Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, $860,537,000

Administered Items for the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, $9,208,000

Membership:

Mr Pisoni substituted for Ms Chapman.

Ms Sanderson substituted for Mr Pengilly.

Minister:

Hon. J.R. Rau, Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide.

Departmental Advisers:

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

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

Ms A. Allen, Manager, Planning Reform, Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure.

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

Ms G. Vasilevski, General Manager, People and Place Management, Renewal SA.

The CHAIR: I declare the proposed payments open for examination. I refer members to the Agency Statements, Volume 3, and invite the Attorney to introduce his advisers and make a statement, if he wishes.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Nice to be with you. I have Mr McKeegan to my right. Mr McKeegan, amongst other things, is the Chief Development Officer. Sally Smith is to my immediate left and she is the General Manager, Planning and Development, and Anita Allen is the Manager of Planning Reform. They are the people helping me.

The CHAIR: The A team. Do you have an opening statement?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: As I said, pleased to be with you.

The CHAIR: Member for Unley, the floor is yours.

Mr PISONI: Rather than an opening statement, I would like to share an experience with your office, if I may, minister. As you know, there is a current DPA out for rezoning a number of sites around Adelaide, and one in particular is 301-305 Unley Road, Malvern. Obviously, being the diligent local member that I am, I wrote to those people living nearby that development. In my letter I explained the process of the public meetings and how people with an interest in that development could be heard, and I gave them a contact number that I took from the planning porthole, engagement and consulting page, where they could register for information sessions, that number being 7109 7009.

Several constituents called me—and that number is still there as of yesterday—to advise that the number I had given out in my letter was apparently incorrect. When they rang the number they spoke to a woman who was very annoyed and told them that they had rung the wrong number. The impression my constituents had was that I had given them a private number, a house number. I was very concerned that I had inconvenienced somebody, so I rang the number myself to apologise to the woman who answered the phone.

When I called that 7109 7009 number a woman answered and told me that she could not help me and that she was not sure what she was being called about. It was only when I asked her for an email address so that I could send her a screenshot of the number on your department's website, minister, that she then conceded that she was actually a departmental employee and that she had moved desks and was getting people ringing on this number. Her response was to hang up and not help them and not refer them to another number, suggesting that it was not her problem.

She then said that she would fix the number, and that was about 2½ weeks ago. As of yesterday, the last time we checked, that number was still there. It is important, of course, because that is the number people ring to register for the public meeting to be held on 8 August at the Chifley, where they can actually give an oral submission to back up their written submission.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: First of all, can I just make the point that I do not think that this has anything whatsoever to do with the budget.

The CHAIR: I am waiting for him to get to the point.

Mr PISONI: This is an opening statement.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I just finish, though? Notwithstanding the fact that it has nothing to do with the budget, if the department has distributed a number that is not—

The CHAIR: The correct number.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —correct, or if it is correct and the departmental officer who is supposed to be attending to that telephone is not providing an appropriate response to the public, that is a matter of concern to me. I am sure that it is a matter of concern to those who sit with me at this table, and I give my undertaking and the direction simultaneously. To the extent that I can direct you people, would you please find out what is going on and fix it? That is just not okay.

I say to the member for Unley and other members here, if any of you ever find an example like this in respect of any agency that I have any relationship with, as soon as you find out about it please pick up the phone and ring me. It is just not okay if people are being given unsatisfactory service by state government agencies, particularly if they are told, 'If you have an inquiry or you want to find out more about something, ring this number,' and then they are frustrated because that number does not deliver what they are entitled to expect.

I take that matter very seriously. It is not okay. I want that on the record, and it is on the record. It is a by the way, though. It has nothing to do with the current budget committee, but I do want to say that I appreciate the member for Unley telling me, and as far as I am concerned, it has to be fixed.

The CHAIR: You will take appropriate action.

Mr PISONI: I was invited to give an opening statement.

The CHAIR: Member for Unley, can I speak, please?

Mr PISONI: I have not finished my opening statement yet.

The CHAIR: Can I speak, please, member for Unley? I am chairing this committee still. The rules about opening statements are fairly vague, but I do think they need to relate to the budget, so can I ask you to get from the specifics of your constituents' concerns to a more general observation about Planning in your opening statement; it would be appreciated.

Mr PISONI: This certainly does relate to the budget because it refers to highlights in the budget about the new planning act and the processes in place to engage the public. It is in highlights on page 81, so it is very relevant to the act. The reason I am very concerned about that, and the member for Adelaide——

The CHAIR: Where in the highlights, the member for Unley? Whereabouts are you specifically talking about?

Mr PISONI: Page 81.

The CHAIR: Which highlight?

Mr PISONI: There is a series of highlights there.

The CHAIR: Which highlight?

Mr PISONI: The highlight that I am referring to is the sixth dot point, 'Enacted transitional legislation'. The engagement project is part of the—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Actually, from what the member for Unley said to us, I do not think this has anything whatsoever to do with that. What he said was that it is in relation to a current DPA proposal that is out for conversation, which includes, amongst a number of other proposals, a proposal pertinent to members of the community living in his electorate, in Unley. That is business as usual, standard business for the department in, as it turns out, not adequately communicating with people about its ordinary course of business. That is nothing necessarily to do with the new planning reforms.

The CHAIR: I agree.

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Unley, let me speak. You are eating into your own time. We can have this conversation another time, if you like, but I would ask that you get back to Planning and get back to the budget, rather than your specific concerns.

Mr PISONI: The reference that might be more appropriate, then, would be the reference on page 80, description/objective, of the South Australian planning and development system. On that basis, I am relating my concern about this process directly to that line in the budget.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: You had me at hello. I said yes. I totally agree—

The CHAIR: The Attorney is bending over backwards to help you, member for Unley.

Mr PISONI: I am not finished, John.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Oh, there is more?

Mr PISONI: There is more.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Terrific. Keep going, please.

The CHAIR: Despite the informality of this forum, I would ask that you refer to the Attorney-General by his title, please.

Mr PISONI: Certainly; thank you, Chair. My understanding is that at the close of submissions on Tuesday, there were 300 submissions that were presented for this development. I was obviously also very concerned about the fact that I have been following the DPA process in Unley quite strongly and there was supposed to be a second phase of the main roads package that you were putting together in the rezoning of Unley south of Cheltenham Street. That area was part of the second phase. That has not gone ahead. However, 301-305 Unley Road is in your package of DPA amendments that are out for consultation at the moment.

The CHAIR: Member for Unley, which line are you referring to now? Are you referring to a line or are you making some vague grievance?

Mr PISONI: I am referring to the planning process, the administration of South Australia's planning development system.

The CHAIR: Is this still part of your opening statement or are you asking a question? I am not following.

Mr PISONI: This is a question now, if that is okay.

The CHAIR: It is more than okay.

Mr PISONI: I made some inquiries with some nearby landowners who were approached by a real estate agent 18 months to two years ago to see if they wanted to sell their property, after the acquisition of 301-305 Unley Road was purchased by a major developer in South Australia. I was quite surprised when one of the landlords told me that the real estate agent had told him that the block was going to be zoned to five storeys. I had never heard that. As I say, I had been following this process very closely as the local member.

I then raised questions with the city manager of the City of Unley and asked him whether there has ever been any public discussion about five storeys north of Cheltenham Street. He said, 'No, we haven't even started there. There's been no public discussion about five storeys.' Does it concern you, minister, that a real estate agent acting for a developer would know, 18 months to two years prior to a development application, that there was going to be approval for changes of zone from two storeys to five storeys while the developer was in the process of actually making purchases?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Thank you for that question. Given the lengthy preamble to the question, I am going to spend a little bit of time answering it. First of all, can I say that both the question and the answer are not pertinent to the matters before the committee.

The CHAIR: Indeed, Attorney, you may choose not to answer them, if you like. They are completely out of order. If you choose to answer it, that is fine.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: In the spirit of things, I will. Can I make it clear that there is absolutely nothing in this question which is pertinent to the budget papers. This is about a matter of business as usual under the planning system. This is an ordinary exercise under the existing planning and development act rules.

It is necessary, because of the way in which the member for Unley framed the question, for me to step back a bit and explain where we have been progressing on this. Some years ago, we did what was described as the inner metro DPA. The inner metro DPA was a change in development arrangements for a number of predominantly main roads, main corridors adjacent to the CBD, to the city. For example, we are talking here about Greenhill Road, Fullarton Road, Port Road, the first bit of Unley Road—Unley Road from the Parklands heading south—the top end of Henley Beach Road and so on.

That was the inner metro DPA version 1. That was intended to provide an opportunity for development in those areas and it was then envisaged that we would roll into a conversation with local government around the inner metropolitan area, particularly within a five to 10-kilometre radius of the central business district, about whether or not there were other opportunities for amendments to development plans, again predominantly around main roads, and that was the inner metro 2 proposal. The member for Unley is quite right. That proposal has not proceeded to the DPA stage, and the reason it has not proceeded to the DPA stage is that I formed the view that, given the way in which the uptake had occurred in the first round of DPA amendments for the inner metro area, the approach that we were contemplating utilising in the second round was possibly not going to be productive or of any great benefit in the short or even medium term.

I asked the department to turn its mind to whether they could suggest to me any alternatives which would provide more immediate benefit for development opportunity in that inner city area but did not involve the large-scale rezones that were contemplated in the first iteration of the inner metro DPA version 2. The department went away and came back to me with a number of suggestions across the city where there were sites which had a number of things in common. Number one, they were relatively close to the centre of the city so they were within five kilometres or thereabouts of the centre of the city. Number two, these sites were basically catalyst sites. In other words, you either had a common landholding or a single title which was sufficiently large that the site warranted consideration as a standalone development opportunity rather than simply being as a tiny part of a bigger mosaic of changes in planning regime

As a result of the work that was done by the department, a number of sites were identified which were potential sites which tick those boxes, and there were 12 of them. Then we initiated the normal process for a development plan amendment which was to go out to public consultation. I cannot remember exactly when we went out. It was probably two months ago or something like that. It closed yesterday. All of these time lines are completely orthodox standard time lines. There is no decision about any of these. I have no idea how much feedback has been received about any of those proposals. I have not had a chance to discuss it with the department. I dare say given the fact that it only closed yesterday, they have not been through all of them and digested whatever feedback we have been getting. We are some time away from them even being ready to have a conversation with me about what if any decision I will make in respect of any or all of those 12 sites.

To get to the point about a real estate agent, I am going to say something, Mr Chairman, that might shock some members of the committee. Real estate agents are occasionally unreliable people. It has been reported to me that occasionally they indulge in what is known in the game by some people as 'puffery', where you say a great deal about something that usually you know little about and sometimes you have taken great care to know little about so you cannot be accused of telling fibs. Classic examples are: 'Oh, you'll easily get $500 a week for this single-bedroom apartment in Paralowie,' or, 'No, there is no problem in demolishing this heritage building and sticking a 15-storey building here in Dulwich.'

These things do happen, and I know that will shock people. I will just say that I do not receive a number of letters from Greg Troughton; not all people who are members of the real estate community have the same proclivity to indulge in these generalisations. The people in the industry know who I am talking about, and can I say, for the rest of you, you are doing a good job and you are honest people. You are not even involved in the scurrilous practice of bait pricing, which is a blight on the system.

I do not lose a great deal of sleep when it comes to my ears that a real estate agent has made some reasonably bolshie statement about a property. Notwithstanding what this agent has or has not said—reported by third parties, hearsay and goodness knows what else—I can tell you that the process for this particular rezone is completely orthodox. It is being done under the existing Planning and Development Act, the provisions of which are well known to everybody because it has been the law for 20-odd years. This was not an interim DPA, where it came into operation immediately. The reason it is not an interim DPA is because we are genuinely wanting to know what people think.

When the department has a chance to consider whatever it is that has come back from whoever it is who has been motivated to respond, there will ultimately be a decision. However, as the decision-maker, I can assure the member for Unley and other people that I have not turned my mind to what the ultimate outcome is going to be because I have not even had the benefit of considering the submissions.

Mr PISONI: I have a supplementary question: on that basis, what influence will the fact that the City of Unley has also moved that they would write to the DAC and yourself asking for that site to be removed from the DPA because they do not support it have on the decision for the rezoning of that property?

The CHAIR: Again, the Attorney can choose to answer this if he wishes.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It has nothing to do with the budget.

The CHAIR: No, and it is a supplementary, so it is also out of order.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, but in the hope that by answering this question we can move on, can I say that anything anybody puts to me about this DPA will be considered. Whether that means they get their way is something that we will see after due consideration of whatever it is that people have submitted. I cannot emphasise enough that in putting out a DPA there is a proposition put for public comment. If the public comment is that this is unsatisfactory, and there is a bunch of cogent reasons given for that, then obviously those reasons are taken into consideration. My position is that I have no view, one way or the other, about this until I have had the opportunity of considering whatever the feedback is.

Mr PISONI: On the DPA, how were these properties determined to be included in this? Did the owners or the department approach you?

The CHAIR: Again, member for Unley, this is unrelated to the budget.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: At this point, I am going to say that I think I have answered this quite satisfactorily up until now. I have explained how it happened. Can we please get on with the budget?

Mr PISONI: Well, we are. There is a line here and a budget—

The CHAIR: Which line is that?

Mr PISONI: It actually says that planning is about the administration of the South Australian planning and development system, so these are legitimate questions about the process, about how the system is working. That is what the public wants to know. They want to know how the planning system is working and this is the perfect opportunity to ask those questions—because they relate to the budget. Do not use these descriptions in the budget if you do not want to answer questions about them.

The CHAIR: Member for Unley, there are no cameras here.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I say to the member for Unley—

The CHAIR: Actually, there are cameras here. Carry on.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —that I am perhaps the least interested person in this building in having a confrontation with the member for Unley; I think the member for Unley is a splendid chap. He is clearly a very, very committed member who is worried about what is going on in his patch. Fair enough; that is his job and I respect that, that is fine. I have spent the last however many minutes trying to answer questions which are perfectly reasonable questions for a concerned local member to ask me about things that are going on in their electorate. I have answered them, notwithstanding the fact that they are irrelevant, because it is, after all, the member for Unley's time. However, I did explain in my answer to the previous question how it came to be that a dozen sites were put forward in the DPA, and I do not have anything to add.

The CHAIR: Do you have any further questions?

Mr PISONI: Yes, I do. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 111, and the table there. Can the minister confirm the balance of the Planning and Development Fund as of 30 June 2017?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: My advice in respect of this is that the preliminary balance, as of 30 June 2017, was $30,104,000. From that it is necessary to note that there will be a deduction of $17,603,000 on a basis of accruals, which would leave a balance after accruals of $12,501,000.

Mr PISONI: Are you able to advise what the inflows will be in 2017-18 for that account?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I suspect we can give you an idea, but ultimately it depends on how many people get to the point where they are required to make payment and, to some extent, that is a matter beyond the control of government. It is a bit like stamp duty, it is one of those things where you can make a projection but—

Mr PISONI: That is why it is called estimates.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Exactly; estimates #estimates (apparently that is what the younger people do these days). I am told that the estimate for 2017-18 is $24,227,000.

Mr PISONI: Are there budgeted outflows in that same 2017-18 year? If there are, what are they?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have already told you about—

Mr PISONI: I heard the $17 million, but what about—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Any additional ones?

Mr PISONI: Yes.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: A little bit about this fund that might be helpful is that the fund essentially operates on the basis that the money that comes in within a year is usually disbursed in the year. In effect, you maintain a float but money comes in and money goes out and the ultimate position is the same, year to year. That is the general proposition. In terms of the information from the budget papers that specifically addresses matters coming out of there for 2017-18, if you go to Agency Statements, Volume 3, on page 111 you would see that there are four references to moneys being budgeted against that fund.

The first is in respect of payments for supplies and services, the second is in relation to grants and subsidies, the third is intragovernmental transfers and the fourth is other payments. That is a negligible amount of, I think, $15,000; the substantial amounts are for the grants and subsidies and the intragovernmental payments. The grants and subsidies total $14,546,000, the planning and development fund transfers are $8,333,000, the payments for services and supplies are $1,507,000 and the other payments are $15,000.

Mr PISONI: Have there been any provisions made or funds allocated from the fund in the forward estimates beyond 2017-18?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No.

Mr PISONI: No?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I say again to the member for Unley that the usual practice with respect to the fund has been that it operates a bit like a float. Each year, let us say there is $24 million coming in, as a rule of thumb, $24 million will go out which will leave a balance of about $12 million, $14 million or $15 million, something of that nature.

Mr PISONI: Is there an actual list of where the outflows are going for the 2017-18 year and who is getting it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: For 2017-18, I am advised, we do not have a list of exactly where those are going. They are projections. I will give you an example. In relation to the moneys that were paid out for grants and subsidies, for example, for the past year, I can tell you what the grants and subsidies money was spent on, but because we have not yet been through the selection process and the determination for the next year, all I can tell you is what we anticipate spending, not what we have spent it on. I have a list; I will give you an example. For 2016-17, I have a whole range of projects here. Whether I provide this to the member for Unley as a document or read it out—that might take quite a while. There are something like 40 different projects.

Mr PISONI: You could seek leave to insert it into Hansard.

The CHAIR: Actually, no, you cannot because it is not a merely statistical document.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, but I am happy to give it to the member for Unley. There is no secret here. I will give you the headings, though, so you get some idea of the sweep of it. There is money spent in the Adelaide Parklands. There is money spent on transfers within government which are essentially to do with Coast Park and DEWNR maintaining properties for DPTI. There are metropolitan councils, which receive varying amounts of money for different projects, and there is a competitive process.

Each council is expected, in the course of each year, to put together a tender which they submit to the department. The tender says, 'We want to do an upgrade of our city centre,' or something of that nature. They put a description of what they want. If they have the project to the point where it is basically ready to go they would submit the fine detail of their project. Sometimes what they want is not a project, they just want the study to be done to make the next step be a project. So, it varies from time to time.

Then we have a pile of regional projects and these regional projects, just reading the first few: Light Regional Council, Kingston District Council, Mount Barker, Kangaroo Island, Roxby, Barossa, Northern Areas Council, District Council of Mount Remarkable, Berri Barmera Council, Loxton Waikerie, and so on. There is quite a range of different people but the process by which these people are selected for the year ahead of us has not occurred yet. What I can tell you is what we expect we will be spending, but what I cannot tell you yet is who we will be spending it on.

Mr PISONI: The Open Space and Places for People grants, are you able to advise what the balance of those are as of the end of the financial year?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that those grants are the ones which I have just referred to, and I will provide the member for Unley with a copy of the list of—

Mr PISONI: We asked questions about the Planning and Development Fund previously.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: They are paid from that fund.

Mr PISONI: Alright.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I wonder if I could refer back: you have talked, under highlights 2016-17, page 81, about 'launched stage one of the planning portal'. In targets 2017-18 it talked about stage two. How many stages will be in the planning portal and when is the full availability of that to be out there?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: In a minute, I will ask Sally or Anita to give more detail about this because they are conversant with computer machines and other things. The gist of it is that this thing is being started as a relatively simple thing and it is gradually being enhanced so that over time it becomes more and more sophisticated. The initial version of the planning portal is relatively 'dumb' compared with what it is expected to look like when it is fully functional. The period of time over which we are expecting to move to that is a couple of years. Sally or Anita, do you want to give the member for Goyder some more information about the portal and so on?

Ms ALLEN: I apologise for my voice as it is a bit croaky today. As the minister said, the portal will be progressively developed over the next couple of years and there will be a number of stages to that. At the first stage it was really to deliver the framework or the plain English version of the planning system to the public; that was the first iteration that was launched in December last year. The next stage of that was to launch the Planning Commission's new website and a number of new interactive tools which we are using now for our public engagement process.

We are now looking at launching a collaboration space for local government where they can go in there and ask questions of the department and the Planning Commission about the status of various new planning instruments as they are introduced, and we are hoping that will be launched in September this year. We will then be continuing to evolve that to provide new tools about how you assess development applications that are under the current system and then to evolve that into the new system, probably by the end of next year is the ambition for that. The new assessment pathways and Planning and Design Code and the new planning portal to support that will not be launched until late next year.

Mr GRIFFITHS: If I can seek clarification: I am particularly interested in when the ability exists for the full electronic lodgement of applications. I know that has been a position raised with me and a concern raised with me over the last couple of years. What is the anticipated timing for that?

Ms ALLEN: That will not be before the end of next year when the new assessment pathways are introduced and the Planning and Design Code are starting to be rolled out.

Mr GRIFFITHS: If I can go to a similar question area in relation to the new planning, development and infrastructure legislation, the community engagement charter, which is always of particular interest to me. I know that is one of the primary and initial responsibilities of the new Planning Commission; can you give an outline of how that is going? I know there has been some community engagement already. There has been one meeting already and another one scheduled later this month. Can you give me an outline, please?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, sure, and thank you for that. I know that I have discussed this with the member for Goyder before, but I need to put on the record again that, as far as I am concerned, there are two absolutely critical pillars in the new planning legislation which are going to be ultimately the making or breaking of what could be a brilliant system or just a good system. Those two things are the design code and the public engagement charter. I regard both of them as being absolutely critical to decent public acceptance and support for the scheme.

The public engagement charter—the member for Goyder is correct—is something that the Planning Commission is now consulting on. There was recently a gathering of a broad cross-section of members of the community at the Pavilion at Veale Gardens one Saturday. It was hosted by the commission, and members of the planning department, who are sitting with me, were present. I spoke to the people there for a period of time and after that they were relieved that I stopped! Then, Mr Anderson, who is the chair, spoke with them, and then they had a series of workshops and whatever.

I cannot underline enough how important it is, in my opinion, for the public engagement to work and to be sophisticated and to be tailored to the community that needs to be engaged with. If you are dealing with, say, a community in your electorate where you may well have the sort of civics culture where a town hall meeting will be well attended and reasonably traditional methods of engaging with people may be quite effective—it might be that the solution therefore in Kadina is: let's have a town hall meeting. That is fine.

Whether or not that same method would be equally effective in breaking through the apathy that exists in some parts of our community, understandably, about planning in the metropolitan area is a different question, so you might need to have a completely different approach to the public engagement proposition. What I am trying to achieve is a public engagement strategy which is outcome oriented rather than prescriptive about putting an ad in the paper, waiting three weeks, having a meeting in the town hall, where all you do is just go through the motions.

The other really important thing about public engagement is that I am trying to make sure the public engagement happens at the beginning of the process—and again, the member for Goyder understands this, I know—when the policy is being formulated for the place where the people live as opposed to at the end of the process, when somebody is having their potential development assessed against a given policy. Unfortunately, that is a hard distinction to explain to people, but the real challenge we have in this process is to get people focusing their minds on planning issues at that early stage where there is a genuinely open conversation about what their street or what their suburb is going to look like in the future. We want them engaged at that point, and that is what this thing is about.

As for the time lines, I would like it next week, but I am told it is October. There will be a draft released in October, and I emphasise 'draft' because I am interested in any feedback on this, but we had to get it to a point where we had some document that people could talk about. So, there is a draft document coming out in October, and obviously I am very interested in hearing feedback about the draft document.

Mr PISONI: Just on that, minister, you said the important thing was to have the consultation at the DPA level when the changes are being made so everybody knows what the changes can be, and everyone agrees that if they—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: You will not have everyone agreeing.

Mr PISONI: Actually, in Unley it was a very good example with the first stage of the DPA, where there was a trade off with character and heritage streets and some five-storey development on Unley Road. Your claim is that that is where the consultation should happen: how is it then that the very first development that was approved under the DAC in a newly zoned five-storey zone, the Cremorne Plaza, was 7.5 storeys high? How did that happen?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Excellent question. This is one of the things that causes more trouble than it is worth for the planning system. It is one of these things which, if you are a practitioner in the area (which I am not), or you are a person who is very experienced with all these things, this does not surprise you.

The planning rules in respect of the DPA in Unley was that five storeys was the desired outcome, in effect. I am not using planning language, I am using English. Five storeys was the desired outcome, but the law says that, if you can come forward with something that is particularly meritorious, even if it does not meet that but it has other merit, it can be considered, and that is what happened in this case.

Mr PISONI: It was so meritorious it collapsed—it never got off the ground.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It may not have been financially meritorious. I am not talking about that particular one, I am talking about in principle. In principle, from a design or from a development viewpoint, it may have had particular merit. I accept that in the public mind, when they see the words 'five storey', they expect to get five storey—I accept that.

I think that is one of the things that the new Planning and Development Code will have to grapple with when it comes in because, if we want the code to be accessible and understandable by members of the community, they should be able to look up somewhere what is going on in their street and see that their street is three storeys, five storeys, or whatever it might be, and they should be entitled to think that three means three or five means five.

Earlier on in the process there should have been a really proper conversation with them about exactly what that meant. You may be right that in the Unley case there was that conversation, and those people were still disappointed because of the seven. I heard a lot of that myself, and I can understand why they were upset. I get it. And that is one of the things we need to deal with, because we do need people to be in a position where what they see is what they get.

Mr PISONI: To take you to a financial line now, if I may, minister: Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 80, and referring to the table. Can you confirm that the Commissioner for Kangaroo Island continues to be funded in this year's budget?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I can, but not in this portfolio. I think minister Mulligan—it is in that part of the DPTI funding. The short answer to your question is yes. It is not coming out of any allocations to me.

Mr PISONI: I will refer further questions on that to Mr Mulligan. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 81: the line I refer to says, 'Approved three major development proposals to the value of $4572 million'. Can you indicate what are these three major developments? As background, I could not find them on your website, minister.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that they were as follows. They are mixed bag. There is the Peregrine headquarters and Iron Road.

Mr PISONI: You are up to about 2.5.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. I am told that Iron Road is $4.5 billion.

Mr PISONI: It is $4.5 billion?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Mr PISONI: That is over what period of time?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not know; however long. They may or may not. Just because they have an approval does not necessarily guarantee that they are going to start digging or doing anything. This is merely saying that in terms of the major development process, there were three. They were Iron Road, Peregrine and the American River resort on Kangaroo Island.

Mr PISONI: And the value of the other two?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that Peregrine might be around $50 million and American River $22 million.

Mr PISONI: Okay.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I might just ask a question on that. I am intrigued why the build of a mining project is included in this budget area. I know there is a reference in regard to mining in planning and development infrastructure legislation, but why is the build cost of a mine included?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: This is simply an acknowledgement. This is just saying, 'Look, during the 2016-17 year, what were the things that were processed through the major development channel in the existing legislation,' because there is often an interest in the major development side of things, and understandably so. If these things go through, there are fees that are collected for it. This is simply saying that those were the projects. I am not in any way trying to fudge it. Iron Road is overwhelmingly the largest element in that. I think it says also that there were 17 proposals to the value of $684 million, and 13 of those went through the pre-lodgement and design review process, which is a good thing.

Mr PISONI: In how many of those 17 have we seen construction started?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think I would need to check. There is always a time lag between the approval and the starting, and some of the ones that are starting now were possibly approved in a preceding calendar year or financial year. What I can tell you at the moment about what is going on presently is that there is a project at—these are going on now, are they?

Ms SMITH: These are the approvals.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: These are the approvals. There is one for 292-300 Rundle Street worth $20 million; there is one for 51-57 Hutt Street, $18.7 million; 124-126 Franklin Street, $15 million; the Festival Plaza, $230 million; 42-48 Hurtle Square, $13 million; the City High School, $70 million; the Frome and Synagogue Place development, $100 million; 322-336 King William Street, $65 million; 9-19 Austin Street, $12.2 million; War Memorial Drive and Park Terrace, $12.2 million; 260 Flinders Street, $30 million; and Christian Brothers College in the city, $11.3 million.

Mr PISONI: How many of those are government funded?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Clearly, the City High School, Festival Plaza and Torrens Junction have a government element. I do not know which other ones.

Mr PISONI: Are any others connected to government leasing commitments?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I would have to check. Can I emphasise that a number that commenced in the last 12 months are the product of approvals in earlier years. Just off the top of my head, there is the Bohem development at Whitmore Square, for example, there is the development that started down at the old Balfours site, and there is another development that started behind the Federal Court building. There is also Hutt Street. There are a number of projects that are actually going on now, but in all probability they were approved in the preceding year or years. These things just take their time. Many developers, as the member for Unley would know, get their project approved and then they wait to get presales to the point where the bank will give them the green light. That sometimes happens quickly; sometimes it takes time.

Mr PISONI: Have any development approvals last year triggered regulation 48, lapse of development approval? Of the developments that were granted previously, obviously outside of last financial year—I think there were 30 approved in 2015-16, for example—so how many of those developments have lapsed?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is good question. I will check. I am advised and I recall that the approval that was given to the Makris Group to develop the Le Cornu site has lapsed. They had an approval. I think they sought an extension at one stage. They got an extension for 12 months or something and then they indicated they were not proceeding. I know that one is a lapsed approval and that goes back several years. That approval in itself was a replacement for an earlier major development approval which was surrendered by the proponents of that development in order to proceed with their application under the ordinary planning system. I will check how many others there are.

Mr PISONI: Just on your employees' benefits and expenses, are you able to advise how many employees were offered or have taken redundancy packages, voluntary or otherwise, in 2016-17?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will check, but I am advised, and subject to that changing, there were none in 2016-17.

Mr PISONI: Are there any planned for 2017-18—any efficiency dividends or targets?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised not at this stage.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, I am interested in the levy that is going to be applied for local government to assist with e-planning. In estimates last year there was some information about $3.7 million or thereabouts, but there does not appear to be anything that shows in this year's budget papers. Can you confirm indeed the collection of a levy for this year and what the dollar value will be?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We are actually in active discussion with the LGA about this at present, because again, as the member for Goyder in particular would appreciate, their budgets and ours do not necessarily line up in terms of time. We are in conversations with them about when this will cut in. We want to, if we can, come to an agreed position about this. It may be that it cuts in next year rather than this year.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Ongoing discussions are occurring?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am also interested in the 30-year plan—the revision that has been provided. I have started to review that and also look at the land use planning documents that you have issued recently. In last year's estimates, I asked you questions about regional planning and reviews of some of the old documents that were up to 10 years old. I think in the response you talked about the need for the Local Government Association to be one of the major drivers of that. Has any work been undertaken on that also?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will let Anita say a few words about the discussions that have been going on with local government, but before she does, can I say that I have actually said to the LGA and to councils that have raised this with me that I am aware of the delays that have been going on. They are partly to do with the paper-based system which we are hoping to ultimately replace, and they are partly to do with the fact that there are so many nuances about planning rules from one municipality to another, which again we are planning to fix up.

I have said to local government agencies, 'Look, if you have a planning issue which is really, really pressing for some reason, and it's not just you would like to have it done; it really, really has to be done and for a good reason,' I am happy to escalate them to the top of these people's filing cabinets and in-trays, and I have told them that. My view at the moment is, if anybody has a really urgent one, they need to come in and say, 'This one is particularly urgent. There's a good reason why it's urgent. Here's the reason,' and we will expedite dealing with those matters ahead of other matters. Perhaps, Anita, do you want to say a few words about what you were just explaining to me.

Ms ALLEN: We have been working with local government on setting up a joint planning arrangements under the PDI Act. We recently appointed Jeff Tate, who has extensive experience across local government in the governance area and how to set up boards and committees. We put out an expression of interest for a pilot program to identify councils that would like to work through those.

We had eight regions identify themselves as interested in those joint planning arrangements and that covered 32 councils, so over half of the local government expressed an interest in that. Because of that, we have agreed to include all of them in the program and work with them on how they can set up those joint planning arrangements. Once those joint planning arrangements are set up, they are able to establish their own regional plan. So, those regional plans can be undertaken by a joint planning board rather than the commission, which would ordinarily undertake those plans.

In the meantime, we are also working with local councils on strategic planning and bringing together those regions to think about their growth and change and how that might start to influence the new planning and design code, particularly when we get to the stage of putting the lines on the maps of where will the new zones apply and how will that transition happen.

Our emphasis and focus has been very much on working through that partnership over the next 12 months rather than producing new documents at this stage, which may well be overtaken in that process.

The CHAIR: Thank you, all. There being no further questions, I declare the examination of the proposed payments to the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure and the administered items for that department be referred to Estimates Committee A.

Sitting suspended from 12:47 to 13:45.