House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Development (Interim Development Control) Amendment Bill DEVELOPMENT (INTERIM DEVELOPMENT CONTROL) AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Second Reading Second reading. The Hon. R.B. SUCH House of Assembly Fisher The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:18): I move: That this bill be read a second time. The Hon. R.B. SUCH House of Assembly The Hon. R.B. SUCH: The purpose of this bill—which, as members can see, originated in the Legislative Council—is to stop a government from reducing the community rights of participation in relation to planning. In particular, the bill would prevent a government from using a provision of the Development Act, section 28 Interim Operation, that allows government to bring planning changes into effect immediately and thereby circumvent the statutory public consultation regime. Section 28 allows the minister to bring a development plan amendment (DPA) into operation on an interim basis at the same time that it goes out for public consultation. There are three examples that have been listed which indicate why this measure is considered necessary. The first one relates to the Regulated Trees Development Plan Amendment and members would know that issue was the subject of a bill, regulations and then a DPA. The DPA was brought in under interim operation on 21 November 2012. The purpose of that, presumably, was to make it harder to chop down trees to try to preserve some trees until the final planning arrangements had been put in place. It is argued that that would have been an appropriate use of interim operation. Instead, the consequence of that amendment has been to make it easier to remove trees, thereby ignoring public consultation and we are seeing in the community the impact of that DPA and the removal of a significant number of trees. The second case relates to the Statewide Wind Farm DPA. This DPA was brought in under interim operation and it made it easier to build wind farms by removing public notification and appeal rights in the majority of cases. The third matter which has given rise to concern is the Capital City DPA. This was brought into operation at the same time as the public consultation commenced. It went to public consultation on 28 March, but submissions closed on 1 June. The planning department's website states: It is in operation on a temporary (interim) basis while feedback is sought from the community. During this time, all the proposed policies are in effect. In the case of the Capital City DPA, most of the controversy is centred around the approval of a multistorey residential development in Sturt Street known as the Mayfield development. The development consists of three towers, the highest being 14 storeys. The ground floor will be offices and shops and the higher floors residential. There will also be basement car parking. I do not need to go through all of these cases in further detail, but I think the purpose of the bill is quite clear. In effect, it is to stop governments engaging in practices which deny the community any meaningful say in relation to planning issues. Whilst that DPA process might be well-intentioned, the reality is that it takes democracy out of the planning process. The bill seeks to ensure that interim operation is not a fast-tracking tool to be used by a minister without proper regard to planning principles. At the moment, all a minister has to do is to be of the opinion that it is necessary, in the interests of orderly and proper development, to use these interim provisions. In essence, what this bill seeks to do is to ensure that public consultation is only curtailed in the most necessary circumstances. As I indicated at the start, this bill originated in the upper house and was introduced and guided through the upper house by the Hon. Mark Parnell. I commend the bill to the house. Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.