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

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 4 June 2013.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:07): As I was saying last night, the Playford Growth Area Structure Plan outlined a number of the important infrastructure matters that would need to be taken into account. I think I was actually commending this document as being one that gave a good geographical summary of the area and of existing services, but it was utterly deficient in any identification about what requirements would be needed—where roads would be proposed, where rail needed to be extended, where buses needed to be added, where gas, electricity and water needed to be connected or installed—other than the most general of statements that these are things that are under consideration and generally in some way in hand. Clearly, that is not adequate.

If the government thinks that it is going to replicate its performance in the ministerial DPA process it proposes under the new precinct process, which is going to be applied under this bill, clearly there are two major problems; one is that the public are being insulted yet again. The local communities, in a consultation process, are not being given adequate information at the start to be able to make a contribution and present other options.

Time and time again we have said to the government that if they are going to propose a development, whether it is individual or, indeed, in any sort of precinct form, it is important to bring the people in at an early stage and give them sufficient information to start with so that they can make a credible and useful contribution to the direction that the government may wish to achieve, which may be a very good proposal to advance, and also takes the people with them.

I will give you one classic example of the government not giving people that information, which has been the new paradigm of this government in keeping this information secret. The north-south pipeline, which essentially was a connection to support the desalination plant and its upgrade to a 100-gigalitre operation, was to support the distribution of water, especially the extra that was going to come online—not any more, of course, but that is another matter—

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: Who expanded that? That was interesting attention from the federal Auditor-General, but we will not go there today because it is such a smelly, embarrassing thing for the government. What I want to point out here is that in relation to the project to enable the distribution of water essentially from the south to the north, to accommodate growth, population development, etc., the government said that this was a project that needed to be done.

Some months before—in fact, about a year before—the government had announced a project, that would cost $304 million instead of the $403 million project that it progressed, on the basis that this would be a project for a pipeline to go, I think, up Portrush Road and join the two reservoirs. Then we were told that—not that we knew anything about any of this before the 2010 election, it was all kept a secret. There wasn't an announcement on the policy, in fact, until the day after the 2010 election—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Mr Deputy Speaker, the honourable member has a formidable repertoire of grievances and she regularly goes through the process of telling us about them. Some of them are capable of—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I presume this is a point of order.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Indeed. It is customary, at least, for remarks to have something to do with the bill. I think it is disorderly for them not to.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will listen very carefully to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I am sure she will want to concentrate on the bill.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you, sir. This is an example of what I am presenting to the house, of where the government does not give adequate information, which it is promising to do under this new regime.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: If the part-time member is going to come in here, at least he can make a useful contribution.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: Make a useful contribution, thank you very much.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Members interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: We'll have to put bells over in Minter Ellison soon, to get him to come to the parliament on time.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Let us return to the bill.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you, sir.

An honourable member interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Ms CHAPMAN: I will complete my contribution on this by saying that instead of the government offering—

Members interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: Look boys, can you go outside?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the member for Chaffey and the member for Elder to refrain from their interjections.

Ms CHAPMAN: Instead of the government outlining a number of projects as an option to move water from the south to the north, under its planned project, it announced a project and then cancelled it because that $300-odd million project was going to blow out in costs; they changed it. However, never, even up until today, has it told the public what other options it considered. Even when we put in a freedom of information application to ask for this, it was not provided.

So what I am saying is that when the government produces these planning documents—which, under the precinct process, will have implementation plans in relation to infrastructure—it must give the public an opportunity to have some say, firstly, on what will be in the precinct, where it will be, what options they have; give them a chance to make a contribution, not just exclude them.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: That's what is going on now—hello?

Ms CHAPMAN: Oh, that is what is going on now? Well, let me start. The Attorney interjects to say 'That's what is going on.' Let me give him a classic example of what he says is going on now. Just before Christmas, while everyone was wrapping their Christmas presents, he announced that he was going to have an inner rim plan for development under a ministerial DPA—

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Oh no, not this again.

Ms CHAPMAN: Wait for it; it gets better—and instead of actually providing information to the public about what infrastructure he was going put with that plan (that is, up to 10 storeys of urban infill—under consideration—and that two of the councils were not to do this; he was going to have control of the Burnside and Prospect regions), he was going to allow other DPAs to be reviewed by the other inner rim councils.

When we asked about the infrastructure that was going to be necessary (electricity, transport, etc.), what do we get? Zero information, other than a claim in the briefings that it was in-hand, and that the departments were working on these matters as to what would be needed for parking, transport and roads.

What do we find? This is what we find: when we go back to have a look at the submissions of the agencies to the draft growth plans that were being prepared as structure plans—incidentally, I have never seen the final copies of these, but nevertheless—they pointed out—let me give you one example in particular.

The Department of Transport actually put in a submission on this. I am paraphrasing now, and I hope that I am accurately disclosing this, but essentially the department said, 'Yes, actually, if this is to be developed in this way, we will need to do upgrades and we would need to make some changes in relation to the roadworks and the services for transport to facilitate such a plan in that way; but, we are not recommending the disclosure of that because we don't want to raise expectations.' I hope the minister is really listening to this.

The excuse for having a cloth of secrecy over what does need to be upgraded for a development is now being kept secret because we, as a community and as members of the public, cannot be trusted with our expectations about what might be delivered. So, that is supposed to be consultation. That is supposed to be disclosure of information to us, as members of the community, to be able to make a reasoned and significant contribution to the development of our own areas. That is the classic example.

Let me give you another example on the same issue. It touches on an announcement that was made yesterday by the government to have a twin roundabout solution to the Britannia intersection. We welcome the government's attention to this intersection; it has been No. 1 on the RAA's list of riskiest intersections or roads for the entire time I have been in parliament. In any event, we are at mark 2 of the government's proposals for this.

Sadly, minister White's option in 2003-04 had bitten the dust, and we now have the option that Mr Hook told us about this morning, which was something that just came out of some engineers within the department who came up to him one day and said that this would be a good idea.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Point of order. The point of order made by the Deputy Premier before—this has no relationship to planning or planning laws whatsoever. If we want—

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: If we want to talk about people not telling the truth and hiding things, we can talk about Catch Tim; it has as much relevance. But, what I would say is that the deputy leader needs to come to the bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I support the point of order; I have been listening carefully, and I do think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has strayed.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. What I will say is that, in supporting the growth plan for the inner rim area that the government is so keen to advance, apart from the submission by the transport department that they would not be able to provide information on the road upgrades that would be required, because that would raise expectation in the community, and the secrecy that was under that veil, as the local member, I have written to the government—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: The noisy one on the other side was the minister at the time—and I asked for a briefing on an update on what was happening at the Britannia roundabout, which is a direct transport requirement for this growth.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Point of order. You are only allowed to speak according to the audits.

Mr Pengilly: What number is the point of order?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: The other member for Finniss is here. I will give you instruction on the standing orders in a moment but, believe me, you cannot put in what God left out. What I am saying is that she is not talking about the bill; she is permitted to just range freely on the bill. She is yet again talking about a transport project; it has no relationship whatsoever to a planning bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I support the point of order. I did ask before that the deputy leader return to the bill. I now confirm that that was my request.

Ms CHAPMAN: One of the proposals under the new precinct planning, which I am sure you were following with acute attention, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that instead of the local government actually proceeding with the normal Development Act obligations under a rezoning format and instead of using industrial DPAs—which the government, as is its wont, has used to date—we are going to have a new process of precinct planning and, under that, implementation plans. A provision of the bill is that the implementation plans would outline things such as infrastructure.

One of the concerns the opposition has relates to how we can rely on the government to actually consult with the public as it proposes in this legislation and accurately provide sufficient information so that they may make those contributions for whatever precinct they propose. Of course, that is not defined in this bill; it is all across the state. One of the things that we in the opposition need to do is make an assessment about whether we can rely on the government to do exactly that.

The government goes on and on and on about the importance of public consultation and the importance of there being sufficient contribution on infrastructure matters. I am seeking to firstly highlight, as part of this procedure, under the implementation plans, what is necessary for the government to do for that to occur and, secondly, whether that is occurring under the current arrangements that the Minister for Planning is executing.

My concern—along with a number of stakeholders, which I will get to in a moment—is about the need to have infrastructure disclosure to even have a plan, let alone a consultation with the public. The government has to actually disclose it. When we, as members of parliament, ask for a briefing on any piece of infrastructure, especially if it is to support an existing ministerial DPA, then we expect to be provided with that information. I make the point that one of these is this inner rim growth that is happening as we speak. Councils are meeting and there has been public outcry about it, but that is following through a normal process.

It is impossible to believe that the government is going to be open and transparent and provide this information when it consistently refuses to even publish material in the submissions because the public might get an expectation. The government consistently refuses in some projects to even provide the information to the local member because they might use it for some mischief. That is just outrageous. It raises the level of concern that the opposition has at the bona fides of any minister who walks in here saying to us, 'You can trust us to do this. We are going to consult. We are going to have a structure that is going to involve the community or local government or other agencies. You can rely on us to do that', because, almost on a daily basis, this is demonstrably inconsistent with what the government is doing.

I come to another matter which illustrates the level of mistrust the opposition has in the government. In this instance, this bill will now have two ministers responsible for this—not just the Minister for Planning but also the Minister for Housing and Urban Development—as the principal players in this on behalf of the government. As I pointed out yesterday—you may not have been listening as intently then, sir, and that is no disrespect to you—we have not yet seen the Minister for Housing and Urban Development. I certainly hope he will make a contribution to this debate as a speaker because he is responsible for this bill, and I hope he will make a contribution in due course.

Let me give an example now of what happens when the government is in charge of a precinct plan, a master plan. It is the Glenside hospital site. Members will be familiar with this proposal. It was announced, I think, in late 2005-06 by the then premier and minister Gago, who at that time was, I think, the minister for mental health, and either later or at the same time the minister for environment. A master plan was published that the government had prepared via the Department of Health at that stage, and the proposal, in short, was that it would sell off 42 per cent of the land and build a brand-new mental health facility. It was necessary to do that because it needed the money to be able to build the hospital.

On top of that, minister Holloway, the predecessor to the current minister, announced that there would be a ministerial DPA process and that that would allow for the consultation, and so on. In essence, what happened over the following years—and this is a facility that was largely for mental health services and had an oval used for community activity and a lot of open space—was that the oval was dug up. I think well over 100 trees were pulled down, chipped and disposed of.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: On a point of order, I make the now customary point of order: we are talking about trees being cut down, dug up or something.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Planning is a large topic. If the point of relevance the honourable member is referring to has something to do with planning, she could be telling us about Olympic sheds because you need a planning approval to put them in your backyard too. Surely there are enough issues of substance here for us to actually—

Ms Chapman: I was getting there.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It would be nice if we did get to them because there are members here who are really interested in knowing what the member for Bragg actually thinks about this bill and not what she thinks about every other thing in the world.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sure the shadow minister will return to the bill. It is important she confine her remarks to the bill.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am happy to do that, sir. The government has announced the number of projects which it says in the second reading are important precincts and the whole reason we had to have this whole new process, yet the government is opposing it but will be in charge of it all. I make the point that under its current master planning, when they are in charge of it, this is what happens. To have the confidence of the public, via the opposition, in being able to support this, we have to have some understanding of what they are doing, still now.

I will quickly get to the point here to try to assist you, Mr Speaker, to try to appreciate what we are doing. I identify what has happened. The hospital is being built. We have had a select committee recommending to the government that they redesign it because the health professionals say it is not world cutting-edge, but they have ignored that. This is this whole consultation aspect.

They have built a film hub which so far has housed the exit party for the premier which would make the Great Gatsby function look like a local tea party. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent on that. I am told just this week that Wolf Creek 2 cannot even use the premises that was proposed under this new cultural precinct because it is too small. We told the government that; the public told the government that; the Film Corporation and industry told the government that years ago and they still have not listened.

They were going to do a housing project to go over some of the area. The current Premier, then the minister for housing, was going to build in a heritage orchard on the site a three-storey Housing Trust development but they changed their mind on that. Notwithstanding that we have this master plan that they now want to have complete control over, they were going to have a housing development. That seems to have haemorrhaged into nowhere.

In the commercial and supermarket area, the Chapley Group of Companies have already announced that they have abandoned proceeding with their supermarket, it seems. The commercial area is covered in mountains of dirt. This is the situation that now exists on a project in a precinct about which the government said, 'We need to be able to have the master plan and operate this and have control of it.' Now we are going to move to an even more in-house arrangement and the government is asking us to trust them that they are going to deliver on these precinct projects.

I make reference to the government's proposal for the urban renewal authority becoming a statutory corporation. As I said, at present, under the current development laws, the minister has power to issue a ministerial DPA. We went through in summary that process. It culminates in presentation of the proposal to the ERD Committee, which is not proposed under this regime, and that committee of course can then put recommendations to the parliament to amend or support it. It does not override the minister's determination, but it is a very helpful process.

In fact, I referred to the importance of the ERD Committee yesterday in reference to the Mount Barker matter. I think I actually said that there was only one occasion I could recall when a member of the ERD Committee had indicated a position and then there was a change of the committee's position or the composition of votes. I am pretty sure I referred to that being the Mount Barker proposal; I just place on record the fact that I should have been referring to the Glenside development. In any event, it is a part of the process that is there at present and it is an important part of the process.

The government says it wants to elevate or reconfigure the governance arrangements for the urban renewal authority which currently has its powers under regulations. One of the things that has caught the attention of the opposition, and which was also raised by the Local Government Association, was the fact that in establishing the statutory corporation process for the LMC, the list of the current functions of the urban renewal authority, compared to what is proposed in its restructure as a statutory corporation, leave out a number of obligations that would be relevant.

In particular, clause 8 of the bill proposes new parts 2A and 2B, which, in summary, provides for all of the rules that will apply to the urban renewal authority and, secondly, as to urban renewal and the establishment of precincts and the process, so those two sections are what clause 8 covers. Under the functions of the URA at present there are some significant deletions, including the collaboration and cooperation obligations to negotiate with local government and other bodies. Relative to the current regulations that were promulgated in 2011, there is a notable omission of a number of paragraphs. They include subparagraph (f) of the current regulations under the functions of the URA in section 6 of those regulations:

(f) to liaise with State and Commonwealth agencies, local government bodies, developers and owners of land and community groups in relation to housing and urban development;

Then, subparagraph (h):

(h) to promote and facilitate a high level of co-operation between, and work with, relevant industry and community groups, and other relevant persons or bodies, to develop and implement policies and strategies that encourage excellence in the design, planning and delivery of housing and urban development;

These are the sorts of things that have been taken out from the current rules and the government may say, 'Well, look, we have put some of those initiatives in other sections of this bill that are to apply not as a function of the URA, but in the process that they undertake when they do these precinct plans.' The problem is that there is no longer an obligation to actually do it as a function of this body. It may be (frequently) an option rather than an obligation that these types of things have to occur, and that is a concern.

The government may also say, 'Well, look, that is the whole idea here. We are trying to streamline this. We are trying to cut out all the processes that are unnecessary because in a precinct area this is so important that we want to be able to cut out all those unnecessary things like consulting with the very people and agencies that represent us, like local governments, from the picture because they are a nuisance. The whole thing is haemorrhaging along too slowly—the whole process of development—because we have to deal with these pesky groups, like the local government representatives.'

A second area of concern is that, again, the function of the URA to negotiate and enter into contracts for the payments of contributions towards infrastructure has not been carried over from the regulations. So, again, a very substantial omission. When we come to the implementation plans, this is very important, because we need to be able to be assured that that dialogue has occurred and that there is going to be some agreement about who is going to be responsible for what infrastructure, what level of government, what agency, and whether it is going to be new home owners or property developers, etc.

Again, this is very concerning that there has been a transfer of responsibility and functions from the regulations, but no longer a function to include that there will be this identification of what the contributions are to be. As has been pointed out by the LGA, this is a function which is critical to the rollout, and I will quote from this:

This is a function which is critical to the rollout of well serviced development. In the absence of a legislative framework for infrastructure contributions, this function should be retained. If it is intended that a precinct authority would impose a separate rate, levy or charge as an infrastructure funding recovery mechanism in place of upfront developer charges, the bill should make this intention clear.

Well, at the moment, it is clear as mud. There is no assurance as to who is going to be paying for what and who is going to be responsible for what before the government's precinct planning process is near the end. It is a bit late then to have a say or to be able to review that.

There are also concerns about clause 7C(2) by the LGA, which enables the URA to enter into a partnership, joint venture or other scheme for sharing of profits. This is, essentially, as outlined by the Minister for Planning, that there may be some opportunities for joint venture, or it may be that a different statutory body or a local council might be the precinct authority under this proposed bill, and they might have an opportunity to partner up for the purposes of a proposal.

I assume that is to cover things such as the arrangement that is to apply to, say, the Tonsley development, which the government, for reasons which are not entirely clear but which the Minister for Manufacturing, Innovation and Trade has got the management and has made the announcements and so on about the development of Tonsley, the old Mitsubishi site, a large precinct.

The urban renewal authority has a role in assisting with the development at least of the early stages of that site, so they sort of seem to be in tandem. They are both working on the project in respect of the planning and particular development of a TAFE and various other things that have been identified for development. I think one of them is the maths and science facility proposed by Flinders University and other such retail shopping and so on.

So, they are working in tandem. That may be the sort of structure that they are proposing, but quite clearly the LGA seek some clarification regarding the arrangements for the partnership or joint ventures between the URA and some other party. The concern is particularly raised because it raises the question of whether a private developer, and this is quite a reasonable question, is actually able to be a precinct authority. If that is the case, or indeed even if there is a local council that is to be the precinct authority and it has a direct financial interest in the property, or some other improvement on it, what are the rules that will surround the disclosure of that?

We need to have some understanding about what is going to apply on the question of whether the development outcomes are not unduly influenced by that party who has a vested interest in a financial benefit that could flow from being the precinct authority, particularly if the precinct authority is also going to be the developer. That raises another matter I will refer to shortly.

To cover off on matters the LGA has raised, proposed clause 7F(a) of the bill requires the URA to reasonably ensure that its activities are 'co-ordinated with the activities of other public authorities'. Unfortunately, this bill does not provide for any definition of what a public authority is, and we would obviously want some answers from the government on that.

Proposed clause 7F(c) seeks to ensure that the activities of the URA are 'conducive to the enhancement of the physical or social development objectives of the government'. The LGA quite reasonably asks: what happened to environmental sustainability objectives? This is through all the targets and all the aspirational statements of the government, and it seems to have been completely ignored in this piece of legislation. The LGA quite rightly says, 'Well, don't let that slip off the perch; that should also be a feature of whatever the objectives of the government are.'

Clause 7H(1) states that a council, a developer, or other person or body, can request that a minister establish an area of land as a precinct. If it is to do so, it will facilitate urban renewal that promotes the purposes of the planning strategy. The LGA makes the point that there are absolutely no definitive criteria to identify the basis upon which an application would be made. What are the prerequisites a place needs to qualify for the purposes for being considered.

The LGA suggests that 'this process be used only when it can be demonstrated that it is necessary to facilitate significant developments to which there are legitimate and recognised impediments'. I think that is a helpful recommendation by the LGA. I cannot imagine that the Minister for Urban Development will want to have just anybody, because it just seems like anybody can line up, or it can act of its own volition to declare a precinct area, but we have absolutely no criteria. They could, of course, find themselves deluged with applications. They also point out that:

If a Council or other person or body makes a request to the Minister to establish a precinct, there should be a requirement that that request is supported by a comprehensive business case. Establishing a formal application process with a prescribed level of supporting information would achieve consistency in a way in which these requests are submitted and considered. This would be similar to the Statement of Intent process currently required to initiate a Development Plan Amendment under the Development Act 1993.

There needs to be some threshold and there need to be some rules and we all need to know what they are, and the government needs to come clean about what it has in mind here so that everybody—in the public and private arena and those who may be directly adversely affected—will have some clue about how this is going to operate.

Proposed clause 7H(2)(a) provides that the minister must consult with and have regard to the views of any councils within the proposed precinct area. The LGA welcomes, essentially, that there be consultation. They also state:

The effectiveness of this process would depend on the consultation period and the level of detail provided to the Councils. This detail, including a minimum consultation period, should be provided within the Bill.

Specific matters on which the Minister is seeking advice from Councils should be prescribed (but not limited).

They again make the point that they need to have a set of rules, they need to know what they are and on what they are to be consulted, and some assurance of the time frame and that they are going to have time to be genuinely consulted.

For all of the examples that I have outlined here today of how the government operates to date, I am not confident; and I am not surprised, that the LGA is seeking some specificity in relation to this because they must surely have concerns about how this is going to apply. The other very important thing they raise—and I'm glad they have—is:

Clarification is required regarding the likelihood of Councils being asked to consider these matters on a confidential basis, given the establishment of a precinct may confer a commercial advantage to a third party. It is noted that a limited number of SOI processes are dealt with confidentially.

The opposition agrees that there are circumstances where there does need to be confidential disclosure and inquiry, and the provision of information even, and that is an important part of the preliminary process. I have obviously identified examples where I think the government was in error in keeping information from the public to allow them to be able to make an informed contribution to the debate, but we recognise that there are some circumstances where there needs to be some confidentiality when it could commercially disadvantage someone if it is disclosed.

We respect that but we need to know what the rules are, and the Local Government Association needs to know for its members whether it is going to be a precinct authority or whether someone is going to be squashed out of the process as a result of another precinct authority being declared by the Minister for Housing and Urban Development in these cases. That is not an unreasonable expectation. Under proposed clause 7H(2)(b) the minister must consider the extent to which the establishment of the precinct is consistent with the planning strategy. Again, the LGA makes a very good point:

Given that there is no provision for community consultation at the precinct establishment stage of the process, it is important that councils have canvassed the views of their communities at a strategic level. This could be considered through a Strategic Directions Report required under Section 30 of the Development Act...

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Point of order.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Point of order: it might be helpful for all of us, and save a lot of time, if I inform the honourable member that I have seen the letter from the LGA and there is no need for her to read it out to me. My advisers have a copy of the letter. We, in fact, have some responses to it, so there is no need to do that. I understood that the opposition had some matter before the parliament that they regarded as a matter of priority which I have agreed to do something about.

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Point of order.

Ms CHAPMAN: The minister is not entitled to stand up and make a speech about what he is going to do. He has a time and an opportunity to give a response in due course, to table any amendments he has in mind. How insulting to this parliament for a minister to stand up and say, 'Look, the member doesn't need to be able to tell us, in the parliament—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will take account of both points of order. I do not think that they are points of order. I think the guidance that is being put forward by the minister is all very well, but I think the shadow minister is in line with what she is talking about at the moment.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you, sir. I sincerely hope that the minister listens carefully and takes notice of some of the matters that have been raised not just by the LGA but others. I have a list. In considering this question of being consistent with the planning strategy, the LGA suggests a remedy, and the opposition looks forward to hearing some answers from the government as to what it will do and what will be provided to give some assurance on that.

Under the proposed 7H(5), which establishes an area as a precinct, and that the minister may refer the matter to the Development Assessment Commission to provide advice, etc., the LGA has pointed out that it is not clear when the minister is or is not likely to seek the advice of the Development Assessment Commission. Again, they point out there is no criteria being provided as to how this decision could be guided, etc. The proposed 7H(4)(c) provides that the minister may appoint the URA, or other statutory corporation, as we have previously canvassed, to be the precinct authority.

There is no detail about what factors would be taken into account or would influence the minister, who makes this decision, about whether it is appropriate that that be the URA, a council or another statutory body. There is absolutely no identification. What happens if the government thinks it is a good idea to give the URA the role—they may be well advised in that regard—and a number of councils come along, or even one council comes along, and says, 'Hang on a minute, we want to be the precinct planner; we want to be the precinct authority'.

On what basis would they be excluded and the government have its way? At least the others (particularly councils) potentially want to know, 'When are we ever going to be able to actually get in on the act?' What is the process of appeal in relation to ensuring they have an opportunity to present their case?

The other aspects they raise are monetary, and they are very important points. A number of councils have expressed their concern to the LGA that a group of developers with a financial interest within a precinct could be appointed as a precinct authority through a statutory corporation. They raise this as a concern because individuals with a private financial interest should not be represented as a precinct authority.

They also go on to say that if it is intended that the precinct planning process can be developer-funded, as is the case with some council-initiated DPAs, there should be a requirement that this is declared at the time that the precinct authority is appointed. I have already given a number of examples in this debate of conflicts of interest and the failure on the part of the government to fully disclose areas of potential conflict of interest.

The opposition does not share the view that people who have a financial interest could be completely excluded in a planning role. What the opposition says is absolutely critical, whatever form this bill finally morphs into through this parliamentary process—and we hope, at the end, it will be a more commercially efficient development pathway with appropriate rules and consultation processes—is the importance of separating the planning role from the development role.

It is very clear that the government, in identifying the urban renewal authority as the proposed principal precinct planner in this exercise, will be able to continue to act as a property developer themselves, which they currently do. A classic example at the moment is the Bowden development. Notwithstanding criticism by members of the private development field about the over $80 million spent by the urban renewal authority on the Bowden site, of which they have control, which is unfair competition, that is exactly what they are able to do. That is of concern.

There are a number of amendments that are recommended by the Urban Development Institute of Australia (UDIA) which we will come to shortly. These raise some points, not the least of which is that they want some significant changes. I think we also need to understand that the urban renewal authority, which was previously the land management corporation—both of which were established under regulation—does actually have a very significant commercial arm of its areas of responsibility. I will come to them again when we reconvene. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

[Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00]