected completion date of September 2015, is reflective of that target?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am told the answer to that is yes.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Can the minister confirm the expected completion time? Is September 2015 still achievable?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, it is, I am told.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Therefore, what was the original budget set for these upgrades, and have the actual results come within that original budget figure?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We will have to check that.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I do note also that in highlights for 2014-15, it refers to red tape reduction. Can you give details on how that has been achieved (the last three words in highlights of 2014-15)?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There is an item here in relation to limited licence applications for events. Previously, CBS required a participating stallholder to lodge an individual limited licence application to sell or supply liquor at the same event at a cost of $77 per application. The applications were processed individually, and a single licence was granted to each stallholder. Recently, CBS improved this practice by only requiring one application to be completed that lists all of the participating stallholders. As applicants, it is then processed as one application, and a single licence is granted. The new practice reduces red tape for organisers and creates significant internal processing efficiencies for CBS. A new tiered fee structure has recently been introduced to offer a discounted fee where there are multiple applications for the same venue.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am happy to defer any other questions about liquor licensing to a different time and go to the next question area.

The CHAIR: Which is?

Mr GRIFFITHS: Planning, I presume, or do you want to do Adelaide Cemeteries Authority?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Whatever you want.

Mr GRIFFITHS: If we do cemeteries, that is about five minutes.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Okay, cemeteries it is.

Departmental Adviser:

Mr R. Pitt, Chief Executive, Adelaide Cemeteries Authority.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have Mr Pitt with me from the Cemeteries Authority.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I do have some interesting questions here. I was formally with the Cemeteries Association of South Australia and I have a deep interest in this area; so, Mr Pitt, nice to see you. I was also a former curator of cemeteries. The only reference I could find in the budget papers about the Adelaide Cemeteries Authority is on page 82 of Budget Paper 3, Chair; so it was a bit of a struggle to find a reference to it. Minister, can you clarify whether there are any other areas where the operations of the Cemeteries Authority are listed in the budget?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will take that on notice, but not to my knowledge. That is a no from Mr Pitt, so I think that is a pretty strong indication.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I note that the Enfield mausoleum is expanding at a cost of $2.6 million. Is that part of the money that is included in the Capital Investment Statement in the budget paper that I referred to?

Mr PITT: As far as I am aware, yes.

Mr GRIFFITHS: What other items are on the list for 2015-16?

Mr PITT: We have a capital projects program, about $1 million for plant replacement, other improvements in the cemetery. Other than that, no, it is just on our budget.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The mausoleum project at Enfield was the only significant investment undertaken, and the rest are just relatively smaller plant and equipment items?

Mr PITT: Yes, we try to keep our annual capital expenditure aligned with our depreciation, and certainly there are forward project plans for plant replacement, equipment replacement, and developing new gardens and facilities.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, if we can go to the issue of war graves, and there have been some press and statements by the shadow minister and yourself about this in recent months, particularly around the time of ANZAC and Gallipoli and things like that. Can you provide details on any changes to policy on the need, with respect to the remains of war veterans, to pay to renew the lease but for their remains to be interred in perpetuity?

Mr PITT: I can advise that the Adelaide Cemeteries Authority has four cemeteries under its care and control: West Terrace Cemetery, which is state heritage listed, has 4,167 ex-servicemen in their AIF section. It has 316 other ex-servicemen's graves throughout the cemetery. Being state heritage listed, they are all in perpetuity.

At Enfield Memorial Park, there are 486 ex-service persons' graves, and they are generally a mixture of ashes and also burial interments; the board each year makes a decision about those. Eighty-two of those sites have expired tenure, but since 1994 the board has not pursued people extending those leases, or what is now called interment right. So, those ex-service personnel graves we work with the Office of Australian War Graves to identify and are aware of, we certainly maintain in perpetuity. At Smithfield, there are 13 sites; none of those has expired. There are 348 sites at Cheltenham Cemetery that we work with the Office of Australian War Graves on maintaining.

In relation to other cemeteries, they would have their own policies on those matters. There are, of course, the official war dead who died during designated start and finish periods, and those sites are under the care and control of the Office of Australian War Graves.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I thank Mr Pitt for the detail in the answer; I found that very informative. You referred to Smithfield and the 13 that have not expired yet. What policy is in place on the basis that they will expire?

Mr PITT: The 13 at Smithfield only commenced in 1987; the interment rights all go for 50 years. They are sites we are aware of with the Office of Australian War Graves, and when they come up to the time of their being expired, we will contact the Office of Australian Grave Graves and they will extend the interment right fee and work with us to do that.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am happy with that.

The CHAIR: That is the end of cemeteries. We will move on to planning, and we will have a changeover of advisers.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr B. Cagialis, Chief Finance Officer, Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure.

Mr S. Moseley, General Manager, Information and Strategy, Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure.

Mr A. McKeegan, Chief Development Officer, Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure.

Ms S. Smith, General Manager, Investment Management, Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure.

Ms K. Mackay, General Manager, Architecture and Built Environment, Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure.

The CHAIR: Do you have an opening statement for planning, minister?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not believe so.

The CHAIR: Do you have one, member for Goyder?

Mr GRIFFITHS: I would like to say a few words. Can I put on the record that I am grateful for the support of the minister for the opportunity to travel as part of an Institute of Australia urban development study tour trip to China and Canada, with the minister also being in attendance. When I approached the minister about its being paid for via resources, he took that up and that was able to occur, so I am grateful for that opportunity. I also confirm that I found the minister and his staff to be good travel companions.

Indeed, there was a breakfast this morning that I put on as a bit of a summary of that trip, and three of the participants spoke about some outcomes, some challenges and some opportunities for South Australia when it comes to development planning, urban growth boundaries and all the things we have spoken about a bit. It is an absolute key area for our state.

I know that the outcomes of what will occur in the next few months are really going to be very important when it comes to opportunities for initiatives to be undertaken in future years. It is a rather exciting time for planning. Many people do not see it necessarily as an exciting vocation to undertake, but it is one that has to be done correctly.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I say thank you to the member for Goyder for those remarks. Can I say, whilst we are in that sort of mode, that it was very helpful for his being a participant in that event because it means that he has had the opportunity of seeing everything I have seen. I do know that the member for Goyder does have a passion, as I do, for this area of public policy. I know that for many people that it is a pretty dry chew, but for people like the member for Goyder and me it is pretty exciting. I am certainly looking forward, and I believe he is too, to the opportunity for us to bring some really innovative legislative change into this place over the next few months in this area. It is good to have enthusiastic, informed members of parliament in this area.

The CHAIR: Now, you have some introductions to make for us.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. I have got Mr Cagialis, who is the Chief Financial Officer; Mr Moseley, who is the General Manager of Information and Strategy; and Mr McKeegan, who is the Chief Development Officer. These are all people within DPTI and, in particular, the planning element.

The CHAIR: Okay, so we are moving straight into questions.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Thank you, Chair. It is rather frustrating to me though that, given the importance that I put upon the portfolio area, there are only two pages of the budget that actually really talk about it.

The CHAIR: Which pages are you looking at?

Mr GRIFFITHS: My apologies, Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, pages 71 and 72. I will rely upon you to be rather generous, Chair, when it comes to some of the questions.

The CHAIR: I have been very generous all day.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I understand that. I have been listening intently to the relationship that exists here. It is important though I think to ask a question initially though, minister, about the existing RAH site, particularly as a result of a press release that you put out on 6 July where you talk about development opportunities there and a variety of uses for the site to occur but which are more commercial in nature.

The press release was calling for expressions of interest, and it states that a DPA will be required for that to be undertaken for the site area. It is 'likely', I believe is the word, that a DPA would need to be undertaken. Can the minister advise what specific zoning changes are proposed then for that site?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will let Mr McKeegan give me a dig in the ribs if I go off track here, but the basic thing is this: the expression of interest process and all of that is not being handled by these gentlemen, it is being handled by Renewal. That said, Renewal, in the perfect world, will get some very exciting expressions of interest with some hopefully very innovative ideas about what might be done on that piece of very important city land.

It is entirely conceivable that whatever is ultimately seen to be the optimum development will require some form of development plan amendment, so that is basically where the DPA proposition sits. We would be looking to make sure that there is an alignment between the preferred outcome for the land in terms of its development and the DPA so that they work together.

Mr GRIFFITHS: So, minister, have you received any feedback from any groups at all about the suggestion on this? I know the majority of work is going from Renewal on the expression of interest stuff, but have any groups contacted you from the planning viewpoint about the future of the site?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not believe so.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I refer to section 23 of the Adelaide Park Lands Act 2005 where steps regarding changes in the intended use of land contained within the Adelaide Parklands require a report to be prepared on the state government's position on the future use and status of the land. Is that report about to start, or has it commenced, so that there is a wider level of knowledge about the site?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I need to take some advice on that. The situation at the present stage is that this is alienated Parklands presently—that is the first point. The second point is that, as I understand it, the legislation deals with process issues rather than control issues, but I will take some advice on that question.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The next question, Chair, is a bit of an extension of it, but it is still certainly about planning and the activities that the minister's staff will be undertaking this year. It is the Parklands DPA area which, as I understand it, will mean that public infrastructure works, particularly for the O-Bahn extension, will fall within category 1, or complying development status, for the purpose of the public notification of it. I am intrigued as to why you have chosen that, because my understanding is that the Adelaide City Council has stated that they object to that determination being put in place. So, what was your reasoning there?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: In respect of a DPA, I am a kind of decision-maker. I have not made a decision yet, and I will have to consider whatever council brings forward. I gather there has been a consultation period. The thing began on 20 March, public consultation began on 21 May, a public meeting apparently on 28^th of this month, and eventually it will come to me for a determination. As to the Adelaide City Council, I am not quite sure yet what is its view about the matter as I have not received the DPA or the results of the consultation, so I cannot really comment on that.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, I noted in media reports last week that 167 submissions have been lodged—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That may be so.

Mr GRIFFITHS: —if I can accept the figures that were in the paper about that.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not know, I have not seen them. Normally these things are dealt with by departmental officers, and eventually when the process is complete they bring the completed process to me, discuss it with me, we throw around some ideas, I ask questions and they provide me with information and ultimately a determination is made—we have not got to that bit yet.

Mr GRIFFITHS: But, minister, given that the draft certainly states very strongly that it becomes complying development when it is public infrastructure related within the area, is there any opportunity for you to review that?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. As I understand it, it was to be a merit assessment, wasn't it?

Mr GRIFFITHS: True, yes, but it is considered differently if it is complying or non-complying.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Sure. Let's see what happens. Who can say what advice I will receive in due course?

Mr GRIFFITHS: In the same general area then, the Adelaide High CBD area that you are proposing, are any development plan changes required for that?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, there are. That is part of this document as well, part of the same thing. That process you are talking about is the opportunity for the city school to be—

Mr GRIFFITHS: Of the Parklands DPA?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, that facilitates the assessment on merit of any proposal in respect of a city school.

Mr GRIFFITHS: But, given that you have taken somewhat of a lead role when it comes to this site, as part of your consideration of that what information was provided to you on the financial impact of efforts that had to be made to make the site suitable for a high school to be located there? Was it something that you were necessarily involved in or is it just that the Minister for Education has taken that road?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Officers of my department, the people in the planning area, were involved in conversations with UniSA and were involved in an essential assessment or appraisal of the site as to its suitability for our requirements. If you start getting down to questions that are more to do with engineering and so forth, that is probably in the other part of DPTI, I would imagine.

Mr GRIFFITHS: So, is it therefore a decision that DPTI, you, the Minister for Transport or the minister assisting you in planning made the decision without consultation with the Minister for Education about where this is to be sited?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Oh, no, no, no, we obviously spoke to the minister, absolutely. The minister was completely in the loop about what we were doing, as she obviously should be—it is her school, ultimately. The decision about the site and everything else was one that was taken in full consultation with minister Close, no question about that.

Mr GRIFFITHS: So, the site provides an opportunity for the accommodation of the number of students anticipated over the next 10 years, or are any extensions required?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The building is going to have to be modified. One of the things we are going to have a look at at the moment is the extent to which the building needs to be modified. The building presently is disposed, as I understand it, as laboratories. Given that one of the orientations of this school is projected to be science and mathematics and such like, it might well be that those laboratories, which are university-standard laboratories, provide an excellent bonus from that building. But it needs to be assessed as to whether that sits comfortably with the need to accommodate classrooms and other bits and pieces.

Inevitably, there is going to be some work of rebuilding there. It probably means that the existing footprint of the building may change a little, in the sense that there may be a little bit added on, if you like, to the building. We are in the middle of that process now, I gather, looking at exactly what the best way of taking advantage of the building is. As I said, because it has university-standard laboratories already in there, the extent to which they can be retained and repurposed is potentially quite a saving for the project.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Can I assume, from your response previously about the involvement of minister Close and the responsibility that that minister has, that indeed the collective discussions have been held from the very start? There was never a situation where the minister was brought into it on the basis of, 'We found the site for you; this is where we think you should go', or was minister Close actually part of the discussions from the very beginning?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: From the very beginning, we would have to go to another esteemed minister for education, the member for Wright. As I recall, she was the minister at the time of the initial discussions about these matters. I think, if you go back in time to that point, which is before the end of 2013, there were discussions at that stage, I am led to believe—in fact I have been told by people in the department—with UniSA about this particular property. At that time, UniSA were indicating that they wanted to hang onto it because it suited their purposes to do so, for whatever reason. At that point, it was determined that the best alternative option was to site the campus within the old RAH precinct somewhere, and that is where we took the thing to.

We subsequently became aware (by subsequently, sometime post election—a long time post election, really) that UniSA may have come to a different point of view because they had been, over a period of time, progressively investing in the west end of the city. They were talking about moving bits and pieces of their activities down towards that new point of focus they have down there. So, there was discussion to see whether they had come to a different point of view, which, as it turned out, they had. I think there were ongoing conversations with the Minister for Education and Child Development, but it was the member for Wright initially and subsequently minister Close.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Thank you, minister. Chair, I will go to a different question area, and it is planning reform, which is what we both alluded to at the very start. Minister, just for the public record, can you confirm when it is your intention to put the bill before the parliament on planning reform—the development bill?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have been speaking to these gentlemen either side of me and I have told them that I want it in here next week, you see. They keep saying, 'Yes, no worries, we will do it.' If it does not happen next week, just take a good look at them—

Mr GRIFFITHS: Because they might not be there afterwards?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: They are the people who, when you see them in the street, you will be able to say, 'Why didn't that bill turn up when he said so?'

Mr GRIFFITHS: So I presume on Wednesday you will give notice of the intention to introduce the bill on Thursday.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is what I am hoping.

Ms CHAPMAN: With the privacy bill.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Pardon?

Ms CHAPMAN: With the privacy bill.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. But, look, can I say this: the intention always was to bring the thing in at that point so that we had the winter break for everybody to have a look at it and for there to be an opportunity for people to make comment and for us to make appropriate changes in the light of feedback that we received. Obviously introducing it on the last day before the winter break we do not expect it to get through, so it was merely to have that formal presence of the bill. I am still aiming for that but every time I say this to the gentlemen either side of me, they adopt an unusual manner, so I am not sure it is going to—

Mr GRIFFITHS: Well, minister, every time I see you walk into the chamber on Wednesday next week then, I will be waiting for you to stand up and actually say something about it.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am looking forward to it myself.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, you have talked very strongly since Mr Hayes and his team started the review in, I think, in February 2013—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Mr GRIFFITHS: —before the report was completed in December of last year about improving the system, reducing costs, holding costs—all of these things—and about ensuring that you provide a vitality attached to development opportunities in South Australia, and I commend you on those words and on those actions. Have you asked for any form of modelling to be undertaken on the financial impacts of an improvement? I know it is hard because you are talking about legislation that is not before the house yet and you do not know what the amendments are going to be, and you are unsure about measuring how the changes will occur, what KPIs are in place and all these sorts of things, but has that been part of your process too?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: What you have just said is absolutely correct in the sense that it is really hard to measure something, even in a modelling sense, if you do not know yet what the elements of it are, so that is a difficulty. At the moment all we can do is to rely on things that work by reason of our experience—and not so much my experience because compared to these gentlemen I am not experienced, but by reason of their experience and knowledge.

For instance, one thing that I have been persuaded—and I am sure you would agree with this—works in terms of business confidence is certainty. It is better to have a system that gives an early yes or an early no than a system that gives an infinite maybe, so one feature which we are trying to embed in this thing, as much as we can, is the notion that you will get an early yes or an early no but you will not be sitting there in limbo land waiting while your holding costs are going through the roof and waiting to work out what happens next.

So there are things like that, so consistency is really important. There is the early yes and the early no. The other one is consistency across the system, so if you have a thing which is zoned commercial and that is in Charles Sturt, and you have a commercial zone in Onkaparinga, ideally you should have a reasonable expectation that the same project will receive the same treatment in both of those places. The fact that it is being dealt with in Onkaparinga or Charles Sturt should make absolutely no difference, okay? So it is the idea of consistent application of decision-making and a consistent set of rules across the state.

Again, I am confident that this set of proposals we are bringing forward, particularly the digitisation of the planning system, will mean that we have greater consistency across the state which then dovetails in with that early yes, early no thing. So early yes, early no; greater consistency; then we will also as part and parcel of this have less merit-based decisions. In other words, they will be yes or no, they will not be the 90 per cent that are presently going off to a DAP or somewhere like that. DAPs have not worked really in my opinion and there is a fundamental problem with DAPs which is the conflict, in effect, which some elected members have in their own brains about when they stop being an elected member and when they start being a member of the DAP.

We are also committed to the idea of quicker zoning changes. One of the big complaints we get, especially from rural and regional councils, is the fact that it takes two years or something for a whole bunch of changes to get fed through the system.

Again, it is very slow and creates uncertainty, delay, etc. We are looking at digitising that system so that those things can happen basically at a flick of a switch. We are looking at finding flexible methodologies for the funding of infrastructure, which again is a perennial problem, particularly with some projects that have special needs.

There is a number of bits and pieces in there that I am confident will produce much better outcomes. As to how we actually measure all of that, I am advised that the expert panel did put together some preliminary draft modelling which is on the DPTI website, but I would caution anybody about that. Because the detail is so important here, this would be nothing more than an indicative piece of work; it would not be anything you could rely on.

Mr GRIFFITHS: There will be a lot more issues that we will talk about when the legislation comes in. I understand our need to have certainty, and your desire for that, but as long as there are words such as 'may' and 'should', as opposed to 'must' and 'shall', there will always be that area where, in many cases, merit-based decisions are still necessary. Engagement with the community is going to be absolutely key. I was pleased that recommendation 2 or 3 of the Hayes report related to a charter of community participation, and I think that—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Absolutely, and I can assure you that will be in the bill. In fact, in the most recent draft I have seen (which I hope is the final one), it is in it.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Legislation does not necessarily guarantee community involvement.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, I agree.

Mr GRIFFITHS: That is the great the challenge of it. I can see other people who live with the frustration of it nodding their heads about this too. I do accept that there should be far more delegated authority than the decisions made from that. There should not be as many applications referred to CDAPs.

For example, I have to express a frustration when, not very long after the government response to the Hayes report came out, the Cremorne development across the road from the Cremorne Hotel came before the Development Assessment Commission. In the development plan for Unley council, it states that five storeys is the maximum height, and it was approved at 7½.

I have attended events there and spoken to people who are just so frustrated because they want to put their faith into a process, and they are involved in the processes in determining what a community's vision should be, and then that vision is taken away from them and other people make a decision upon merit, which is such a contrast to what they thought would ever be in place there.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I understand your point, and I agree. The big challenge here is engagement with the community, both at the front end and at the other end. I agree.

Mr GRIFFITHS: You talked about digitisation of planning, and I just term it as 'e-planning'. Are there any references—I cannot see them in the budget—of any commitment towards it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, there are not, and the reason they are not is that the bill has not passed. I have spoken to the Treasurer about this matter, and it is something that he is perfectly aware of. The Treasury people are aware of it, and they appreciate the importance of this for the purposes of economic development for the state and the facilitation of speedy and efficient disposition of planning matters. As soon as the bill passes, my expectation is that I would then be making a formal approach to cabinet, seeking the appropriate advance of funding to get this thing up and running.

Because, until probably tomorrow, we do not even have a bill and it has not passed, it is a little bit early for us to have that, but the Treasurer does know. I have had conversations with the Treasurer and he does know that when this bill passes—hopefully, it passes—there will be a requirement for an opportunity to start up the e-planning system. It will cost some money, and I will be making an application to cabinet using the normal processes.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I would presume that the willingness of the Treasurer to say that he is reasonably supportive of that depends on what number is in front and how many zeros follow it.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, he is funny like that.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Wouldn't they all be?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, you are right. I think you would need to look at it from this point of view—and this is a very high level proposition—and there are two elements to this: there is the establishment-type element and then there is the ongoing running and sustaining of the system. It is reasonable to say that those two things might be perceived from a different perspective from a funding point of view. For instance, the initial up-front investment, whatever that might be, might be funded in one way and the ongoing maintenance of the system might conceivably be a user-pays proposition, and that would not be an unreasonable proposition in terms of the delivery of service to the community.

Mr GRIFFITHS: There are many things that we will flesh out during the debate on the legislation no doubt, so I might move on to another area. This one is urban growth boundary.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, excellent. You have come on board?

Mr GRIFFITHS: No, I am interested to have a discussion about it.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Me, too.

Mr GRIFFITHS: My understanding is that a form of urban growth boundary has existed for over 20 years. There have been controls in place.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Correct.

Mr GRIFFITHS: So why is it that you intend to legislate it now?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There are so many things I could talk about in this space, and I feel very strongly about this, but can I just give you a couple of little snippets. I want to give you a couple of comparisons between what people thought was going on when the 30-year plan was rolled out but a few years ago, just before my time actually, and what we now know because we have been reviewing the 30-year plan with a view to bringing a revised version of that. It is not a new plan, just a revised version of the 30-year plan.

I will just give you a couple of examples. The difference in population growth compared with the 30-year plan, when we compare that with the actual population growth in the intervening period, is 16 per cent less than the 30-year plan projected. In terms of the number of dwellings constructed, it is 13 per cent less than projected. In terms of the broad hectare densities—that is, the number of dwellings per hectare—it is a 20 per cent to 30 per cent increase, a greater yield in other words. So, yes, you are getting 120 per cent out of—

Mr GRIFFITHS: So that is infill versus greenfield.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, it is actually a reference to lot sizes, in effect. You are getting more dwellings out of a given bit of land, so you need less land; you are consuming less land to get more dwellings. The greenfield consumption rate was estimated to be 400 hectares per annum and it has actually been 25 per cent less than that at 300. Land supply zoned: there was a target of having 15 years rezoned land available and we are now sitting on 20.5 years, which is 70 per cent over quota.

Mr GRIFFITHS: And that is because of the reduced lot sizes, is it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is partly the consumption rate and it is partly recognition of what has already been rezoned. Can I indicate that I have continued to rezone things which were in the pipeline before I arrived because I thought that people had a legitimate expectation that things were under way and so on.

The 30-year plan said that we were going to hope to move over 30 years to 70 per cent infill 30 per cent greenfields. We are already at 60 per cent infill, which means that, if we do not readjust that target, we are hoping to achieve in the next 25 years roughly half of what we have achieved in the last four. That does not seem to me to be a very ambitious goal. What I have been trying to do is lift the capacity of the existing footprint of the city to absorb new development, more dwellings. Every one of us knows there are two-for-ones going up everywhere. I am not doing that: the market is doing that, and it is doing it in a completely unregulated fashion, I might say.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I still do not appreciate, even with all that information, what difference that makes to a legislated urban growth boundary.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: When you get down to the bottom line it is something like this. At the moment there is an urban growth boundary and the urban growth boundary is controlled by this hand and this pen. That is not good enough.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Have you changed it in your time as minister?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No. I have no intention of changing it. But my point is this: it is such an important decision for the city of Adelaide and it is such an important decision for the future of our capital city as to whether or not we have a city which has some modest density, vibrancy, capability of sustaining decent public transport, and capability of having sustainable and affordable infrastructure. That is so important for people now and for generations to come that I do not want that boundary to be moved without the parliament being involved and it being a very transparent public exercise. I do not want that to be able to be done by me because I go up into my office and slam the door one day and say, 'Yes, thank you very much,' and I change something. I do not think that is good enough.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Is this a criticism of those—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It's a criticism of myself. I do not trust myself.

Mr GRIFFITHS: —who have held your office before you?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, it is a criticism of the fact that, given where we are now in our city's evolution, we cannot afford to make mistakes which involve unregulated greenfields peripheral development and, therefore, I want those decisions, if they are ever to be made in the future, to be made based on facts. I want those facts to be put before the public, I want there to be a public debate about those facts to ascertain whether they are correct or incorrect, and I want any suggestion about those decisions being made for reasons other than community need to be thoroughly explored and eliminated.

Mr GRIFFITHS: On the basis that you do intend to legislate it, will that be a separate piece of legislation or is it going to be part of the development bill?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We are working on it now. This is one of the things that we are going to resolve over the next 24 hours. There are many ways we can do that, but the principle I am trying to get to is this: the cost to future generations of provision of infrastructure in far-flung parts of a city like Adelaide is astronomical but it does not appear on the forward estimates because it is out beyond that event horizon—it is out 10 years, 15 years, 20 years—so future taxpayers get to pick it up.

Mr GRIFFITHS: That is why you have talked also about creative solutions to cofunding of infrastructure.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Correct, yes. Here is another one. One of the great furphies of all time, the big lie about the 'affordability' of peripheral greenfields land, is absolute rubbish. All that is maybe affordable, arguably—maybe—is the key cost. That is all that is affordable. If you take into account the cost of servicing, the cost of transport, the remoteness from services and the remoteness from employment opportunities—you take all of those things into account—that is not cheap. If you also add on to that the cost to the taxpayer of the future of providing the infrastructure to make that building possible, that is maybe the most expensive place you can possibly be.

It is like a layer cake. The percentage of the layer cake that the purchaser actually stumps up may be a little bit less than it is 30 kilometres this way, but even that is now up for grabs because people do not even talk about appropriate accommodation. Appropriate accommodation is the accommodation that suits the person. It does not mean every one has to be a three-bedroom brick veneer place with a 500 square metre backyard. We increasingly have single member households. In 2010 there were 194,000 people in South Australia who were over 65 years of age. In 2031 the projection is that there will be 365,000 of those people.

Mr GRIFFITHS: And I think we have the oldest population in the nation actually.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Which is an increase of 90 per cent. Now, you do not have to be Stephen Hawking to work out that those people are probably not going to want to live in a three-bedroom brick veneer place where they have to mow the back lawn 50 kilometres from the CBD.

The number of single person households, here is another interesting one: in 2010, there were 62,000 single person households; in 2013, the projection is that there will be 99,200 which is an increase of 60 per cent in single person households. Again, is the appropriate accommodation for those people necessarily a three-bedroom place with a big backyard? No. If those people are wanting to be accommodated in reasonably close, modern apartments, they could be living five kilometres down the street from here for the same cost or less than they would be out in the sticks. We could go on.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I respect the fact that the minister is committed to this, and there will be a lot of debate that will occur in the future.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I just give you one other one, too, because this is quite exciting?

Mr GRIFFITHS: As long as it is short.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: These are the costs to provide infrastructure per thousand dwellings. For infill, major renewal—this is big deal renewal—the costs are $25 million to $45 million per thousand dwellings. For infill, which is the lighter version—so, infill light—between $15 million and $25 million per thousand dwellings. For greenfield—and I hope you are all sitting down—$62 million to $89 million per thousand dwellings, and guess who gets to pay for that.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, I have to ask the question then about Buckland Park. Why is it that you and your government have supported basically a completely new community to be established in an area that is so far away from anything else that that has to become a long-term liability for the people to pay for?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Buckland Park is a decision that was taken before my tenure as minister. It is a lot closer than a number of other places that have been speculated about for potential growth of the city. It has been rezoned for some time and is progressing or not according to the likes of the developer. It will go ahead or not as they choose.

Mr GRIFFITHS: About the 30-year plan, though, I looked at the website only yesterday trying to get an update. There is a little bit of content in the first couple of pages and then you try to do anything and there is nothing available. At what stage is the information flow? When is it going to start coming out to people?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: My intention is to put out a lot of information about the 30-year plan very soon. We have been going through some data sets around the place to try to explain what we are doing, and I think on occasions when you and I have had a chat I have shown you bits and pieces that I have had sitting in my room, and I am trying to pull all those things together and we want to put them up on the website so that everyone can have a look at them.

Mr GRIFFITHS: For example, I wanted to register an interest and I could not even do that. There is a link to go to that just says it is updating soon.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am happy to have a look at it. The public consultation is supposed to be later this year, but we should not be tantalising the member for Goyder like that. We should be having something more up there.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Okay. I might get the member for Davenport to ask a couple of questions.

Mr DULUK: On the 30-year plan, minister, regarding consultation by 2015, can you please advise what implications the revised plan will have on the Blackwood Centre? In particular, will it address infrastructure issues, including high volume traffic movement, which could make further development of this centre problematic?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I thank the honourable member for his question. The 30-year plan does not really go into that sort of fine-grain detail. It is really setting big picture policy parameters and suchlike. What you would be looking for is the relevant DPA for Blackwood which may or may not be something that council is managing. Off the top of my head, I do not know. However, I am reminded that because of the fire and access constraints, Blackwood is an area where we would be very reluctant to be pushing density targets. As your predecessor often informed this place, if there were a bushfire up there and everyone had to get out of the place there is potential for serious congestion up there. There are areas there where there is only one way in and one way out, and they are sitting at the top of the gully so—

Mr DULUK: As a retail centre Blackwood is currently zoned as a secondary renewal area, so you are saying that in the current proposal there is no intention to re-evaluate that zone to a primary renewal area as a retail centre?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I would have to check on that, but I am just talking in general terms about Blackwood. I know there are issues there with fire, and we would not be trying to push large numbers of people into high fire risk zones.

Mr DULUK: But in terms of a retail zoned centre for what I will call, for want of a better word, the Blackwood CBD, to be a primary renewal area, not necessarily as a—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will find out and get back to you; we will get back to you about that. They are just mentioning to me—which is obviously correct—that retail is a different proposition to residential, clearly. However, we will check up and find out where we are up to with it.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I want to change the question area, and talk about heritage reforms. My understanding is that there is a discussion paper due for release in the second half of 2015. When is that to occur?

The CHAIR: What page are you on?

Mr GRIFFITHS: The very broadness of page 72.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I see; heritage. The situation with heritage is basically this. There was some thinking around whether or not we could wrap that into the exercise that we are undertaking with respect to the planning development changes, as a certain logic suggests that it should all be part and parcel of the same thing. The practicalities, though, are that heritage lies across a variety of agencies and it has its own particular interest group. It has come to be my view that at this point we are probably better not bolting that on to the other process, and doing it as a stand-alone proposition, because—

Mr GRIFFITHS: With the development bill that will come in then, will that include heritage revisions?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There may be some in there which, I think, would probably be non-controversial matters.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am not sure if all are non-controversial. Indeed, I might take the opportunity to read into the Hansard just a portion of a letter to the editor from the North Adelaide Society that was in one of the Messenger newspapers—

The CHAIR: That is probably pushing the boundaries a little bit.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The North Adelaide Society?

Mr GRIFFITHS: It is about historic and—

The CHAIR: I do not know that we can really read in—

Mr GRIFFITHS: There are a lot of frustrations about the changes that are being pushed upon Adelaide City Council as I understand it, particularly from the institutional point of view, for development opportunities.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will just say this: heritage is a matter about which people of goodwill can, and often do, disagree. The fact of the matter is that it is a very broad church out there, the heritage church. There are some people out there who would have us frozen in some form of aspic, never to change, because there is a heritage issue there. There are some people who are of the view that we take it to the point where it is not even the physical structure itself; if I can misquote Dennis Denuto, 'It is the vibe'. So you can have—

Mr GRIFFITHS: You do use that reference a bit, minister.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is to the point where you say, 'This building can't be touched,' not because of any inherent value or anything but because the man who invented the Balfour's pie had breakfast there one morning. Unless somebody can identify the actual manger here in Adelaide somewhere, I am not sure that that is the direction or the path that we need to go down. It is a really big issue. At the other end of the spectrum, there are people who would knock everything over, irrespective of what it is, and pay no regard to anything. This is one of those magnificent things where it is a bit like dogs and cats. Everyone has views and they are very strong, but they are all different.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Absolutely, and that is why we live in a democracy, so that people can express themselves, minister. I am intrigued from a regional perspective when it comes to planning and the interaction between potentially conflicting land uses; in particular, in the Goyder community that I represent, mining versus agriculture and the conflicts that are there. Is it your intention to look at that at all either as part of the development bill that is coming in or as part of future DPAs?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think the best way of characterising what we are proposing is to have better tools in the toolkit for the planning agency to deal with those issues. So those issues will not be dealt with actually in the bill itself, but the tools to enable those things to be better considered and better incorporated in thinking will be. In particular, we are talking about finding ways of pulling agencies into the conversation earlier. So in the case of your example, it might be PIRSA, or whoever it might be, being dragged into the thing very early on so that their input goes into the policy framing process earlier.

The other thing that is important is that we are also intending to provide for partnership opportunities between the state government and one or more local government entities, which might also facilitate that type of better input.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Sorry, I am not sure what you mean by 'partnership opportunities', minister.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Regional planning schemes.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Will that look at things such as a buffer between a broadacre farmer and a grape grower?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It might.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I get conversations about that a lot, but also the conflict between chemicals that are used and the impact upon one property if it is used on the adjoining property and the diminution of the land available for use and therefore the impact on their equity and their borrowings. The financial impact can be quite pronounced.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That could conceivably be one of the things that a policy could deal with, but can I just make the point that a lot of these issues are mixed issues between planning and something else. That might be a planning issue and perhaps an agriculture issue or management issue, or whatever. We have similar issues, for instance, in relation to the interplay between planning and liquor licensing laws. They are two theoretically separate things, and then the EPA comes in and then local residents come in. Planning is often caught in the crossfire between competing considerations which are not necessarily within the—

Mr GRIFFITHS: But minister, is there an active engagement that occurs? In my example of agriculture versus grapes, is that where your staff meet with PIRSA and there are discussions about it and efforts to try to put some form of solution that gives a level of equity for everybody?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, and we want to institutionalise that in the bill.

Mr GRIFFITHS: But then that has to transfer down to the local government DPAs, the development plans.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Does that become part of the library of references that you require?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Correct; and if we get the digital platform working, we will have a library with, say, 40, 30, or whatever, planning codes and we will have the capability of those codes being updated basically instantaneously after appropriate consultation, as opposed to waiting six or seven years.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, am I able to ask questions of you relating to the Coordinator-General position?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Not really. The Coordinator-General does not sit under me.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I was intrigued by that. I believe it is under the Premier, and that there is $950,000, I think it is, for 4.8 full-time equivalent staff. Indeed, you are the reference person that I contact when I want to know anything about what Mr Hallion and his team are doing.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We are just here to help, that is all. We do our best. He does not report to me. He reports, I am sure, to the Premier. The Development Assessment Commission acts as the assessing agency for projects that are called in. They sit sort of notionally within my portfolio but I do not control them, I do not tell them what to do. They are an independent agency.

Mr GRIFFITHS: For example, I believe the report they reviewed on the number of applications currently before the Coordinator-General and where they come from is held within your departmental website?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that my department has some of the data because the Development Assessment Commission is supported by the Department of Planning, so I can give you some information about what we know from that quarter but I do not—

Mr GRIFFITHS: No, if I can ask you on sort of a more policy point of view on the Coordinator-General where, as I understand it, the regulation that was required for that position to be created and appointed allowed for multiple projects to be collected together to get over the $3 million threshold requirement. Is it your understanding that has occurred in any case or do each of the applications or proposals before the—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is my belief that there have been cases where there has been a—I would need to check. The original proposition was that each project had to be over $3 million; that was the original proposition. Whether or not there has been a permit of clustering on the basis that there are three or four projects—I am told that has not happened.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am not sure what the original proposal was, but the regulation that you put in place allows for it to actually be the case. That is why people have put to me: has it actually occurred? That is what I wanted to check.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think the safest thing I can say is I had better check. I am told here no, but we will try to check that out.

Mr GRIFFITHS: In checking that out then, can I ask for an opinion? Given that the threshold is $3 million—and I quote, for example, that in Perth it is $7 million, as I understand it—have you given consideration to a review of the threshold dollar figure?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Again, I am not really the person who is primarily responsible for setting that number. The other point is that our economy is a different economy to WA, it is a smaller economy.

Mr TARZIA: They had a mining boom.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: They have had a huge mining boom that has gone on for 35 years. So, we have a lower threshold, which is more pertinent to our circumstances.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I understand that. A different question area, Chair, still within the same reference. It goes back to the planning reforms and e-planning. I note that you have said there is no dollar commitment in the budget for this year but you intend to make a submission to the Treasurer for a contribution. Has any work been undertaken at this stage on the portal required for e-planning to work? Is it an off-the-shelf purchase? Does it exist in other areas? Does it work better than electronic EPAS, the patient records system, which is what, $430 million?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That work is being undertaken now but I think all of us are of the view that if we can buy something off the shelf that is infinitely better than reinventing the wheel, and that is clearly the preferred option.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I agree. So, are you or your officers able to confirm what system you are looking at purchasing and where it might operate?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Not at the moment. We are not at that stage yet, but that is the direction we are looking at going.

Mr GRIFFITHS: That will be a tender-based situation though, with expressions of interest?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Mr GRIFFITHS: As local government will have an involvement in it also, are the negotiations occurring with local government?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Again, I think we need to wait until we have our legislation up. These things are being explored presently but we are not at that point. We are talking to the LGA about the deal.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Do your conversations extend to the Minister for Local Government also?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Not at this stage, no, but I understand he knows what we are doing. We need the bill to start off with. That is the starting point.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I have a question about the integration of the Environment, Resources and Development Court and the Civil and Administration Tribunal. What is the progress on that?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There has been a discussion for some time as to whether the ERD Court would be best placed in the civil and admin tribunal. I do not know that that conversation has finally resolved itself one way or the other. On the one hand, everyone tells me and the feedback I have had consistently has been that the ERD Court works quite well. That being the case, if it is not broken, why try and fix it? On the other hand, if I can be persuaded that the work of the court can be done more efficiently or effectively, or more accessibly, from the point of view of the public, in the SACAT, I would look at that. There has been no determination to move it yet, but it is something that is being considered.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I refer to the Kangaroo Island Commissioner, which you have ministerial responsibility for.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Across the forward estimates, what is the dollar commitment that goes into that position and the support staff for it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Subject to getting further information on this, there is an indicative cost of around $900,000 and, obviously, it is intended that that money pays the commissioner but also provides for sufficient support, travel etc., to enable the commissioner to do her job.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I note that two positions based on Kangaroo Island were advertised just a couple of weeks ago. In the discussion we had on the legislation, I thought it was intended that support for the commissioner would be from the existing government workforce. I do not expect you to know all these details, but is this above what was expected?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Again, I would need to check that out but, certainly, the overwhelming support for the commissioner is coming from people in the planning part of DPTI. Whether there is some notion of having some administrative or secretarial style support based on the island is a slightly different proposition, but I will get details of that for you.

Mr GRIFFITHS: One of the strong issues emphasised during the debate on the legislation was the community reference groups that were going to be established, which could be for any purpose. Have any of those been created at this stage?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not believe so, not yet. There is a final report of the KI Futures Authority which I think is likely to be published sometime next month, and I think the occasion of that being put out there is probably going to be the beginning or the initiation for some of these reference groups and some of the policy development work to begin.

You need to understand that the Commissioner has only been in the role for a couple of months—since 11May—so she is really at this stage just going through the meeting people phase, working out who is who in the zoo and that sort of thing. I have indicated to her—and I am happy to say this here—that it is my expectation that she will get busy quickly in terms of delivering for that community, because that is what her job is.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I do recognise that it is a three-day a week role. It is not full-time that I recollect. As part of your ministerial control over it have you had any feedback from the commissioner about what the priority issues that will be addressed at least in the first six months or 12 months will be?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We have talked about a number of things and the question is where she goes first in terms of engagement with the community. There are two levels here. There is a handover to her from KIFA which involves saying to her, 'Look, here is the body of work we have done on these topics which we now hand over to you and ask you to keep working on.'

They include things like the power needs for the island going forward because it has a submarine cable out there which is getting past its use-by date and there are issues about that. There are things about the airport and seeing what we can do about that. There are ongoing discussions between DPTI and SeaLink about potential contract extensions and, if so, on what terms and such like. There are other things that are more island-focused policy issues.

Exactly where she is going to start with that I think is something that she needs to, in due course, discuss with me but also with the community to find out what they regard to be their priority issues because it is not much good her starting off with something that—

Mr GRIFFITHS: I absolutely agree with that, but given that you had consultation that occurred as part of the support that came through for the position to be created—and there was a mixture of positions on it, but there was support and I recognise that—surely you want the position to hit the ground running and actually get some outcomes very soon.

At a personal level the involvement I have had is a briefing opportunity with the Kangaroo Island council about the airstrip upgrade proposal ($18 million) for which I understand that the Premier has written a letter of support for $9 million as part of an application that is going to the feds. I have not been able to obtain from Kangaroo Island council economic modelling that actually justifies a few things they have told me, so I am intrigued about the level of commitment given on what must be gut instinct and not actual detail.

I want infrastructure to be improved and I want services to improve also, not just for Kangaroo Island but for all regional areas. I do not knock the effort that is being made, but there has to be background to it. That is where I see the commissioner not just telling you soon what might occur, but actually being a strong force at the very beginning and actually getting outcomes from it because otherwise my concern is that it will not achieve much. I do not want it to be left that way.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I totally agree with what you are saying and I have made it very clear to the commissioner that she has a really important job and that there is a lot of trust reposed in her by the residents of the island in that they have a great hope that she will be able to assist them in areas. It is really important that we are able to deliver, so I totally agree with that.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Chair, I will read out a question on behalf of the member for Flinders who has a particular development that he wants to give some comment on. The District Council of Lower Eyre Peninsula and the District Council of Streaky Bay have both had rural living DAPs refused by the minister despite having support from local residents and councils. The question posed by the member for Flinders is: what is the problem? The belief from the community is that it is not for the minister to decide demand, but rather the market, and that arable acres are not on particularly good farmland and Eyre Peninsula is as large as Scotland. There is a strong demand for rural living allotments around many regional communities, so why is it that you seem to be against it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I cannot presently bring to mind those particular matters and I am not sure that it would be appropriate for me to go into the detail in this forum even if I was able to bring them to mind. All I can say is that there are many applications which are made, for a variety of reasons. Some of those reasons appear very good to the proponents, often for obvious reasons, i.e. land which is disposed as a rural living block or a housing block is probably worth more than land that has potatoes growing in it.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am not sure what the difference that makes to the plan is, though.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, I am explaining why it seems a good idea to them.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Okay.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Whether it is a good idea, or necessary, or appropriate, or good urban planning, or good township planning, is a different question, and the answer is not necessarily the same.

Mr GRIFFITHS: No, but I think in this case, I see rural living as a viable form of development, because I think on the growth of a community occurring, rural living can be removed later on. It means in a commercial world, someone who sees an opportunity buys out the rural living allotment. It is changing to residential and the house is demolished or incorporated as part of a development. That opportunity is not lost and it provides a scope of what a community wants to see at this moment; but you said no to it.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I just talk in general terms about rural living?

Mr GRIFFITHS: Please.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Rural living has a different impact depending on where it is. Rural living proposals close to the city of Adelaide are often wolves in sheep's clothing. They are often a Trojan Horse for housing redevelopment which has been frustrated by the big jump from paddock to house, so you go for the intermediate jump and then go, 'Oh goodness, it's already buggered now as land that's useful for growing anything—we might as well chop it up into smaller bits.' It is the tool of the artful dodger—it can be, particularly close to the city.

Look at the history of how things developed in Mount Barker, for example. Why was it that Mount Barker got to the point where it was neither one thing nor the other? Answer: rural living. The perimeter of Mount Barker, once upon a time dairy farms or whatever else, was chopped up into uneconomic (from a farming perspective) allotments and then, 'Oh goodness me, they're no good for farms; why don't we stick houses on them?' That is one issue.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I accept that point, and I understand your concerns there, but please do not take a unilateral position on rural living no matter where it is.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am not. Can I give you another one? The other one is the sea change phenomenon. The urban 'wouldn't have a cluer'—like me—who finishes doing their job and decides, 'I'm going to be like Eddie Albert. Green Acres is the place for me—farm living. I'm going to buy myself a little bit of paradise. I'm going to buy my 1½ hectares out there in the Cockatoo Valley'—or somewhere else. I get out there and it is bloody fantastic for a couple of weeks and then you go, I don't have to mow the lawn again, do I?' and 'What about the snakes?' and 'What about these rabbits over here?' and 'The blackberries—what do I do with them?' Oh no, you have to get out there with the gear on and the 245D and the poison and—

The CHAIR: While this is actually really important, we are nearly out of time.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Okay, sorry. I am just building up to a nice story here.

The CHAIR: I just wondered if there were any more questions.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, you are being flippant about a really important matter, actually.

The CHAIR: We are not being flippant. I am just reminding members of the time.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No. I am not kidding, though. These things often then become the place where there are feral animals and plants, and out of control fire risks. It's all very well to say, 'This is a lovely thing.' It is all terrific if everybody is out there every day with their whippersnipper keeping the place tidy and doing the right thing. If you look at what happened in those fires in Port Lincoln, they got very, very close to the city. They were jumping over hills and doing all sorts of things.

Just bear in mind, everyone just puts up the postcard version of rural living; it is not all postcards. I know there is an assessment done and everything else, but the point is, I can take you to places not too far from the city where you have these things, so-called, and they are not being looked after.

Mr GRIFFITHS: But minister, equally, I can tell you places away from the city where they work well.

The CHAIR: Can I take you all back to the fact that it is 3.15pm, and if there are no further questions you have omnibus questions as per the list.

Mr GRIFFITHS: They have already been done.

The CHAIR: In that case, there are no further questions. I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the Attorney-General's Department adjourned and referred to committee B, and thank you for coming along.