Department for Trade and Investment, $106,640,00

Administered Items for the Department for Trade and Investment, $951,000

Membership:

Mr McBride substituted for Mr Tarzia.

Ms Hutchesson substituted for Mr Odenwalder.

Minister:

Hon. N.D. Champion, Minister for Trade and Investment, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Planning.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr D. Reynolds, Chief Executive, Department for Trade and Investment.

Ms K. Bartolo, Valuer-General.

Ms J. Cottnam, Registrar-General.

Ms S. Smith, Executive Director, Planning and Land Use Services, Attorney-General's Department.

Mr R. Kleeman, Manager, Crown and Impact Assessment, Attorney-General's Department.

Mr B. Steiner, Manager, Strategic Planning, Attorney-General's Department.

Mr B. McCormack, Acting Director, Office for Design and Architecture South Australia.

Ms R. Phillips, Principal Adviser, Open Space Team, Office for Design and Architecture South Australia.

The CHAIR: The portfolio is Planning and Land Use Services. The minister appearing is the Minister for Planning. I advise that the proposed payments remain open for examination. I call on the minister to make a statement, if the minister so wishes, and to introduce advisers. I call on the lead speaker for the opposition to make a statement, if she so wishes. I call on members for questions.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I will begin with introductions. On my right is David Reynolds, Chief Executive of the Department for Trade and Investment. On my left is Sally Smith, Executive Director of Planning and Land Use Services, and to her left is Katherine Bartolo, Valuer-General. Behind me, I have Robert Kleeman, Manager, Crown and Impact Assessment, and to his right Brett Steiner, Manager of Strategic Planning.

In the third row is Jenny Cottnam, Registrar-General. To her right is Brad McCormack, Acting Director, Office for Design and Architecture. Behind him is Rachel Phillips, Principal Adviser, Open Space Team for the Office for Design and Architecture. In the gallery, we have Rebecca Lang, Manager of Finance, Procurement and Facilities, Department for Trade and Investment, and Mr Michael Robertson, Chief Executive of the Adelaide Cemeteries Authority.

I think that is everyone. I would just like to thank the department. Planning is enormously important and very highly contested in the public area, and I would like to thank all the public servants who serve the state so well in their role, particularly David and Sally for all of their help over the last three months. We will proceed to questions.

Ms PRATT: Mr Chair, noting that we started at 11.49, perhaps you will indulge a couple of questions beyond the declared finishing time.

The CHAIR: Of course, we will give you that opportunity.

Ms PRATT: I am happy to go straight to questions with the minister, thank you. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 122.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Just to begin, do we have any questions for the Valuer-General. I noticed the member for Colton did have some questions. Do you want maybe go straight to those and then we can let the Valuer-General get back to work? I do not mean to interrupt.

Ms PRATT: On indulgence, it is a very quick question and I can do that.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Thank you very much.

Ms PRATT: Thank you for the opportunity. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 126, Office of the Registrar-General. Can the minister provide an explanation for the significant increases in FTEs in that office for the year 2022-23?

Mr TELFER: He asked about the Valuer-General.

Ms PRATT: I am sorry.

Mr TELFER: Too many generals.

Ms PRATT: There are a lot of generals, yes.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Yes, there are a lot of generals. I call them the generals, too. We might take that one on notice, if you like.

Ms PRATT: Yes. The answer is still the same. I can accommodate the Valuer-General if you will allow me to reverse the order of my questions, although that office is important. I would then refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 123, targets, the first dot point. Can the minister provide some more information on the process, policy and digitisation reform initiatives identified as a target for the Office of the Valuer-General?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I am happy for the Valuer-General to respond. I did get a briefing on it but—

Ms BARTOLO: We are currently in the process of fine-tuning our service to the community, primarily through the form of digitising a lot of our processes which have not had the opportunity to be done so prior to commercialisation and following it as a part of the transition plan. It is part of my strategic plan starting this year to be able to improve that and make it a more consistent and robust process with greater transparency.

Ms PRATT: Thank you. Following on, minister, the second target on that page is identified to improve contractual and compliance management of the service provider. Can the minister explain what concerns the Valuer-General has regarding Land Services SA and the current contractual and compliance management? What specific improvements are there to be made?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I think we will let the Valuer-General answer that directly.

Ms BARTOLO: Following commercialisation there was a transition period for the service provider to grow into their new role as a service provider. It was a generational change. At the conclusion of that transition period the service levels under which they operate were to be confirmed or reviewed as required. Part of that process also then enabled other elements of the contract around how we measure and document that going into the future once those service levels were confirmed or identified.

Ms PRATT: The final target identified on page 123 relates to the support the Valuer-General will be providing to six regional councils that will transition from site value ratings to capital. Can the minister advise which six councils that relates to and what support will be provided to these councils?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: We will get you the answer in relation to the six councils on notice, but basically it is interaction between the Valuer-General and those six councils about all of those valuation issues that were coming up. They have made that offer and that process is ongoing.

Mr TELFER: I actually know the six councils, so I might just unpack this a little bit.

Ms BARTOLO: My memory is not as good as yours.

Mr TELFER: Yes, they are all from my patch. Can I get an insight into what you think are the actual logistical steps you are going to put in? It is a very general question that I am asking of the minister, but are there any specifics that you see are going to be necessary from the Valuer-General in particular, and whether there is going to be an issue with that sort of process?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I might take that on notice and get you a complete answer.

Ms PRATT: Minister, referring you back to Volume 4, page 122—and thank you to the Valuer-General for her time—Planning and Land Use Services: can the minister explain the reduction in the net cost of services for PLUS in 2022-23, where this financial year was $12,746,000 and the incoming financial year is $10,263,000?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The expenditure is the same; the income has changed. The income change is mainly around code amendment fees.

Ms PRATT: Code amendment fees?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: That is right. So applicants who make code amendments pay fees to PLUS, and that is a broadly based cost-recovery exercise. I can give you the actual fees if you like; would that suit you?

Ms PRATT: Yes; it would suit.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The fee structure in the act, which was put in place on 25 November 2021, is:

lodgement $5,500, which is basically charged on a submission of the proposal to initiate;

consultation $8,700, which is charged prior to a code amendment going out to public consultation;

determination $8,400, to be charged once a final code amendment is lodged for assessment; and

implementation $9,800, which is only payable if the code amendment is approved, and discharged prior to implementation.

That makes for a total of $32,400.

Ms PRATT: Minister, I may have this wrong but if they are not savings targets that reduction from 12 to 10 is not a saving, what services or positions will be cut to achieve the savings, or are you expecting fewer fees?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: If you look at 2021-22 on that page, and 2022-23, you will see that in total expenses there is basically no difference. The difference here has been more income coming in. There is a savings target for PLUS, but that is not reflective of that total.

Ms PRATT: Can you expand on what that savings target is?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: That is still being finalised, because there was a machinery of government change where PLUS came over from Attorney-General's into the Department for Trade and Investment.

Ms PRATT: When might we expect that information?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: By the Mid-Year Budget Review.

Mr TELFER: Can we get any insight into the expectations of planning as to what level of code amendment process they are expecting? Are they expecting an increase or decrease, or consistent? This has been something this place and the Legislative Review Committee have been considering, as to the level of fees. I am just trying to get some insight into what the expectations or projections are.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I am advised we expect about two to three a month; that is kind of the expectation. So far, for 2021-22 (because that is the year in which these processes were fully live) there were 11 code amendments adopted and 58 code amendments initiated or lodged. Four of those were commission-led, six state agency-led, 15 council-led, 33 privately-led, and three of those were declined.

The state-led code amendments, which are very important are: bushfire, flooding, the Miscellaneous Technical Enhancement Code Amendment, and Future Living and Hackham (Hackham was important for the land supply question, particularly in the south). State-led code amendments that have been adopted are Port Bonython, the Riverbank Precinct and the Mount Compass Golf Course Estate. Most of that would have either been initiated or occurred under the previous government.

Code amendments are an important feature of the new planning system, and the fees associated with them—which there has been interest in and which we have had discussions about—are an important cost recovery. It is not charged to councils if there is community benefit, but for private entities seeking code amendments there is often significant benefit. As a result, we should properly have cost recovery on these fees, as was set out by the previous government under these arrangements.

Mr TELFER: Is this a number you could project as a department or it is really reactive to what circumstances are happening? Would you expect another 33 private or thereabouts? Is this a consistent number?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: There is a bit of a build-up I think, a bit of a dam effect if you like, of private ones and that might abate or plateau over time, but against that the council ones might accelerate perhaps after local government elections; it is possible there. I also think I should put this on record that perhaps there was a reluctance on councils previously, for some reason. I am happy to entertain councils making code amendments if they think there is a community benefit there, so it might be a bit of mix-and-match.

Ms PRATT: Minister, you mentioned just before about fees, so referring you to page 122, fees, fines and penalties, where the government has budgeted $16.6 million from the receipt of those fees, fines and penalties in the 2022-23 financial year. Can the minister advise of the annual contributions councils are estimated to make into the ePlanning system in 2022-23 and subsequent years across the four-year forward estimates period?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: We expect to, all up, collect about $1 million from councils, but for individual councils that will be determined by activity, so there is a lodgement fee paid by the applicant, and then depending on a scale the council may have to pay something or not depending on the number of DAs, the volume of DAs in their neck of the woods. It is a bit of a moving feast for councils, but it is anticipated that they will pay a reasonable amount for the eLodgment scheme.

Ms PRATT: Following on then, can you also provide details about how those contributions—$1 million per council by activity—how will those contributions be expended by the government?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: There were about 300 enhancements of the system last year, so that takes a portion of the cost. There is an admirable application of constant improvement, which is based around feedback—not just from councils, but from the community—about ePlanning, and I think we are one of the few jurisdictions which has a single planning system and a single ePlanning portal. It was a mighty achievement I think by PLUS to achieve. Clearly, it is still a work in progress because we get plenty of feedback about it.

The second bit of the expenditure is in cybersecurity and stability. We live in a dangerous world, particularly in relation to cyber. I think governments of all persuasions are going to have to be mindful that there are a lot of bad actors and bad players—some of them sponsored by states—in the world, so that is a significant cause. And then there are software licences, system support and the service desk.

Ms PRATT: Same page, 122, total expenses: the preparation of new regional plans, including a new plan for Greater Adelaide is listed as a program target for 2022-23 on page 121 of the budget papers. Of the $30.9 million budgeted for Planning and Land Use Services expenses, how much will be allocated to the State Planning Commission for the preparation of regional plans?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Because some money is being allocated out of the P&D Fund to get regional councils going because, as both members would be aware, there really are some very difficult regional housing issues around, and I suspect that occurs in areas where there are very high employment numbers and a great deal of demand for employees but there is not the regional housing. A whole lot of issues go around helping those regional plans; some of that money is coming out of the P&D Fund and some of it is coming out of PLUS, and we might take it on notice because there are some workforce allocations coming out of PLUS.

Ms PRATT: I would welcome that, given the question was on a breakdown of how much would be allocated.

Mr TELFER: If you could include the P&D Fund as well, if you could take that on notice.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Sure.

Ms PRATT: Will any of these funds be provided to councils to support them in developing their growth strategies or other investigations to support the regional plans?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It is complex. Apparently, there are joint planning boards, which the councils themselves can enter into, but none of them have opted to do so, so that then falls to the commission. Obviously, there will be a high interaction between both the councils and, I would imagine, RDAs and other interested parties out in the country.

Ms PRATT: I think we are building to that. Is it the minister's intention that the regional plans will be finalised within the required statutory time frame of 19 March 2023?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: This is a very important process, significant public money is allocated to it and we want to get it right. Part of that is listening to regional communities and communities in South Australia, so it is highly unlikely. We will not be meeting that statutory requirement. It is important for us to flag that now, but I think that is in the public interest. Had we not had an election this year, new minister, and a whole range of other things, you might have been perhaps more demanding, but it is in the state's interest and particularly in the regions' interest. We will start with the regions and then move on to shift resources in the new year to the urban task.

Ms PRATT: Is the commission's failure to meet the statutory deadline a direct result of the government's failure to adequately resource the Planning and Land Use Services in the budget?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: This is a 30-year plan and everybody knew it was coming up. I guess if you were to be uncharitable, you could make that attack, and if I was to be uncharitable I could say, 'Well, the previous government made no allocation for it either.' We can take that pot shot at each other and then we can move on to the practicality of it, which is that this is a very important opportunity for your communities. My federal seat overlapped your electorate. Congratulations on your election, by the way.

Ms PRATT: Thank you, minister.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I was very happy to see you at Kapunda High, and I hope that you are very interested in planning and my old hometown. There is a real opportunity for country, and I want the opposition to see it as that. I would prefer not to play partisan games.

Ms PRATT: I think that Adelaide's local paper will reflect my passion and commitment to that high school. However, we were talking about regional planning, and as a regional member I will move on. Can the minister advise how many joint regional planning boards have been established to develop and complete the regional plans? I think you noted that previously no councils had opted in.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Yes, zero have opted in because the councils have not done it. I am confident that the State Planning Commission are going to do this role. As you point out, there is a statutory obligation. It is important that we get moving but that we do it properly and that we give it time to be done properly. If the councils had come together and formed a joint planning board we would have accommodated them.

Mr TELFER: Is there an insight from the department that they have given to you, minister, on why there have been no joint planning boards formed across the state?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I have not received a briefing yet but I just got one then. It seems as if the councils felt that the formation of the joint boards might add a layer of complexity to the process that did not add much. What they are perhaps now anticipating is to let the commission undertake the process, go through the process and then form the joint planning boards in the wake of the process to implement the recommendations. So, rather than form the boards to do the process up-front, they will form them in the wake of the commission's report to do the administration and the task of implementing them. I actually think that is very important.

If you read both the iterations of the 30-year plan and the 2017 update—which I did, on strong advice—in retrospect you realise that these plans are forward looking, future looking, and that we are not going to get every projection right. But the implementation task coming out of them is always significant.

Mr TELFER: Is there a commitment from the department on a formalised consultation process with local communities and local councils? This is where the failing has been: there has been a disassociation between the state plan, or the different regions' iterations of the state plan, and what locals are actually asking for on the ground.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The commission sought some advice about engagement strategies. You will be happy to know that their intent is to take a bespoke approach, after some interactions with local communities. They have thought very carefully, by the sounds of it, about engagement with local communities, which is critical, as we know, and they are going to tailor it for the regions.

Ms PRATT: Supplementary: can you or the agency provide a list of stakeholders who would be invited to participate in the process?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I would be happy to.

Mr TELFER: Can I ask about some aspects of that, and you can learn as you go along.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Thank you, former mayor; I get an education from you every time we meet.

Mr TELFER: Has there been any consideration of simplifying a potential process so that the issues we have come up against with the reticence of councils to be involved in a joint planning board can be rectified in future iterations of regional plans?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I would be very happy to receive any feedback from councils or from yourself about how we might streamline processes. I have an open mind about considering such things. I am reminded that we will also have the expert panel soon, which will be able to take advice about that. I know the expert panel on planning, on the legislation and the code, is of interest to members on my left. There are certainly many strong advocates about planning concerns in their electorates. It is a chance for regional communities, country people, to have their say too.

Mr TELFER: I think that is important, especially for regional communities. They are not as caught up about street trees and the like, they are talking about strategic aspects. Is there are a commitment within that engagement strategy, a bespoke one, to ensure that there are changes that flow from the local perspective being sought and it is not just a planning-driven process that gets a consultation on paper but no real change from it? That has always been the issue that we have seen with these plans.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I understand what the member says about consultation because that is an issue in communities that I have represented over the years as well. I think people can be cynical about consultation, but in this instance the plan will be on the e-portal, so it will be immediately available. This is one of the big advantages of the digital world. As opposed to a book that sits on your shelf, it will be immediately available. The other thing is the code allows us to make pretty quick changes, if we choose to, out of that consultation.

If local communities are of a view to do X, Y or Z and there is a good reason to do X, Y or Z, we will be in a position where we can respond to that quickly. I have noticed, with the enhancements to the e-portal itself—and I am sure you experienced this as mayor—if something comes out of consultation and it gets done, then communities just bank that. It is when there is a difference of opinion or something that does not get done that it tends to be a bit more tricky, but I think the processes should be better.

Mr TELFER: 'Should'—I like it.

Ms PRATT: Minister, I am sure all members will be interested in learning more about the planning implementation review. Referring you to page 121, the first dot point and the expert panel, can the minister provide information regarding the scope and timing of the planning implementation review?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Of course, this is an election commitment, and we are very keen to implement it. Basically, it will look into the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act, the Planning and Design Code and related instruments. That relates to infill policy, trees, character, heritage and car parking, the ePlanning system to ensure that there are both efficient and user-friendly processes and its platform and the PlanSA portal, basically to check that it is usable, which is always a task in and of itself.

The panel will consist of four members for a period of six months. We are aiming for gender balance, and we are going to look for collective expertise in planning, obviously: statutory planning, development assessment, planning policy, strategic planning, urban design or architecture, local government, public administration, and/or information technology systems and customer service systems. Obviously, I will be in a position to provide the parliament with details once that is all set up. I hope it will be a welcome announcement and the community will get great value out of it.

Ms PRATT: In that process, did you address the timing of the commencement or implementation of the review actually—

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Post the review reporting?

Ms PRATT: Post the review reporting, thank you, yes.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I would be reluctant to give you a time line, but I might observe that one of the difficulties with planning is I get a lot of people in the community giving me feedback about the code. In actual fact, PLUS inform me that 55 houses have been constructed under the new code, so a lot of the complaints in the community are about the previous iterations of the act and the regulations.

By necessity, planning is a thing you do and then it has effect some way down the track. We want to be sensible about the implementation. There are obviously a range of community issues that are felt very strongly. There are private property rights, which we have to have high regard for. There might be code changes or regulatory changes which would take some time, but we hope that this implementation review, this expert panel, will be able to give us a basis of, if you like, planing off the rough edges, helping to have a high degree of community consent and buy in. Hopefully, it will set the basis for planning in the future. But I want to do the process properly, and unfortunately time is a factor in that.

Ms PRATT: You have referenced for members gender and, I think, experience. In regard to the expert panel, which is future facing, no-one has been appointed yet?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: No.

Ms PRATT: Who might be under consideration for the appointment to the expert panel and what would their terms of appointment be?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I have already talked a bit about the areas we want to draw people from and I have broadly talked about what, I suppose, the community engagement is. We think there will be six to 10 formal meetings and about four to six events or activities as part of that. That is sort of a framework of the review. I obviously do not want to pre-empt my announcement. I think this will be welcome news in the community.

Mr TELFER: When can we expect an announcement to be made on the panel membership being finalised?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I will send you a text when it is in the paper—no, when I have made an announcement. You would understand that I want to set this up correctly and I want to make an appropriate announcement and then I want the expert panel to do its work.

Mr TELFER: So within weeks, within months, within years?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It will not be years.

Mr TELFER: Within weeks?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: You will have to wait and find out. I will say this: it is an election commitment and it is a priority for this government.

Mr TELFER: Are there going to be paid positions on the panel?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Yes. You would understand that it is sensible, if you want to get properly qualified people, that you would remunerate them appropriately for their time.

Mr TELFER: Can you give us what those remuneration amounts are going to be per person, and the chair?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It is anticipated that the total cost of the panel will be about $340,000.

Mr TELFER: Of that $340,000, how much are you expecting to be for payments to committee members?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: We think the member fees will broadly be like this: $42,000 for four members to do six to 10 formal meetings and $25,000 for them to do four to six events. The remuneration is tied to their activity.

Mr TELFER: Is there going to be a chair of the panel?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: There will be a chair.

Mr TELFER: Will the chair be getting higher remuneration?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: No.

Mr TELFER: It will be equalised.

Ms PRATT: Will the committee be invited to participate in this review? If so, how might they be able to do that and when will this consultation—we talked about timing, but let's talk about community involvement.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: As I said, there will be six to 10 formal meetings and then four to six events. Those events will be, obviously, an opportunity for the community to engage in that process. These days, if people cannot make meetings obviously they can avail themselves of submissions and the like, and there will be some resourcing from PLUS to facilitate that.

Ms PRATT: Will the Environment, Resources and Development Committee play any role in either the review itself or in assessing the findings of the review?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I might just clarify if the chair is paid more, because there is slightly conflicting advice. I might take that one on notice. What was the question?

Ms PRATT: If you would take on notice in full, because I understand there is a precedent—

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Yes, whether it was going to the committee.

Ms PRATT: —for the committee playing that role.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Let me take that on notice. I will consider that.

Mr TELFER: Can I then just get clarification on the expectations of the funds to the committee? The $42,000 was for the whole committee to have six to 10 formal meetings?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Yes.

Mr TELFER: The $42,000 as a whole, $42,000 across four different individuals?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Yes, that is the advice I have. But let me take that on notice and provide it to you. These are indicative figures, so let me take that on notice. I would not like to give you the wrong information.

Ms PRATT: Moving to Planning and Development Fund grants and subsidies, Volume 4, page 137, can the minister advise when the next round of the Open Space Grant Program, funded from the Planning and Development Fund, will open?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: In 2022-23, we are going to fulfil the government's election commitment around pocket parks, and in 2023-24 the Open Space Grant Program will recommence.

Mr TELFER: For clarification on that, the first financial year's will be all going towards the pocket park commitment?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: In 2022-23, there will be a range of election commitments fulfilled, including pocket parks. Not the full amount will be allocated to pocket parks, but we will be fulfilling that election commitment, along with a range of others. The expert panel and the regional plans are all funded out of 2022-23 as well.

Mr TELFER: For clarification, will the likes of the Places for People grant, which normally gets funded out of this fund, be non-existent in this financial year?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Yes. It will be 2023-24.

Mr TELFER: Can you give me the total dollar figure of what will be allocated in 2022-23?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I will take that on notice.

Ms PRATT: On the same budget line, does the minister intend to maintain the independent assessment process for the allocation of open space grants established by the previous Minister for Planning and Local Government?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I must confess, I had not turned my mind to changing the arrangements and I have not been briefed about changing the arrangements, so I expect that they would continue.

Ms PRATT: Continue with an independent assessment process?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I think it is the Office for Design and Architecture, which is with us today, the acting director—who I have had one or two meetings with, I think—but no-one has put any proposal to change it. I have not considered or turned my mind to changing it. It sounds like a sensible process on the face of it.

Mr TELFER: Can the minister inform the committee which of the incoming Labor government's election commitments are going to b funded out of the open space funding?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I can give you some examples if you like.

Mr TELFER: I would like all of them.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: But it is a long list, and to be fair they are not all in the next year.

Mr TELFER: You are never too reticent to talk about your election commitments, so I am happy to go through a long list, or you can table it for the committee, if you would rather.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I would not table it, but I might take it on notice and provide it to you then.

Mr TELFER: Provide that information of all the election commitments that are funded through the open space funding.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Well, through the P&D Fund.

Ms PRATT: On page 137 of Volume 4, of the $28.2 million budgeted to be received in revenue through the Planning and Development Fund, how much wil be allocated to the purchase of land to be used for much-needed open space projects?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I might take that on notice. There were a range of election commitments and projects that would cover this. I do not believe anybody has done analysis on it yet, so we might get some information for you.

Ms PRATT: Can you provide the forecast revenues into the Planning and Development Fund over the forward estimates?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It does not change markedly year from year; it is always around the $28 million mark—so slightly higher, slightly lower. That was the same under the previous government and I do not anticipate it will change.

Ms PRATT: Looking at that line, can the minister provide an explanation and identify the purpose of, and to whom, the intra-government transfers from the Planning and Development Fund totalling $12,944,000 will be made for the financial year of 2022-23?

Ms STINSON: Do you know what page it was?

Ms PRATT: Yes, we are still on page 137, Volume 4, statement of cash flows.

Ms STINSON: Thank you very much.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: This has happened across governments and it is payments to, for instance, DEW to look after land that I, as planning minister, own. I think there is a bit of Gawler and there are some other areas which I do not think it is problematic for us to provide you with. It happened under the previous ministers as well. It is just money that is given to government departments out of the P&D Fund to maintain areas that are owned by the state to make sure they do not get out of hand, that they are fit for purpose and the like.

Ms PRATT: Are you saying you will take that on notice?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I could give you the full list of areas, the land that gets used.

Mr TELFER: It would be useful to quantify the cost, really.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I should also point out that there are a few payments that relate to election commitments, things like the McGilp oval at One Tree Hill, for instance. I think that might have had bipartisan support, actually. I would be a bit surprised if that one did not have bipartisan support. I know One Tree Hill fairly well, having represented it as a federal member. I remember going up there as a federal member and I think both the former and current members for King supported that upgrade, which was done through the Playford council. There are some payments that are entirely routine to government departments about the administration of government land, and then there are some election commitments too.

Mr TELFER: Can we get a breakdown of that $12.9 million intra-government, between the two—

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I said I would take that on notice.

Mr TELFER: Yes, as well as that other aspect. It is obviously a pretty broad budget line.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Yes, fair enough.

Ms PRATT: Can we just clarify what is being taken on notice? The breakdown of the costs and the listing of where those intra-government transfers are going?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Yes. I am happy to provide as comprehensive an answer as is sensible.

Ms PRATT: We appreciate that. Through the Open Space Grant Program, councils are required to make rigorous applications to obtain matched funding for their open space projects. When the funds are transferred within the state government, who is responsible for ensuring they are used for purposes consistent with the principles of planning and development?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I am still the approver. Advice comes to me from the department, and then there is a Memorandum of Administrative Arrangement (MoAA) between the department and council to make sure they acquit it properly and in accordance with the act.

Mr TELFER: Are you saying it is the minister and the minister only who makes the decisions about whether the projects proposed for funding under the Planning and Development Fund are appropriate for those principles?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Yes, but under advice from the department. I might add that the department has done quite a bit of work on this over the years.

Mr TELFER: It is the first time I have heard of election commitments directly funded out of this fund, so that is interesting.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: You might say that, but the department has done a lot of work on what fits into this fund and what does not, and they provided me with advice about that.

Mr TELFER: Is there an ongoing expectation of the formula or a proportion of other contribution? I know that with this fund, in particular, there was previous scope to do 5:1, 4:1, 3:1, but in recent years it really has been a fifty-fifty fund that has gone to projects.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Sorry, can you repeat the question for me?

Mr TELFER: With previous allocations of funding, say five years ago, a smaller proportion was expected of applicants, say 20 per cent or 30 per cent, whereas in recent years, because of the competitive nature of the fund and the shortfall in it, there has been an expectation that it has been more of a fifty-fifty process.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I cannot speak to matters that came into place before I was minister. It is fair to say that councils are competitive. They are competitive for all government funding, and maybe some of the federal processes have enhanced that too, because I would imagine nearly every council now has a list of assets they want to upgrade.

Mr TELFER: It says P&D Fund in particular.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: No, I am just saying that that activity—I have noticed from dealings with my own council that they are pretty sharp on it now, so that might be driving the application process. It might also be that the previous government, for instance, used this fund to pay for the implementation of the planning system. Again, I think, a sensible thing to do, but one that should be noted.

Ms PRATT: Let's move on to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 114. It is ministerial responsibilities. Regarding the West Beach Trust, minister, how many homeless people are currently being housed at the West Beach park?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I could either ask the Chief Executive of the West Beach Trust, who is in the gallery, or I could take it on notice. Do you want me to take it on notice? It did not come up in any of my briefings, but I could seek an answer for you on that.

Ms PRATT: That is fine, please take it on notice, but I will continue with a supplementary. Given the weekly rent is $300, do you offer a concession rate for homeless people?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Again, I would have to take it on notice.

Ms PRATT: Has the Minister for Planning had any conversations with the Minister for Human Services regarding the West Beach park and referral processes for vulnerable people staying at the park, given the recent media around a homeless case who was residing at the West Beach park?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: No, I have not.

Ms PRATT: I am moving us to the Port Pirie Greening Program with some budget references, either paper 3, page 106 or paper 5, part 2, page 45, relating to TLAP. The Marshall Liberal government announced the Port Pirie master plan project in late 2021. It is my understanding that PLUS is the lead agency for this project. How does the Port Pirie master plan project relate to the Greening Port Pirie program, which will be funded by the $5.7 million for P&D Fund?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Apparently, the project is all about the master plan controlling the public realm and attempting to divert people to places which are less contaminated and less polluted, so the master plan gets put in place and then the funds in this get channelled into those areas of the public realm where we want people to spend time and where it is the safest for them to do so.

Ms PRATT: I have two questions on this line and I am finished, Mr Chair. How much funding is the district council of Port Pirie contributing to the project, and how has the funding of this project impacted on the funding amount available for all councils in the 2022-23 annual Open Space Grant Program?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I might take that on notice, but I would say that—

Ms PRATT: You are not in a position to provide any insight?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: —lead in Port Pirie is a very serious issue, and it should be a priority of the government, and it is. If people say, you have the wrong priorities, then I would disagree with them, but I will take it on notice and get that information for you.

Mr TELFER: It is probably about funding allocation rather than priorities as a subject matter.

The CHAIR: With that response, the time allotted has expired. I declare the examination of the portfolio of Planning and Land Use Services completed. Thank you to all the public servants who have made a contribution over the last few weeks of this process, and for your contribution in general.

Sitting suspended from 12:49 to 13:45.