HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS) (URBAN RENEWAL) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 2 May 2013.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:01): I rise to speak on this bill which was introduced by the Attorney I think in his role as Minister for Planning. There are four preliminary matters that I wish to address. One is that at the time of the minister introducing this bill on 2 May he made it explicitly clear in his contribution to the house that:

It is the Government's intention that this Bill lie on the table in this chamber to enable feedback from local government and other stakeholders. We will not seek to further debate until key stakeholders have had the opportunity to provide that feedback. The Government would like to make it clear that it is willing to consider appropriate amendments that will satisfy stakeholders, and briefings will be made available to members who seek them at any stage about the Bill.

The second matter I raise as a preliminary is that I note that the Minister for Planning has undertaken the carriage of this bill and not minister Koutsantonis as the urban planning minister, who legally has responsibility for the act.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: The Attorney is shaking his head. The Urban Planning Act, as I understand it, is the direct responsibility of the minister for urban planning, namely minister Koutsantonis, as published in the annual report—urban development. The third matter is that in the advice received on this matter I note that the President of the Local Government Association, a key stakeholder in this debate, Mr David O'Loughlin, is an employee of the urban renewal authority and of course, therefore, of the government. He has, therefore, been excluded from the negotiations and consultations that at least the opposition has had in relation to this bill.

I do not cast any reflection on the fact that Mr O'Loughlin is the President of the LGA or, indeed, that he is an employee of the government, but I just place that on the record. At no time during my consultations—which have been brief, given the circumstances of the debating of this bill—has the disclosure of that matter been brought to the opposition's attention until the matter was raised by the LGA.

Fortunately, I keep an eye on these things, and the 200-plus employees who suddenly travelled from Housing SA across to the urban renewal authority all had names and we had a list of them and one of them, of course, is Mr O'Loughlin. We will come back to that shortly on the question of conflict of interest but, as I say, I am not casting a personal reflection on Mr O'Loughlin in either of those roles.

The fourth matter is that the government has informed us, via the second reading contribution, that Mr Brian Hayes QC's review panel, which is to report to the minister of the day in late 2014, has reviewed and, it is claimed, supports the bill. I place on the record that the opposition has seen neither any evidence whatsoever of that nor a copy of any presentation from that committee which, given its charter and its obligation to report back to the government, we would have thought would have been at least made available. It has not been.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am not sure if this helps the honourable member, but my recollection of what I said, and it should be understood properly, was that this bill was shown to Mr Hayes' group, they suggested changes and those changes were adopted. I think that is what I said.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am happy to read for the record what was said in the Hansard. I do not take the point of the interruption from the Attorney. It is usually quite helpful but, in this instance, it seems that he has some deficiency in his memory. What he said in his second reading speech was:

While the Expert Panel on Planning Reform will continue its comprehensive review of the planning system, this bill will provide a kick start to an important reform of our planning and development system. The Expert Panel has reviewed and supports this bill.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: I make the point, so that it is absolutely clear for the Attorney, that at no time during the course of the development of this bill in the parliament (which is from 2 May) has the opposition been privy to or been provided any information whatsoever from the expert panel or Mr Hayes, as its chair, in support of that assertion. Given its charter to undertake a comprehensive review of the planning system in South Australia and its being paid by the taxpayer and its obligation to report to the minister later in 2014, one would have thought, if there had been a special request made by the Attorney to consider it, we would have been presented with their consideration, any details of amendments that they have recommended and, indeed, who of the expert panel, if not all of them, has reviewed it.

I will first identify some aspects of the bill that is currently before us. The purpose of the bill, apart from changing the name of the act and a few ancillary matters such as that, firstly, is to establish the urban renewal authority, formerly the land management corporation, as a statutory corporation. Secondly, it is to outline a new urban renewal planning process, in particular, a special precinct development process which is to override and sit across our current development laws.

Members would know, because we have had this presented to us in regulatory form, that the urban renewal authority (as was the former land management corporation) is an entity that was established by regulation, and those regulations were re-promulgated after its new charter was announced and it was reborn as the urban renewal authority, I think in late 2011, by Premier Weatherill. Since that time, various announcements have been made about its new and extra roles.

The urban renewal authority is now under the stewardship of Mr Fred Hansen, who has undertaken the role of chief executive officer and sits under a board of seven members. I am assuming that the final board has been appointed (there was a bit of a delay in that), and they operate under regulatory power. It would also be well known to members that local government and, in some areas, the state planning department and both the Minister for Planning and the Minister for Urban Development currently supervise and carry out the functions of the control of planning, essentially, by a zoning and rezoning process.

The government has claimed in its presentation to date by the Minister for Planning that the new precinct development process is to assist the urban renewal authority but that it will also allow councils to apply to use that process to undertake precinct plans, most particularly in a joint venture-style development. The government, through the Minister for Planning, has also claimed that this will be a better process for redevelopments with multiple landowners, such as Port Adelaide, and for large scale, long-term sites, such as the Bowden site (formerly the Clipsal site), and proposals at Tonsley, the former Mitsubishi site.

There are significant extensions of powers, including the power to coordinate infrastructure rollout; to grant concessions, by regulation, to deal with land-based taxation; and the invalidation of council by-laws. I will come to those again shortly, but let me return to the question of consultation.

For the record, after the Attorney's statement on 2 May, which I have read out, that this would be a bill that would lie on the table, I was offered a briefing by members of the Attorney's office and DPTI to consider the proposed legislation. I was provided with a copy of a PowerPoint presentation that had been provided to the urban renewal authority, which trades as Renewal SA. The Renewal SA board, I was told, was provided with that on 25 March 2013, which pre-dated the tabling of the bill, and also with the PowerPoint presentation given to the LGA, or at least representatives of it, on 24 March 2013, also pre-dating the introduction of the bill.

My briefing was provided on 14 May 2013. During that briefing, which I thank representatives from the department for providing, it was clearly indicated that submissions were expected to be received from, as significant stakeholders, the UDIA, the Property Council, the LGA and the URA—that is, the urban renewal authority itself—and that there had been some comment made that entities such as the Environmental Defenders Office might have a view on these matters. There was no indication that they had been brought into the consultative tent.

I make that point because all too often now, as we have seen in other bills just in this session, the consultation process is highly selective. It is of concern to the opposition that this practice continues. It is equally concerning that, when statements are made in the parliament of the intent to ensure that stakeholders are not only consulted but they have adequate time to present their submissions, and we in the opposition, who are party to the debate, are told that there will be time for that to occur and that that information will be forthcoming, we expect that we should be able to rely on it as accurate and assume it will be provided.

The reality is that, notwithstanding that we have not heard a jot further from the department or the minister's office on the concerns that have been expressed by a number of the relevant players, as an opposition we have at least taken the initiative to contact some of them because they were identified as people who were concerned about this legislation. It seems a number of things are absolutely clear. One is that there has been inadequate time for the Local Government Association to receive feedback from its membership on how this will affect a number of the councils.

Whilst this bill relates to housing and urban development, clearly there are some definition failures in this bill, which can mean that there are significant other councils that may well be affected by this. It seems clear, on the information the opposition has received from councils that have only recently read about this in their LGA newsletter, that they have not had the opportunity to present any case on how this legislation could be improved. It ought to send a very clear message to the Attorney if this is the standard which is going to be imposed by the government when it says that it will present something for consultation. It is not a unique thing. Sometimes government ministers have said, 'Look, we're introducing some challenging new legislation but we want everybody to have a look at it, so we are going to lay it on the table for a number of weeks and we are going to fully consider those submissions, and we welcome those.' It is not something that is the usual course but it is not unique.

You, Mr Speaker, have done it from time to time, and other ministers have done it, to enable everyone to have a say. It is very concerning when that is stated at the time of laying the bill on the table and outlining what is intended, and it is then removed. At the meeting that was provided for the opposition on 15 April, clearly there was genuine intent by those providing the advice that this information would be forthcoming, that we in fact would get some answers to the questions raised, including a list of the powers to be overridden by other authorities, which is one of the issues that was raised during the consultation. Not a word!

I am very disappointed that the Attorney has really fallen to the depths of this type of approach now, but the opposition is alert to the fact that we simply cannot trust this new regime of alleged consultation. I think it is fair to say that those in the field who are employed on behalf of various industries and representative bodies are also alert to what is nothing short of mischievous and, I would suggest, unhelpful in the orderly progress of debate in this chamber. If the government wants to maintain that level of standard, which I suggest is low in the gutter, then we will have to deal with it accordingly.

The other aspect I raise as a preliminary matter, is the lack of appearance on this bill as the mover of the Minister for Urban Development, who is responsible for this act. The government, of course, can choose whomever it wishes to promote a particular bill, and I do not think there is any question that the Attorney has a valid interest in this bill. As the Minister for Planning, he has a very significant role proposed in urban development and, in this bill in particular, so it is not unreasonable that he would come in and want to make a contribution to the debate.

What is unusual is that the minister who is responsible for this act, appears to have been completely overlooked. I hope that minister Koutsantonis comes in and makes a contribution to this debate, because he is clearly the principal minister in the bill who has oversight of a number of aspects of the act, the new regime of the urban renewal authority which is accountable to him and, furthermore, that he is to be the direct supervisor of the new processes for precinct planning. There is no question that the Minister for Planning has a role and, in fact, in some areas under this proposed bill, it is required that he be consulted—whatever that means—because I think the definition of 'consult' for this government has evaporated. Anyway, whatever it is, he has a role to play in it.

But I do not know, perhaps there has been a bit of rivalry as to who is the most important, or who is the most senior. I do not know the answer, but I think it is reasonable that we hear from the Minister for Urban Development as to his role in this, and as to why he has been completely wiped off the page. It must be humiliating for him, really, but, nevertheless, he has not been stripped of all responsibility, he is apparently going to have a role under this legislation, he is just not coming in here to tell us about it as the principal.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Lucky guy.

Ms CHAPMAN: I hear interjections from the part-time member for Elder; I trust that will not be continued.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

The SPEAKER: I was about to call the member for Elder to order for behaving in the manner of the member for Kavel. The member for Bragg.

Ms CHAPMAN: The other matter which I touched on was the question of identification of any conflict of interest. I mentioned that Mr David O'Loughlin is an employee of the urban renewal authority and has a senior role in that entity. He is also currently and recently elected as the chair of the Local Government Association. Quite properly, he did not attend the meeting I had with the LGA—other representatives attended and, of course, it would be quite inappropriate if he did present.

What is concerning to the opposition in this new standard that they have applied is that I think that it would have been appropriate for the relationship to be identified at the briefing at the very least, if not in the second reading contribution of the Attorney, for reasons—because I am forensic with these things—of identifying that Mr O'Loughlin transferred with a tranche of several hundred others across to the urban renewal authority from Housing SA which has been depleted. They are left, I think, with Mr Fagan-Schmidt and a few others to handle the rental-defaulting tenants of Housing SA, and manage the minor aspects of Housing SA.

The real management of property has been transferred in this role over to the urban renewal authority, and Mr O'Loughlin, of course, has transferred with them. As has been pretty obvious in the public statements, I do not doubt that the purpose of this whole exercise is what the opposition predicted some years ago, and that is that we will just have a mass sale of the last remaining significant asset left in government hands, namely the $7.5 billion Housing Trust assets that are held and which have now been sent over into the hands of the urban renewal authority, which we all know is an entity charged with the responsibility to develop and sell.

I come back to Mr O'Loughlin to say only this: that it would have been appropriate for the government to identify, at least at the briefing, the potential conflict of interest with Mr O'Loughlin's employment, or at least some reassurance that there had been no contribution made by Mr O'Loughlin in the development of this with the URA, because we do not know. We are told that the government has consulted with the URA, but we do not know who, whether it is the chairman of the board, Mr Fred Hansen as the CEO or a group of others, or whether or not Mr O'Loughlin has been part of that.

It seems that the absence of any disclosure of this only adds to the concern not just of the opposition but of the public as to the transparency of the government in its consultations. I do not know whether it will ever learn. Here we are in the wake of the blood that has been dripping from the Ombudsman's report about the conduct out of the Mount Barker fiasco and, in particular, the development of growth plans hastened under the watch of minister Holloway, and the scathing report by the Ombudsman as to the conduct of members in the department with respect to the appointment of a private consultant who had previously represented those pursuing the development in Mount Barker.

The whole Mount Barker fiasco, of course, has been a lesson in what every government should not do in attempting to suffocate, squash and keep silenced and excluded from adequate consultation and information—if ever that was an exercise of trying to crush the public, of which they stood up and revolted, that is one. You would think that there would be some lessons learned from it but, sadly, that is not the case.

There was an opportunity here for the government to come clean and disclose this. Just today in The Australian there is another example of where the government has had questions raised about the employment of a member of the planning department who is now disclosed to be a shareholder—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I take a point of order on two counts. First of all, I am being a bit intimidated by the noises made by the member for Kavel.

The SPEAKER: Aren't we all.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Secondly, I think we have given the member for Bragg a fair bit of room, and I do not in any way—well, I do a little bit—want to contain her to some relevance to the legislation, because—

The SPEAKER: I had questions about whose precious blood it was.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Indeed. We travelled down this path this morning with those two chaps from the ABC.

Mr Gardner: Romani ite domum!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: 'Ite Romani domum' I think is the correct term. Anyway.

The SPEAKER: I am sure the member for Bragg will take all of that on board.

Ms CHAPMAN: Indeed, sir. You see, the problem is that when the government does not disclose these things it raises the question of not just potential conflict of interest but perceived conflict of interest. We are canvassing the merits of a bill, Mr Speaker, which you will be very interested in, because it is proposed to be applied in due course to a property in your electorate, namely the Bowden site, according to the second reading explanation.

So I am sure you will be very interested, sir, because I know how much you value the advice and contribution made by councils in local government and the role they play in planning, which I suggest will be severely curtailed by this bill. You may think that is a good thing or you may think it is a bad thing, but I know that you will have a view on it, so when members of the department have a very key role in the declaration of planning precincts and the implementation plans that sit underneath them, I am confident that you would be very interested to know who is doing it.

I simply make the point that we do not want to have a repeat of what occurred in the Mount Barker exercise, where there was a non-disclosure. Here, at the beginning, the embryonic stage, of this legislation, in the very first blush of this legislation, we have no disclosure, and it is a simple one. Why did the government have to keep this secret? Why could the government not have come out straightaway and said, 'This is the situation'?

So I raise the fact that there is, yet again, this morning, this publication of the apparent complaint of a member of the planning department paralleled with a member of the URA, who no doubt has a legitimate interest as a joint shareholder in a private company that enjoys the benefit of contractual employment and income from the government and who is also married to a director of that entity.

What is important for the public, with the government setting up this new regime that will swallow up, overlap and override our long-serving development legislation and the processes that sit under it, is that they want to have some assurance, some confidence that the very people who are keeping secrets from them are actually going to be accountable.

What is particularly concerning, as was evident this morning on radio, is that the Minister for Planning—and I hope not the Minister for Urban Development, because I look forward to his contribution on this debate—is in this sort of Sergeant Schultz mode. It is this 'I don't know; I'm advised by my department X/Y/Z.'

The problem is that the government comes in here and asks us to look at this legislation, and says, 'We are going to take this over, but you can trust us'. The demonstration by this morning's performance, when there was an opportunity for the Minister for Planning to reassure the people of South Australia that there was no conflict of interest, not just 'Look, I am advised by my department that this is the situation. They had it in hand, they supervised it. There is no conflict of interest'—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

The SPEAKER: I warn the member for Elder for the first time, for interjecting out of his place.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Mr Speaker, point of order. Whilst you are at it, perhaps in a confessional mode, the member for Kavel has continued to interject, quoting Sergeant Schultz at me, which I am finding distressing.

The SPEAKER: I call the Deputy Premier to order for a plainly bogus point of order.

Ms CHAPMAN: What happens is that in this environment, where we are being asked to trust the government to responsibly introduce a precinct process of planning to overlap what has been a time-honoured development process by other entities, he is saying, 'Give it to me and the Minister for Urban Development and the urban renewal authority' or whoever we might anoint through this process to be the relevant authority to which we will allocate this role. 'You can trust us because we know what we're doing, and we are open and transparent and we are going to be consultative', etc.

I just remind the house that at the same time that we are viewing this and being asked to consider it, the minister is answering questions on radio, where he is being described as detached and vague in his responses. It is hardly any surprise that the opposition has become increasingly concerned and acutely aware of the exclusion of real information to South Australians.

Rest assured that it has heightened the concern of the opposition about the level of the usual candour from the government in their operation of this proposed new process. I think it is fair to say that, whilst we are critical of the time, the process of consultation, the recent conduct of the minister and his department in other activity that makes us concerned, we too look to having a better and improved development system.

There is always room for improvement, as the Attorney previously outlined when he appointed Mr Brian Hayes QC and many eminent members of his expert panel to undertake a timely and appropriate review of 20-year-old legislation. We endorse that, we support that, we actually think that is a good thing. I wish they would do it on the Education Act, as that is 40 years old. They have had all sorts of reviews, but the government has still not produced a new Education Act in 11 years.

We on this side of the house recognise the importance of always striving to be better and that the planning law could always be improved. We are yet to make a determination on whether or not it is under this model, but certainly some of the submissions we have received highlight that what we are being offered is not the best option but that it may well be a good start, and we are happy to work with relevant parties to ensure that it is achieved.

The other reason it is concerning to us that the government present this as being a beneficial model to provide a better planning process, with, as they say, a level of consultation to be continued with the public—that being identified as one of the objectives of this—is that they get very sceptical of these types of offers when they are being told that, for example, a new system which is to be more efficient and responsive to community concerns.

When they get that sort of platitude, which they view as such, rather than a genuine commitment, it is because of the conduct of the minister and/or his department in recent times. I do not implicate the department in policy development; it clearly has a role in implementing government policy, and I do not reflect on it in that regard. But it is concerning, for example, when the government recently announced that they were going to publish the Playford growth area in the northern metropolitan area.

On 28 May, the government announced that they are going to have a blueprint for the growth of the Northern Adelaide region and that they had unveiled their announcement, which was essentially that there would be two ministerial DPAs issued and that there would be two rezonings. I hope it is not necessary, for the purpose of following this debate, to detail the fact that under our current development rules—that is, essentially, a zoning structure—if there is to be a rezoning of a particular use for an area it is usually done by the local council identifying an amendment. It goes through a certain process, by law involving certain consultation, and then, having the Minister for Planning's approval, it can then become the blueprint for that council to operate under.

I hope I have not butchered the summary of what happens in our development process. I hope I have fairly described it but, if the minister is to introduce his own amendment, he has the power to do so, and it has been his wont under his regime to mass-produce these on a daily basis. My filing cabinets are just about bursting with the number of DPAs that this minister has turned out, but then his predecessor was pretty good at it as well.

I make the point that if he or she as a minister is going to introduce a ministerial DPA, there is a different process, one that can, I think, be much more effective in circumventing the public—and they have a very limited role as it is. The minister can make an announcement and be available for questions about it through his department and have a panel review it, but the one thing that happens at the very least under the current ministerial DPA rules is that he or she has to put their DPA to the Environment, Resources and Development (ERD) Committee of the parliament.

Whilst they might not be seen to have any teeth to the extent of having an overriding role over the government, the reality is that, at least on the Mount Barker development, my recollection is that the committee rejected the recommended ministerial DPA and then I think from memory it may have been the chair who changed his mind and actually voted with the government members of the ERD and that DPA was allowed to go through. So at least once in the time I have been here, the majority—

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: Is that right? The member for Kavel who is very well versed in this matter probably remembers the detail more accurately, so if I have offended the process on that or made it incorrect, I am sure that he will remedy it; and if the ERD Committee has not made an initial decision and then changed its mind, then I am happy of course to give a personal explanation.

However, I make the point that parliamentary committees have an important role but more often than not they comprise a membership of government members and they of course, it appears, as independent as they may wish to be, almost universally reflect the view of the government of the day and do not actually exercise any independent spirit, unlike you, Mr Speaker, who of course at least expressed your view. You seem to have always fallen into line with the cabinet decisions but at least you have eloquently expressed—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The SPEAKER: The Deputy Premier has been called to order. We hope this is a genuine point of order.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is an important point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it is unparliamentary for a member to suggest that other members who are participants in a standing committee of the parliament do not bring their absolute and total independence of mind to bear whilst discharging their duties on a committee. That was clearly, if not the inference, the direct assertion of the deputy leader.

Ms CHAPMAN: Mr Speaker, if I have in any way reflected on a member's contribution to a committee, I wholeheartedly withdraw that assertion.

The SPEAKER: Thank you; your withdrawal is accepted by the house.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you, sir. In establishing a regime in which the public can have confidence, just the other day the government had the opportunity to say, 'Look, here we are. We are genuinely consulting the public; we are embracing and asking them to make a contribution in the development of a plan in this instance for the northern Adelaide district, and we welcome that contribution,' and yet again they fundamentally failed. This is why it becomes very concerning to the opposition as to the bona fides of the government in what they might do under this act which, on the face of it, is to provide competitive efficient planning processes but which miss the mark.

I give you the current example of the northern area because in this instance the minister announced that there would be two rezonings centred around residential growth and employment. There was to be a DPA for the Playford urban growth areas of Angle Vale, Playford North extension and Virginia. There would also be a Greater Edinburgh Parks Employment Lands DPA. There would be consultation around this.

Obviously the government pointed out that this was consistent with their 30-year plan and we, in the opposition, have supported the government's initiative of having a plan. We think it needs to be reviewed because someone seems either not to have listened in the government or the penny has not dropped that the population predictions have significantly changed since they wrote this plan. Nevertheless, planning is important. We endorse it. We wish they would do more of it. We would love to see a transport plan, for example.

In any event, the announcement of the minister on the day was, 'This is the most comprehensive planning process we have undertaken and we will see an unprecedented level of community engagement.' I looked at that and thought this is a new era. This is going to be good. I was thrilled with this announcement of the government. It seemed that finally the light globes had gone on and they were able to see the importance of community consultation, so I, like others, immediately went to the website and downloaded the Playford Growth Area Structure Plan, this new development of an unprecedented level of community engagement, and I read through it.

I identified in it important aspects, including the infrastructure that would be necessary to underpin this magnificent new announcement. I thought that the growth structure plan was good and the government was finally going to tell us in this new 'unprecedented level of community engagement' what has to go with this development, this important initiative.

I might point out that regarding the Greater Edinburgh Parks Employment Lands DPA, I have not seen the structure plan that sits under that; it is not even on the website yet. In any event, we had a good look at this one. Here comes the disappointment, and this is why the government needs to appreciate why there is such public outrage—and I think that fairly describes it—or at the very least, considerable disquiet and almost exhaustion at trying to present to the government and to parties that are not listening. When you read this report, it is an interesting geographical summary of the area; that is helpful. It identifies some existing important infrastructure—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Mr Speaker, I am sorry but we are getting to an area where, with respect, it would be almost as relevant for the honourable member to be reading from the White Pages. We are actually discussing a particular bill and we are now off on a completely different tangent which is related in a general sense to the conspiracy theory we allowed to develop earlier on in the contribution but has no other relevance to the bill.

The SPEAKER: I will listen carefully to what the member for Bragg is saying on this, the second reading reply.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you, sir. So as to dispel any concern raised by the Attorney's statement, I return to the clause in the second reading contribution by the Attorney in which he said, 'and responsive to community concerns' and various other statements in respect of this new process that would involve community consultation. That is why I am highlighting the most recent example of where the government has made a statement on one aspect which is encouraging to read in print but which is not demonstrably followed in action. This is why it is important that the opposition have a very clear understanding of when they are offered something in this bill that it will be followed through.

The most recent example of that was the one the other day for the north, and remember that these precinct plans are going to have a role in infrastructure, in the levying, costs, distribution and identification of who is going to be responsible for what. This is a key indicator of the government's form in relation to this.

As I was saying, whilst the structure plan that has been identified in the government's most recent proposal would presumably carry some of the characteristics that an implementation plan would have under this new precinct planning process, it is full of information about what exists currently in infrastructure, bus services, rail, water, electricity and gas—all of the usual infrastructure requirements—but it does not actually disclose what would be needed if there was a population developed in the region that has been identified. I am advised that you have other important business of the house to attend to, so I am happy to seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.