DEVELOPMENT (CONTROL OF EXTERNAL PAINTING) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 27 November 2008. Page 1171.)

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:00): I want to make a brief contribution. I commend the member for Light for bringing this bill before the house. I think every member is aware that, at times, you see developments which are painted inappropriately for the context of their surrounds. If you are not careful, you can get a snowballing effect. For example, Joe Bloggs paints his business premises, or Mrs Joe Bloggs paints hers, the gaudiest colour they can think of, and then someone else has to outdo them.

Particularly in heritage areas like Gawler, you get an unseemly and unwanted mosaic of hideous colours. I support this bill and I will be voting for it, but I have written to the Minister for Urban Development and Planning about the matter of heritage themes being pursued vigorously so that, in an area where you have a good case for protecting and preserving heritage or a theme (such as Hahndorf's German tradition), people cannot and should not be putting up any old tacky building that is out of character with the area.

I have said in this place before that, in Europe and the United Kingdom, if you were to do that sort of thing in some of their historic villages and towns, you would probably be dealt with in various ways, including being run out of town. The big corporations like fast food outlets comply because they know that they are in the business of making money and they will put up a facility that is in keeping with the heritage character of an area, and so they should. If you go to places like Hahndorf, sadly, you will see that recently we have had some new developments there which are about as German as my boot. They do not fit in at all.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: So, where is your boot made?

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: Well, I am not wearing my German shoes today. Nearly everything is made in China these days, even the—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: So, indeed, on some occasions, your boot would be Deutsch?

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: On some days, my shoes are German, because Germans make very good things. They are very good engineers and craftspeople. I can recommend some brands privately to the Attorney, who I think is still wearing his Dunlop Volleys. In places like Hahndorf—and it is not just Hahndorf—I think there should be a theme, and I am very disappointed that Mount Barker council did not use its powers to insist on buildings that were more appropriate. In areas like Victor Harbor, which is a lovely place in a beautiful setting, if you are not careful, those places could be ruined and tourists will not want to go to a place if it looks like something out of a horror movie. I support the member for Light. I think it is great that he is bringing this in and I will be voting for it.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:04): I received the amendments just a few minutes ago and I think it will change our position in relation to this measure. I have a lot of sympathy for this bill which, as the member for Fisher said, aims to protect the heritage value of towns where the main street is the heritage precinct. I represented Kapunda and I still have a lot to do with that community, as does the member for Stuart. The heritage of that town's street is most important. I understand that the changes this bill would make to the act are small: simply changing the definition of 'development' to include external painting. Under the act the council would have to apply to the minister to create a declared zone, whereby a change of land use requiring a development application would deal with any external painting as a development in its own right.

The bill is aimed at commercial properties. The member nods his head in agreement, but the question arises: what about residential property used to run a business? Will that be impacted? The member may like to address that matter in his reply. The member for Light needs to investigate this area and clarify it in his follow-up remarks. I note his amendment that, in other words, it will not apply to residential. In Kapunda we have residential dwellings in the main street. I will mention one, Ford House, a bed and breakfast, a beautiful heritage place and one of the only buildings I know of where the roof does not have any timber in it; it is purely riveted and soldered. There are other residences in the main street, so does that come into it?

This is a difficult area. All of us in this place would support the tenor of what he is trying to do, but do we want to see restrictions put on private people who want to reserve the right to paint their house? I agree with this because in Kapunda we had a tyre franchise in the middle of the main street that was painted bright yellow. I looked at it every day because it was right opposite my office. I always thought it was grossly out of place and, even though the tyre company was approached, because it was its corporate colour it would not change it.

If companies want to have a business in a precinct declared a heritage precinct, they should either comply or not set up there. We know of other franchise businesses, particularly food outlets. I should not name them but, for example, there are Kentucky Fried Chicken, Red Rooster and Hungry Jacks, which are painted in corporate colours. When one of those chains wanted to set up in the Barossa Valley the Barossa Council prohibited it because they would not change their colour. I do not know why they cannot keep the same pattern but change the colours to be more in keeping with a heritage precinct.

I support this bill as it is non-residential, but I will hold back my final decision to see what the member for Light says in relation to those people who reside in one of these precincts. He assures me (via these amendments) that councils still have the power to sit in judgment on any appeal from a constituent or ratepayer and have the final say. I reckon the new member for Frome would have an interest in this, as a former mayor. He may like to join the debate, as I understand he can. It might be his first utterance in this place. I will sit down now, but I say to the house that, with these amendments, we can support it, but I want those few points clarified by the member. So, I invite the member for Light to get to his feet and say a few words.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (11:09): I was not going to speak on this matter today because the opposition is still seeking advice.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: The opposition, for the benefit of the Attorney-General, has a different way of consulting than does the government. I heard a definition recently on the airwaves about government consulting. When the government here in South Australia consults, it actually calls a meeting, gets the people together, walks in, tells you what it is going to do and then goes away and says that it has consulted. That is what this government does when it consults. There are dozens of examples of the way this government goes about consulting.

The opposition has a different idea when it comes to consulting. The opposition approaches those who we believe would be stakeholders or interested parties and genuinely seeks their opinion, and after careful consideration of those opinions, we come to a position on the issue at hand. The opposition is somewhat concerned at the rapid nature in which, apparently, this matter will be brought to a vote. It is also an interesting tactic on the government's part to send one of its backbenchers to run this as a piece of private member's business.

I strongly believe in the principle that private members' time should belong to private members and should not be controlled by the government through its numbers in the house. We have seen this government ignore that principle. From time to time, we have seen this government rush through matters of its wanting during private members' time by utilising one of its backbenchers to sponsor a particular bill or motion. We have even seen this government take over private members' time by insisting that we vote on a matter moved by a member of the opposition.

Mr PICCOLO: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Can we get to the topic before us, rather than this tangent? If he opposes the bill, that is fine. Let us talk about the bill—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Light—

Mr Piccolo: He hasn't actually touched the bill.

The SPEAKER: The member for Light will take his seat. The member for MacKillop is straying off the topic of the bill and perhaps talking about issues surrounding the management of the bill. I do not think that that is strictly out of order, given that the member for Light will have an opportunity in the reply to respond to the remarks of the member for MacKillop.

Mr WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your very wise ruling. Might I remind the member for Light that he is the one who has been utilised as a vehicle in his party room to bring this matter to a head today, and I am explaining to him why he will not receive the support of the opposition on this matter. I bring the Notice Paper to the attention of the member for Light and suggest that he looks at the length of time that many matters languish on the Notice Paper. Private members endeavouring to bring matters of importance to themselves and their constituents to the attention of the house keep getting those matters adjourned by the member for Light's party, yet he wants to bring this matter to a head before the opposition has had a genuine opportunity to consult with the interested parties.

This matter came to the attention of the house, as I understand it, on the last private members' day available to the house at the end of the last year. We have had the Christmas festive season and the holiday period intervening—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: I worked all the way through it.

Mr WILLIAMS: We heard about your working at Riverton, sitting under a tree with your book. We know the way you work, Attorney.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WILLIAMS: The opposition will involve itself in genuine discussion and genuine consultation over this matter. We think it is very important. This goes to the very heart of the economic future of this state—the retail sector. The member for Light, through his body language, suggests that that is not right. Let me explain to the member for Light that the retail sector is a large portion of the economy of this state.

The retail sector relies largely on being able to advertise and identify where people can conduct their business with a particular outlet—for a service, or whatever—and part of that is companies using a livery. They advertise a livery, and they decorate their place of business with that livery so that they can be easily recognised.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Where is Malcolm Buckby these days?

Mr WILLIAMS: Mr Speaker, if the Attorney would listen for once (and it is something that I know he is not very good at), I will explain to him why the opposition will be opposing this matter if it is brought to a head today, that is, because we are still going through a consultation process. We may, at the end of the day, support the matter, but we cannot support it today because we have made commitments to talk to people—something that might be very foreign to the Attorney. We have commitments to listen to people—something which I know is foreign to the Attorney.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Then why can no-one contact you about—

Mr WILLIAMS: I am explaining to the member for Light why—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: How do I get in touch with them or the member for MacKillop?

The SPEAKER: The Attorney will come to order.

Mr WILLIAMS: —he will not get support for this matter if he brings it on today. We will consult, and we will consider the importance—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You're always doing something else.

The SPEAKER: I have already called the Attorney to order once.

Mr WILLIAMS: We will weigh up the importance of heritage versus the importance of a freehold title owner's right to conduct their business the way they see fit, including demonstrating in a very overt way where people can do business with them. As the member for Light well knows, he can readily recognise a number of businesses from afar as he drives or walks down any commercial street in his electorate. Is it his intent to take away the opportunity for businesses to do that? Has he seriously weighed up the relative merit of retaining heritage in a character that suited one particular point in time, as opposed to the need for businesses to be able to advertise their premises, the place where they conduct their business, because that is what the argument is about. Should the external painting of a building actually be considered as a development?

It is a complex question, and that is why the opposition will consult on this issue; that is why the opposition will take counsel on this; and that is why the opposition will seriously consider the matter. However, I need to explain to the member that we will not be supporting this matter if it is brought to a vote today. We may support it if he is willing to leave it for some weeks. I again suggest that the member goes back to consult the Notice Paper to seethe length of time that matters languish in this place, when he and his colleagues refuse even to consider the position that they will take. There are dozens of matters on the Notice Paper that can—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Attorney is warned. I would hate for him to have to move his own suspension from the house.

Mr WILLIAMS: Bring it on, sir; I will support him! There are dozens of matters that could be dealt with in this house if the government and its backbenchers would just go out and talk to people and take a position. That is what we are doing on this matter, and we will deal with it in a timely fashion; but we are not prepared to deal with it today.

Mr PICCOLO (Light) (11:19): We could have saved the house quite a bit of time and discussed other private members' matters had the member for MacKillop just stood up and said, 'I don't understand this issue; I'm not ready for it; I didn't do my homework.' We could have actually moved on. That is all he had to say that, but he had to cover up his inability actually to deal with this issue and a lot of other things.

Regarding consultation, over the Christmas period, while other people were holidaying, I was at work. I sent letters to all members of parliament to advise them of my bill. I also spoke to the opposition spokesperson about this matter, as a good member does. I had a meeting with the Hon. David Ridgway from the other place, and he raised one concern, which I am addressing in this amendment. So, I have consulted, I have actually listened and I have responded in a positive way. This nonsense about not consulting is just that: nonsense.

The Hon. S.W. Key: Arrant nonsense!

Mr PICCOLO: It is arrant nonsense. I have also consulted with local government (through the Local government Association) and sent it out to other councils. I have received no adverse feedback from that mail-out to all councils. I understand that the Property Council of Australia has some concerns but, as put to me, it opposes any legislation which restricts property owners' rights. That is its starting position. That is fine; I do not have a problem with that.

An honourable member: They are only in it for profits.

Mr PICCOLO: That is right, and that is quite an appropriate position for that organisation to take. However, to suggest that it should be the overriding position is something I do not agree with. Having said that, when I discussed the actual provisions, its concerns were lessened and it was not the imposition it thought it would be, so I think this bill does achieve the right balance.

More importantly, it does not make a major change, because the external painting of a building is development already, in some cases. Where there is a change in land use which generates a different application, the external painting or the external appearance of the building is already controlled. This bill will remove that anomaly. You can have two buildings now in the same street with the same land use under two sets of laws. That is the current situation.

For the member for MacKillop to suggest that this bill would change all our commercial streetscapes is just nonsense. It will not do that at all; it builds on what is already in place and removes an anomaly which gives some property owners an advantage over others, so it actually creates a level playing field. I think it is very important in business to create a level playing field. It is a nonsense to suggest that it is an argument of heritage versus property rights and people's rights. I would have thought that by now we would have moved on in the debate. It is a question of achieving an appropriate balance.

An earlier speaker for the opposition was carping about how we do not consult enough and how we do not give communities a say and, yet, what this bill does is to give the local community a say in what important buildings in their streetscapes should look like. However, they are opposed to that. In one area they support it; in another area they oppose it. That is the consistency of inconsistency of the opposition. Yesterday, members of the opposition (quite rightly) were suggesting that, under the new residential code, that there be provision for protecting heritage. The member for Unley and other members stood up to say how important it was. It was important yesterday but not important today. I suppose they take their lead from their leader: what he says one day does not carry forward to the next day. The opposition's opposition to this makes no sense; it has no logic to it.

Importantly, the bill also has some checks and balances. A council has to apply to the minister and the minister has to grant the request to allow for this bill to apply in a conservation zone. In other words, it is not automatic; there are some checks and balances. Councils that may be a little over-zealous will not get the zone. It does not mean that all things are the same. My amendment does address concerns which were raised by the opposition about the scope of the bill. This bill does provide an appropriate balance to allow commercial success but also to protect important buildings in historic conservation zones. It will not affect new buildings: it only protects existing buildings. This bill will not apply to McDonald's, for example, which generally builds new buildings, because it has a development—

The Hon. I.F. Evans: Even if they're built in historic zones?

Mr PICCOLO: If there is a change in land use it generates a development application that is covered by existing law. This bill does not impose upon that; it will not impact on places like McDonald's and Hungry Jack's etc., which have brand-new buildings. They generate an application in their own right.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: My question to the member for Light is: does 'painting' include coloured rendering which is not painted but is coloured by a pigment inserted into the external render?

Mr PICCOLO: My understanding is that 'painting' is the ordinary sense of the word 'painting' and that it is applied.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Madam Chair, I understand that I can ask questions or speak for 15 minutes at this point.

The CHAIR: Three questions.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The other question I have for the member for Light, then, is: what ramifications would the bill have for signs made of Colorbond? Under this bill, will these signs, which are coloured by the manufacturer and are not painted, be allowed in these zones?

Mr PICCOLO: A Colorbond sign is not painted. A Colorbond sign is a sign, and it is covered by existing provisions under the Development Act.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I will not ask any more questions. However, the member for MacKillop says that we should consult, and the reason we should consult is that this bill allows for paint colour to be regulated, when Colorbond can be any colour desired, and that clearly is a nonsense. If you are going to restrict colour, restrict colour.

Mr PICCOLO: I move:

Page 2, after line 16—Insert:

(4) Section 4—After subsection (1) insert:

(1a) A regulation made for the purposes of paragraph (faa) of the definition of development under subsection (1) will not extend to a building used wholly or predominantly for residential purposes.

In clarification, I advise that the only feedback I received was a concern in relation to the scope of the bill, even though I made it quite clear in my second reading speech that it related only to non-residential sites.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: Very modest scope, like you.

Mr PICCOLO: Thank you. I was quite happy to take on board that comment by the Liberal opposition, and I was quite happy to move my amendment to deal with that particular concern. What I will also say in clarification is that examples provided so far are actually covered by the existing Development Act and this bill does not alter the existing requirements.

Mr VENNING: I want to ask a question of the mover, who is a past mayor (and we also have Mayor Brock with us as well): I understand the final decision on these matters—

Members interjecting:

Mr VENNING: Madam Chair, will you tell those two gentlemen to shut up. A person is trying to think on his feet, and it is a damn nuisance—

The CHAIR: Order! Member for Schubert, it is out of order to respond to interjections. Please proceed; we have limited time.

Mr VENNING: I am trying, Madam Chair, to assess the situation. As the member for MacKillop has said, we are in a difficult position here. This has not been fully discussed in the party room because we want more information and we want to consult on the matter.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! The Attorney-General has been warned. I suggest that he keep his lips buttoned.

Mr VENNING: And if it gets to half past and we have not dealt with this, the member for Light can blame you, Attorney-General, for delaying his bill for another two weeks.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr VENNING: Thank you, very much. I would be annoyed with you if I were in the member for Light's place. We are trying to do the right thing here. In relation to the amendments you have moved today, I said in my second reading speech that the decision is with the council. There is an appeal mechanism that gives a person the normal rights to appeal to the council if necessary, and I suppose that is dealt with in the Local Government Act, anyway. Can you advise which act this comes under; would you class this sort of thing as coming under category 1, 2 or 3 under the Planning Act; and would the full consultation process apply?

Mr PICCOLO: In terms of the painting, whether they have rights of appeal would depend on whether it is category 1, 2 or 3, and that is a determination which will be made according to the existing regulations. I have to be careful what I say here because, in the historical conservation zone, my guess is that that would be a category 3, which means that both the representer and the applicant would have a right of appeal.

The CHAIR: The time for consideration of this matter has expired. It is therefore necessary to report progress.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.