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

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:42): Further matters raised by the LGA relate to references that the precinct authority may establish a community reference panel, may establish a design review panel and various obligations about how the community consultation is undertaken. Here, the LGA is highly concerned; clearly they say it must be a requirement that a community reference panel be established, not just 'may' but, given the precedent of the government's behaviour in its lack of consultation with the public on a number of developments I have outlined, we share their concern.

The design review panel is also important. I think in this regard, the government has attempted to introduce a level of design into future developments and bring in expert advice in that regard, and that has been welcomed. Again, the LGA makes the point that that should be required. Then we come to this rather curious provision in which the public, under the proposed 7H(11) is not actually able to say anything. An authorised person can attend but specifically, under the proposed law, not to participate in any meetings of the panel established by the precinct authority.

This is the ultimate silencing of the public but, in any event, that at least has been raised as a concern of council's because the LGA considers it reasonable that it play a very significant role. It is a representative, duly elected body and it ought not to be restricted to an observer role. The opposition shares that concern, especially if individuals are going to be wiped out of the process. On the precinct plans themselves, the bill refers to the development of the precinct master plan, and section 71 largely sets out the rules that are to apply to that.

Again, I think in summary the LGA are seeking some more prescriptive criteria and detail about how that is to be applied—size of land, siting of land uses, etc.—and what are the rules that are going to apply to that issue. On the precinct implementation plans, which is under proposed section 71(4), the LGA raised a concern that it is not clear what power a precinct authority will have to compel or direct government agencies in relation to social and physical infrastructure provision. This high level of prioritisation and coordination of infrastructure is a critical success factor for urban renewal. Clearly, the details as to what is to be in it and how it is to apply needs some prescription. They raise the very interesting aspect in relation to waste collection, because they say, quote:

Details of the arrangements for waste collection must be considered as part of the precinct plan. There are existing issues with urban renewal developments that have not made adequate provision in the design and layouts of roads for Council waste collection. This is problematic given the Public Environmental Health Regulations 2006 compel metropolitan Councils to provide a weekly kerbside waste collection to residential properties.

I will refer to another waste issue that we have already dealt with, under the design principles that were published for the Bowden site development, for example, which is under the current DPA zone process and which is under the management the Urban renewal authority. I can recall reading a design principle which identified the need to have five separate rubbish bins in a dwelling presumably to separate rubbish and help with that. That is very important, sounds good, looks good and is very green, etc., etc., but who is going to pay for it? Who is going to pay for the extra collection of these things and is that cost then going to be sent back to the councils to meet? I think the LGA make a very good point.

There are also questions about what are complying classes of development. Again, they are seeking more detail. The plan must have regard for the provisions of any development plan applying in precinct areas, and councils are expressing concern about that. The provisions largely make reference to a document or standard prepared by a prescribed body. There seems to be a reasonable degree of flexibility for the precinct plan to reflect a particular set of circumstances at a particular time, but we need to clarify who and what a prescribed person or body may be.

It is like reading some sort of secret code, this bill, but obviously the LGA have been concerned about a number of matters that have also been raised by the opposition. The precinct plan under the proposed bill may provide that the minister, precinct authority or any other prescribed body or person has discretion over how any matter or thing is to be determined, dispensed with or regulated. This is under proposed section 71(6). Again, clarity is sought.

I will skip over some of the more minor ones, if I may. I do not mean any disrespect to the LGA, they are important, but I think I have covered them otherwise in the address. For proposed section 7K(1), the precinct authority may be granted a specific statutory power to grant approval, consent, licence or exemption, or to provide a service or infrastructure, or impose and recover a rate, levy or charge. Not surprisingly, this raised some significant responses from the LGA. Obviously this is a very broad level of powers. In the consultation that I had with the government, I requested in the details of legislation what power this would give a precinct authority, who we expect to principally be the Urban renewal authority, and what acts they could override.

Given the comments I made yesterday during the contribution on this matter, that I had not received a response from the minister's office on matters raised in the briefing, I confirm for the record that at 4.30 yesterday this information as sought had been provided by Mr Golding, who is from the minister's office. I thank him for that. I would urge the minister to ensure that in future (I have put this request before) if we ask for information we at least have that information provided even on the morning before we start the debate, not three or four hours into the debate, but I appreciate that we have it.

The types of powers that are most likely to be used are contained in the acts that are scheduled, and I will quickly read those. This is the list provided from the minister's office: Crown Land Management Act 2009; Electricity Act 1996; Environment Protection Act 1993; Gas Act 1997; Highways Act 1926; Local Government Act 1934; Local Government Act 1999; Natural Resources Management Act 2004; Passenger Transport Act 1994; Private Parking Areas Act 1986; Rail Commissioner Act 2009; Roads (Opening and Closing) Act 1991; and the Road Traffic Act 1961.

Members following this debate would be, I am sure, familiar with the rules these acts cover, but I particularly draw attention to the Environment Protection Act. As members know, this act is there to ensure that in all the operations we have in the state we ensure that there is recognition and respect for the environment. There are very clear obligations and very significant powers vested under that act to ensure that that protection is heeded. From time to time, it is exempted.

I recall recently being advised of a public announcement by the government that there would have to be some ministerial approval before there be any attempt to impose any further environment obligation or conditions on the Nyrstar operation in Port Pirie. Everyone is aware that there are obviously public health risks attached to that enterprise, and people are still working to ensure that the operation can continue to minimise those risks but obviously provide the important economic outcome for the community and the state.

I make this point: if we are going to have a power in this urban renewal authority body, or indeed any other precinct authority that is appointed, we need to be very clear about what it is going to be used for. For example, members would be aware that the government's ill-fated Newport Quays development, which was a Land Management Corporation proposal with a private developer, ended up in the Supreme Court and is now under another review.

One of the issues clearly related to that development was the indication that there be proposed dwellings for residents adjacent to, or at least within the vicinity of, contrary to a distance recommended, a superphosphate facility. Again, we do not need to go into the rules about this, but the reality is that certain rules are set and certain guidelines and world standards are imposed that basically say that it is not safe to put dwellings in close proximity to things like a superphosphate facility. Infotech Pivot operates in that precinct.

Dr Close interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: Sorry, did I pronounce that incorrectly?

Dr Close: Incitec.

Ms CHAPMAN: Incitec Pivot, who operate in that vicinity quite legitimately, came up against this proposal. There was a public outcry about a number of aspects of this development. As I say, it ended up in the Supreme Court. I just make the point that when we are looking at developments, if we are looking at overriding these obligations, we need to be very clear about what they are and the public needs to be informed about them.

I am also advised, as I was at the briefing, that the level of power that will be applicable will be similar to that provided under the Economic Development Act. We are talking about very significant powers here to override a very significant number of important acts, and that therefore needs to be quite clear.

On this whole question of the capacity to impose and collect a rate or service charge, not surprisingly, the LGA on behalf of councils is concerned to know, 'How is this going to fit with the rating obligations that we have and our entitlements? Is there going to be further complexity of bureaucracy?' and the like. So, there a number of aspects that the councils are unhappy about.

There is capacity for the statutory authority in relation to approvals, consents, licences or exemptions that are primarily invested in a council. Again, they are not happy to have these roles assumed by this new precinct authority. If there is going to be a conferral of any power that is primarily vested in a council to a precinct authority, it should require—it should 'require', not just 'think about' or 'may'—consultation with that relevant council.

Another matter that is raised is that, if a power of direction is not made available, a copy of the advice provided by councils should be made publicly available, along with a report, with the precinct authority outlining the extent to which it took regard to the council's advice and providing an explanation of any departure from the advice provided. The LGA also says that it does not object to the precinct authority imposing and collecting a rate, levy or charge as an infrastructure cost recovery mechanism, provided this is in addition to the rates that would ordinarily be paid to the council. Again, this all has to be sorted out.

In separate correspondence from the City of Charles Sturt—because they have had this experience of dealing with the Bowden development, which operates under a ministerial DPA—it has also raised a number of these matters, including this question that, if the raising of rates, levies and charges is going to be overridden, there be some transparency on that and there must be full public disclosure if there is any deviation from that. The City of Charles Sturt also makes this point:

Council By-laws are reviewed regularly in consultation with the community. They are established to manage community expectations and competing interests in the public realm. Variation or exemption from existing by-laws should be clearly articulated in any master plan and precinct plan so that both Council and the community have the opportunity to provide comment and advice on what some of the unforeseen negative consequences might be. This is in the best interest of everyone.

They have had an experience and they want to be absolutely clear about who is doing what. In respect of the actual allocation of levies and things for infrastructure—which I think already is a challenge for most developments, and who is going to pay what, what level of government, and what contribution there is going to be—I met with the Mount Barker council recently. They have now established a levy arrangement with the government, which they briefed me about, as well as what they expect to do in progressing the development. The development has an unhappy history, but I think the Mount Barker council should be commended for getting on with the responsibility. They got off to a rough start, but they are trying to do the best they can.

If there is going to be some assessment of the infrastructure costs for any future development, then there is this vexed question. If landowners are going to have to pay it as they subdivide their properties, then how is this going to be fair, if other people who do not proceed to subdivide their properties and develop them, in circumstances where they will enjoy the fruit of the levies paid by others towards infrastructure levies, infrastructure is built and those who are sitting on their properties who are not proceeding with a development get the benefit?

Some will say, 'Well, we haven't been able to resolve other issues in the community or there are some other things holding it up so they shouldn't have to be paying it anyway,' but clearly this act is designed to give power to whoever the precinct authority is to set out the rules in relation to these infrastructure levies and be able to impose them on everyone. I think there are going to be some issues surrounding that, but, nevertheless, it may be justified. I am a bit disappointed that the government have not been a bit more particular in detail about how they propose this will work.

Nevertheless, we in the opposition have been consistently calling for clear arrangements in relation to infrastructure before developments proceed, particularly as we have had that awful experience in Mount Barker. We need to be sure that existing people in the community are confident that they are not going to be left with a large bill, and that new members who will be welcomed into the community are not inadequately provided for in the infrastructure that they will need. The powers there clearly need to be dealt with.

I have raised this question of inconsistency; who has the right to be able to be the precinct authority if there is a dispute? The obligation that it is necessary to disclose if an existing bylaw needs to be overridden—the City of Charles Sturt has raised it in detail, and the LGA remain concerned about this.

The other matter the LGA brought to my attention, which I think is very valid, is that according to the advice we received from them, the transitional provisions in this bill make provision that in the first 12 months after its commencement, a precinct plan may be prepared without any consultation. That is extraordinary, and I think the LGA share the opposition's concern about how is it that, for a year, they can do whatever they like. This seems very odd. There may be some legitimate explanation for it. I would be very concerned about that, but we will certainly want there to be some explanation, if there is a valid rationale for it, to be shared with the house.

The other matter I outline is, again, as Mr Golding had provided in his material yesterday, as we understood, only the URA, EPA, DEWNR, LGA, UDIA, and the Property Council were consulted. During the briefing, I had not noted whether the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources had been consulted, but it is important that they have been, and we note that.

The Environmental Defenders Office—members would be aware that the Environmental Defenders Office is basically a community legal centre which specialises in public interest, environmental and planning law. It is made up of a group of legal people who are experienced in this area, and they have been told about this. I think it is fair to say that they are not overly happy with some of the aspects of the bill. They, like the rest of us, are keen to look at where improvements to the development process can be achieved, and that it is to be welcomed.

Indeed, the Environmental Defenders representative, Melissa Ballantyne, has confirmed in her submission to me—and I assume that this has similarly gone to the government—that the Environmental Defenders Office is in principle a strong supporter of legislation that serves to promote urban renewal. However, they outline a number of concerns, such as the sloppiness (that is my word, not theirs) of the lack of definition in the bill, and a number of aspects that have been raised. They also raised this conflict of interest point. I briefly refer this aspect of their submission to Hansard. They make the following point:

There is also no requirement under the HUD Act to consult in relation to the appointment of members of statutory corporations. Hence, unless a council is appointed to the precinct authority, it is our submission that the provisions of the Bill that appear to confer a level of independence to the precinct authority can be disregarded. Furthermore, unlike the conflict of interest provisions that council members must adhere to as procedural requirements to manage actual or perceived conflicts of interest, they may well arise as a serious concern. However it is unclear whether a council could legitimately assume the role of Precinct Authority as the Bill contains provisions...that act to fetter the discretion that a council is bound to exercise, and in conferring directly, and by regulation, wide ranging powers to a Precinct Authority, the Bill empowers a Precinct Authority to assume many of the functions but not the responsibilities of a council.

This is a really important point. They raise a number of other issues, and I am sure that they have been brought to the attention of the Attorney and the minister but, if they have not, we will be seeking an explanation about some of them in another place. I thank the Environmental Defenders Office for providing a legal perspective and, of course, its particular interest in this area of law.

The other aspect I wish to draw to the attention of the house arises from the presentation of the UDIA. The UDIA has provided the opposition with some draft amendments in the act which primarily provide for a restriction on the functions of the precinct authority. It does so by suggesting that under this legislation the precinct authority should have deleted from its functions the power to initiate or undertake residential, commercial and industrial development, except in certain circumstances, and instead of that its functions should be restricted to supporting and promoting residential, commercial and industrial development by the public sector in the public interest.

It proposes that the public sector be defined as a person or persons or any partnership, company, joint venture or undertaking of persons that is not the Crown, or agency or instrumentality of the Crown, a minister, the department, the URA, or a council. Consistent with that, it has then set out that development in the state is something the private sector would undertake but confined to or in the context of being in the public interest in respect of urban renewal—so that would be its charter.

However, it also acknowledges that there will be circumstances where some areas might not be attractive to or are not suitable for the private sector to become involved. It might not even stack up financially. Quite frankly, we are with the LGA on this aspect; that is, it would seem to me that if a precinct proposed development is not viable and there is not a business case to give it some level of qualification, there have to be very serious questions about why it would be done.

I am not talking about the exclusion that might result from what I am saying, that affordable housing or housing to provide for our vulnerable and poor or for those with high needs is therefore ignored; quite the contrary. We are supposed to have a Housing SA facility that, as a landlord, provides and looks after this type of service—and some of that is now provided in the NGO sector, in community housing and the like. We do not want to interfere with that, we do not want to restrict it; in fact, we welcome it.

It was disappointing yesterday or the day before when the Premier stood up to announce that he was going to put an extra $35 million or $40 million into public housing, yet not tell the people of South Australia how many houses he sold off in the last 12 months or what he was going to do with all the people who are about to be tipped out of accommodation in the city square that has been all over the media. We, on this side of the house, recognise that there is a high level of demand for that.

The UDIA in their presentation to us, I think, fully understand that there will be circumstances where it is in the community interest, in the public interest, and that it is important for the state that certain developments occur and that the private sector does not want to do it. It is too far away, there is not enough profit in it, whatever the reason is that they might present. That is a matter for them, but in acknowledgement of that they recognise that there would be residual opportunity for the government through the urban renewal authority to do so. That has been a very helpful submission from the UDIA.

The opposition is giving it consideration. It has only recently been provided to us. We see that, in some way I suppose, as going towards the two principles that we say need to operate. One is there needs to be a clear delineation between the entity (usually public) that is going to be responsible for the planning, regulation, scrutiny and the assurances that there is compliance with whatever the legislation is there to protect or promote and, that separate to that, we have the opportunity for the private sector to be able to get on with the job within those parameters.

It is always of concern to the opposition. I can remember last year when it was announced through the budget process that the government had spent $16 million to buy the Caroma site in metropolitan Adelaide. It is an important strategic site and it is one which the government, through the minister, indicated that they would like to see developed in a manner that provided for mixed development and so on, consistent with all the principles the government had previously outlined.

They were very keen to acquire the site, notwithstanding that we are all running out of money, because essentially they needed to ensure that it was done properly. I must say I found that very puzzling as to why a minister, who has all of the effective control under the Development Act and has the right to come back to the parliament to expand or to remedy any defect in those powers to set the rules and ensure they are implemented, would have some capacity to mistrust the very industry who are experienced in undertaking this work, that we could not somehow trust them to do the right thing.

The rules are there and the rules are set for good reason, and they have to comply with them. They are the experts in the property development world and, provided they work legally within those boundaries, then they ought to be trusted. They are actually the experts in this field. It is that level of comment by the government—in this instance, by the former minister and I hope the current minister does not share that type of attitude—which is unhelpful, abrasive and really creates a level of tension and conflict which is completely unnecessary.

We need private enterprise to be working hand in glove with the government of the day to ensure that they have the best opportunity of developing for the benefit of all South Australians. I am very concerned about that and I hope that it is not promoted by the current minister. I will conclude by saying that in Victoria, unlike other jurisdictions that are referred to as having presented master planning or precinct planning roles within their planning laws, minister Matthew Guy announced on 21 May 2013, as follows:

The state government will hand back planning powers to local councils for 21 significant sites across Melbourne, including South Wharf and the Whitten Oval redevelopment. The planning minister, Matthew Guy, said local councils were best suited to manage local planning decisions and he would return powers to them for some strategic sites in the next few weeks. A number of these sites to be redeveloped, such as the Fountain Gate Town Centre and sites of local significance, will require detailed council input and, as such, the coalition government believes that the relevant local council is best placed to manage them.

That is the sort of expressed sentiment of what I see as a cooperative working relationship with local government, not a takeover situation, which is, I think, being promoted here, without any adequate definition or delineation and about which, quite rightly, the representative body (the LGA) has raised a number of concerns. Of the constituent membership of the councils, we have received submissions from only one. As I have said, some councils indicated to me that they had not even heard of this until they saw it in the newsletter from the LGA.

I confirm the opposition's disappointment that the government has said one thing and done another in respect of the consultation process of this bill. We remain committed to the advancing of any beneficial amendment to the development laws in this state that we see as demonstrably of benefit. In its present form, we do not think that quite fits it. We clearly are not going to be stopping this legislation going through the house. We are keen to look at reform if it is necessary, but the manner in which this bill has been imposed and rushed through the house remains very disappointing.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (16:17): I will just make some brief comments.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: 'Brief' means very brief. There are a whole lot of aspects that one could raise in relation to urban planning and urban infill. I think we are seeing some of the consequences of poor planning, or lack of planning. I am not sure which is worse: bad planning or no planning. We are seeing some of the infill people now living in little boxes. That is fine if that is their choice. We often see that, in some of these dwellings and around them, there is no greenery. They are completely either concrete or pavers, with no room to plant any significant vegetation. My fear is that, if this trend continues, we are going to see Adelaide basically turned into a city which is less than desirable.

We see it in some of the commercial developments as well. I have argued for a long time that, when people want to put in a commercial development, they should have to take into account the character of the area, and I will give members a couple of examples. I do not want to pick on Mr IGA of Hahndorf, but you would think that, in a community like that, which has a German heritage, a supermarket would be required to fit in with the theme of the heritage of that area. It is done in other places in the world.

You can even have McDonald's and the equivalent of Hungry Jacks but, if they want to set up in a locality, they have to fit in with the heritage and other design aspects of that area. Here, we let people off the hook. There is a classic recent one in the City of Mitcham, on Belair Road, just north of the member for Waite's office. There is a hideous development there. They have not been able to lease it, probably because anyone who goes in there, their business will take a downturn anyway. The council opposed it, but they were overridden by another body. Next time you drive up Belair Road, as I say, just north of the member for Waite's office there near the Torrens Arms Hotel, you will see that hideous monstrosity which has happened in recent times.

We have seen the Adelaide Development Company, which seems to have a lot of political clout, develop what they called Blackwood Park, which is actually Craigburn Farm. I do not think any of the blocks sold for less than $200,000. I think now you would not get one, if you could get one, for less than $300,000. There is no social infrastructure whatsoever; 1,200 dwellings I think is the cap there. I live not far from there—I am not the local member—but I tried to get provision, and I even asked them to provide a block of land so that, in the future, there could be a community centre. What did they get? Nothing—a couple of playgrounds and that is about it.

We see that at Flagstaff Pines, another one of their developments: expensive housing, plenty of fresh air, plenty of sea breezes, but no social infrastructure of any kind that I can see. They might get a playground if they are lucky. Good planning should consider not just drains and kerbs, but the social aspects as well. Ultimately, the residents pay for it—let's not kid ourselves. It should be factored in and part of the overall planning for developments, whether they are large or small.

We do not want people just plonked in a place or just allowed to live in a place. You need to have a sense of community, and that comes from having some commitment to aesthetics and good design principles, and also a commitment to social infrastructure. In areas of upper middle class, you may not end up with the same social problems as in areas where the people are not as well-off, but you will still have suppressed social problems.

I note that the Mayor of the City of Onkaparinga has been visiting here, and that is good, because one of the great things about the City of Onkaparinga is that they have in their developments—not Flagstaff Pines unfortunately—created community centres so people from overseas can learn English, or people can have cookery classes, or enter during the week men and women's groups, which is fantastic. That is what should be available to every citizen, not just to some, and that comes down to good planning.

I think councils, or whatever planning body there is, should have the power to actually retrospectively look at some of the poor, inappropriate developments of years ago, and that means, in some cases, requiring people who have built great asphalt carparks to vegetate them so that they do have shade trees and some appropriate landscaping.

I do not normally support retrospective legislation or powers, but we have done it for certain things—we did it to catch paedophiles—so I think we should have retrospective authority to require people who have built a hideous block of flats 20 or 30 years ago to bring their property up to a standard in terms of aesthetics and having some vegetation, because that contributes to the wellbeing of the community.

We need also in planning to ensure that we are catering for people—that is what the whole purpose is for, I would assume—and that we have proper provision for walkways, cycleways, areas where people can walk their dog or child if they have one, kick a footy or throw a netball. That has been one of the costs, I think, of urban in-fill, that a lot of those precious little areas where people used to be able to throw a ball or play with their kids are disappearing and gradually being removed or diminished in quality.

Whatever planning regime we have, I think there needs to be greater focus on those sorts of facilities, which are not just social infrastructure, but also I guess go beyond that to encompass environmental considerations. We know from studies that if people can see greenery, it does help their mental health. You can make a judgement from being in this place: it is probably why we are all mentally well balanced—because we are surrounded by greenery, but I am being a bit flippant.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: Well, I do not want to draw invidious comparisons with any other organisation, body or group meeting, but studies show (and members can check this out if they do not believe me) that people in hospitals who can see greenery actually recover more quickly than those who cannot. They are probably looking to escape.

In our situation, we have to ensure—and this has not been happening in many situations lately—that there is provision for trees and other vegetation not only to generate oxygen and so on but also to contribute to a sense of wellbeing. After all, the more you disassociate humans from nature, the more likely they are to have psychological and psychiatric issues.

There are a couple of other points I would like to make. We have seen with some of the infill the so-called hammerhead. Some of these are done reasonably well, but some of them are atrocious. My wife and I were looking at a house not that long ago, and the council in question required the house on the hammerhead to actually touch the existing house. We are getting crazy outcomes in terms of some of these so-called infill policies, and I think they need to be looked at very closely and very carefully.

In terms of landscaping, I notice that we now import a lot of things from China—and I have nothing against the Chinese people; they are wonderful and very productive people—but I do not know why we have this obsession now with planting Chinese trees along a lot of our avenues and elsewhere. The ubiquitous Manchurian pear tree is a nice tree but sterile in our environment; it does not support any birds or anything like that. We seemed to be hooked into not only buying Chinese but also planting Chinese trees.

That raises the point of our arterial roads, many of which are hideously ugly—South Road, ugly; Marion Road, ugly; Daws Road, ugly. When planning is done—and it can still be done on those roads—roads need to be planned so that they can have proper decent trees, and a city can be transformed by planting up arterial roads and other areas.

The difference between Burnside and some of the western suburbs is not so much to do with the housing but with the fact that Burnside, Unley and Mitcham have plenty of trees. If you took the trees out of Burnside, Mitcham and Unley, you would drastically lower the value of all the properties, but you would find that there is not much difference between the housing in those areas and the housing in some of the other parts of Adelaide. So, that needs to be addressed.

The final point I want to make is that here in Adelaide we have missed the opportunity to underground power. People are getting pretty heavy electricity bills, so they probably do not want to even think about it. Through planning, more than half of Perth has been undergrounded. It has been done by a combination of funding from the residents and from the power companies, and the residents have actually welcomed it because over time it adds not only to the aesthetics of the area but to the value of their property.

Next time you go to Perth, look at what they have done. What have we done? We have kept the Stobie pole, which is a practical invention but not the most aesthetic object. But what have we done here in the last 20 years to underground power in a systematic way through better planning organisation? Zilch, very little. We have a committee that looks at special locations, but we do not have an overall concept of undergrounding power in Adelaide.

What we are likely to incur, because it is enshrined in federal legislation, is that in putting out the broadband if there is overhead power then legally they can string their washing lines between those poles. That is another issue. It has to be retrofitted. It is not cheap, but if you look at the Western Australian model—and I have inspected it and spoken to people there and corresponded with them—it has worked brilliantly in Perth, so that their city is much more attractive now than it was a few years ago because they have undergrounded their power to the point where it now exceeds 50 per cent of their total area.

I know there is a range of issues relating to planning. I do not think in recent times we have got the planning formula right. If you look at things like the provision of larger infrastructure, the Aquatic Centre should never have been built in Marion. It is in the wrong location, it does not look good, it does not fit well, and it does not suit the people of the north-eastern suburbs or the northern suburbs. It is not in the best location.

We have a bus centre in Adelaide in the wrong location. I argued that it should be integrated with the railway—I could not get agreement. They said it is it a different council area if we want to put it next to the Parklands terminal. If I wanted to have it at the Adelaide station, where it could have gone, with buses coming in off King William Street and going out to Morphett Street, using the old railway building—I could not win that one.

The classic is the O-Bahn. It works, but what we have got is a disjointed, hybrid transport system. I do not know what it is, but in South Australia we have not been able to get planning right. Whether it is infrastructure such as transport, we have not done well. Our scorecard is not good. I hope that, as a result of this bill, in terms of urban renewal, we start to get our act together and create a city with suburbs that are a showcase for the rest of the world.

However, at the moment we have pockets which are attractive, but we have parts of our greater metropolitan area which are looking tired and, in some places, almost tacky. I think as a community we can do better, and I hope that this bill contributes to a better outcome in terms of planning than what we have seen in the last 20 years.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If there are no more speakers I will call the minister, and if he speaks he closes the debate.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (16:33): Are you sure there's nobody else who wants to go? I don't think that member for Bragg covered everything off.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: All right; very well, I'll speak. I am worried about the member for Kavel hooking into me. Can I say a few things about this? First of all, can I congratulate the member for Fisher, as always, for making a contribution which was erudite and, as always and particularly relevant today, succinct. He was able to condense some very complex argument and very acute observation into what, by my reckoning, was under 20 minutes.

Ms Bedford: Ten minutes; we were timing him.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Ten minutes; minute for minute the most powerful 10 minutes of this whole debate thus far.

Mr Gardner: This is absolutely irrelevant.

Ms Bedford: In your opinion.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Member for Morialta, you thought you heard irrelevant earlier on today. I am going to try to explain to you what relevant is.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am congratulating the member for Fisher on an erudite contribution and I am having heckling from the member for Morialta, who cannot recognise erudition when he hears it.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sure the member for Morialta is going to remain silent.

Mr Goldsworthy: Get on with it. You're not being erudite.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Oh, no! Member for Fisher, because you were so erudite and succinct and pithy I am going to try to offer some response to each of the points you made, because I am able to actually know what you were saying; it is very important. I do know exactly what you were on about. The first thing is ugly buildings. You mentioned terrible buildings that you have observed in the city.

Can I just say, there is an important distinction in all of this between the development plan and the assessment process; they are two completely different things. Unfortunately, what happens quite often is we shoot the piano player, or the messenger, whichever analogy you want to go with, because the assessing authority, whether it is the DAP of a council or whether it is the DAC, is assessing against a set of criteria of which it is not the author.

You can have a situation where it might well be, if the members of the DAP or the DAC were making the decision about what they like, or do not like, they would come to a particular point of view; but that is not what they are there to do. Indeed, it is one of the reasons why DAPs are still fraught with difficulty. The councillors who are members of DAPs are caught between the political requirements or pressures of their electors and their actual responsibility as a determiner of whether or not a particular application lines up with the development plan, not whether it lines up with the views of the current residents.

The long and short of that point, I suppose, is the answer lies, member for Fisher and others, in having a good development plan, because a good development plan when properly used for assessment purposes will produce good results. The good development plan can and should include design review and design merit elements, which we have done in respect of the Adelaide City Council interim DPA which came through in March of last year, where the design review panel is now dealing with pre-lodgement design review assessment of projects in excess of $10 million.

As far as I am concerned, the broader that concept is in South Australia, particularly in the rest of the city, the better, because that is a very important point. In the end you cannot get away from having decent development plans against which to make an assessment, but I do accept design review could do a lot more work elsewhere, and so far the experiment in the City of Adelaide is working in a positive way. You mentioned something about undergrounding powerlines. This is something that I have been obsessed with for many, many years. I remember years ago writing to my then state member of parliament, Mr Hamilton.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Indeed. I used to write to Mr Hamilton, the then member for Albert Park, if I remember correctly. I used to say, 'Dear Kevin, aren't you sick of looking at these terrible stobie poles? When are we going to start doing something about it?' As I recall, he sent me a letter enclosing a PLEC brochure, telling me that we had the solution in hand.

The Hon. S.W. Key: That's right. Got to get on the list, though.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. I agree with the member for Fisher that that is much less than I would hope for. I also agree with him that it would be perhaps a good idea for us to look at places like Perth, where they have done something about it. I noted in the member for Fisher's remarks that his studies of the Perth model indicate that local communities have been prepared to contribute to the cost of doing that, and the cost is not insignificant.

I must say, I have always wondered why, when we have had things like, for example, the rollout of cable TV—you remember some years ago, during the time of the Keating government there was a thing about rolling out those ugly fat cables down everyone's street. It was an opportunity for local government, the federal government, the telcos and the power suppliers to cooperate in digging the holes and putting the whole lot underground.

That was an opportunity, I think, that was missed, and I think it is a great shame it was missed. Again, I wrote a series of letters which largely went unanswered to various people, suggesting that. They largely ignored me, except, I might say, Mr Ziggy Switkowski. He was going to put some enormous big fat cables in front of my place. I wrote him a letter saying, 'Dear Mr Switkowski, I am writing to you to draw your attention to the horrible cables that are going to be obscuring my view. I have saved my whole life to buy this home so that I can sit here and look out the window, and I never anticipated that I would be looking at those ugly fat cables.

'I have said to my friends, "If I write to Mr Switkowski, he will listen to me because he cares about little people," and they have all replied, "No, he won't listen to you. He's a big businessman. He's just interested in making money." But I know, Mr Switkowski, you do care about little people like me.' It obviously worked because he did not put a cable down the street. So sometimes it does pay to write a letter to people. Anyway, that deals with underground powerlines.

Another issue is trees. Obviously, there is an 'asymbiosis', if there is such a word, between trees and overhead powerlines. Overhead powerlines mean you have the most spectacularly stupid things, like a perfect, pristine row of Norfolk Island pines cut off at about 10 metres with little sprouts coming up everywhere because they are right under a powerline. How spectacular that is!

You expect a tree with a 20-metre girth at the bottom to go up higher than the ceiling in this building, but it does not: it goes up about as far as the clock and then it is cut off. Why? Because there is a powerline going down the street. Or in places like Ashford, where they have plane trees or some other trees, they have that terrible thing where they just chop off the top of the tree and it sprouts off in different directions. I do not know what they call it, but there is a name for it.

The Hon. R.B. Such: Pollarding.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, pollarding. The pollarding industry is thriving in Adelaide courtesy of electricity powerlines. So, there we are: decent streets, nice trees, underground powerlines; it is very hard to argue with anything the member for Fisher is saying about that.

He also mentioned transport planning. I have a good bit of news for the member for Fisher: in September or thereabouts we are going to be rolling out a draft integrated land use and transport plan, which hopefully will address a number of the concerns the member for Fisher has raised, and I know they are concerns that many people have had for many years.

We do have a range of different public transport services operating—the O-Bahn, the tram, buses, trains. The question is: how do they all knit together and how do they all serve communities properly? The way the people in Onkaparinga are best served, for example, may not be the same as for people in Norwood. Nonetheless, how are we going to deal with all those people and their public transport needs? These are all very important questions raised by the member for Fisher and, as always, he was succinct, to the point, and it is something that we are going to walk away from here thinking about.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am about to draw a contrast. So, thank you very much, member for Fisher. Hopefully, you appreciate that I agree with almost everything you said. I now turn to the other contribution. I want to address it in three parts: the first hour and a half, the second hour and a half, and the third hour and a half. The third hour and a half reminded me of something called Vogon poetry. Years ago, I saw a film on television, called The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, in which the hero winds up on this spaceship run by a group of fairly unpleasant looking individuals.

When they capture people they wish to manipulate—so they will either be tortured or the equivalent—they do not use conventional things, like waterboarding (which I could also have compared to the third hour and a half), but they use a thing called Vogon poetry, where they just read this terrible poetry out to people, and people volunteer to jump off the spaceship in order not to listen to any more of the poetry. At least, that is my recollection of the film and, if anyone has not seen it, I think you should have a look at it. It is in about the first hour and a half of the film.

The Hon. S.W. Key: Bring back the poetry!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Bring back the Vogon poetry, yes. That is really my main comment about the third hour and a half and, to some extent, the second hour and a half.

An honourable member: And the first.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: And to some extent the first hour and a half, but I will come back to more particular issues. Can I suggest to the member for Bragg that it might be a good idea and produce an interesting result if the member for Bragg actually obtained a cassette recording of her second reading contribution and sent it to everyone in her electorate, so that they could listen to it whilst they are considering what they are going to do in March next year.

Those of them with the true grit to sit through it I guarantee will vote for you, member for Bragg. Those that sit through the whole 4½ hours will definitely be supportive of the member for Bragg. The rest of them will at least be more informed as to the member for Bragg's views on a great many things. A couple of other issues came out of it—back to the first 1½ hours now.

There was a bit of discussion in there about the LGA, and there were references made by the honourable member to her forensic skills in determining that Mr O'Loughlin had 'transferred with a tranche several hundred others across to the urban renewal authority from Housing SA which has been depleted'.

Just for the record, Mr O'Loughlin has indeed 'concealed' his change of work in the conventional way by going to work like everybody else, and telling everybody who asked him. So, that is not exactly a secret. In terms of any potential, actual, figmentary or illusory conflict of interest, I note with interest, because it has been provided to me by the LGA, that a resolution was passed that:

The LGA Board authorised the LGA Vice President Mayor Lorraine Rosenberg and CEO to finalise a submission to the Minister for Planning on the Housing and Urban Development (Administrative Arrangements) (Urban Renewal) Amendment Bill 2013, based on legal advice received and the submissions made by Councils.

As far as the LGA is concerned, Mr O'Loughlin, in an exercise of absolute probity, has taken himself out of the mix—

Ms Chapman: We accept that; you should have told us. You should have told the parliament; that is the point.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am telling you now. Hello!

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Let me read that again—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Let me read that again:

The LGA...authorised the LGA Vice President Mayor Lorraine Rosenberg and CEO to finalise a submission to the Minister for Planning...

So, the LGA did the right thing. We knew what they were doing, and they knew what we were doing. Mr O'Loughlin had never said to the LGA that he did not work for the government; he had never asked them to let him represent them in this conversation. Mr O'Loughlin has acted with complete integrity about this matter, as one would expect. The LGA has operated with complete transparency and integrity in respect of this matter—

Ms Chapman: It's only you that we are criticising.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The member for Bragg interjects that I haven't; well, that brings me to my next point: Apollo 11. Now, there are people—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There are people who believe that Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins did not in fact go to the moon in July of 1969. They believe that they—

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Point of order.

Ms CHAPMAN: Unless the minister is proposing to disclose that a precinct plan will be issued for the moon, then this has no interest, merit or capacity to influence the debate, and—

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Coming from you!

Ms CHAPMAN: Although the Attorney has had his little quip about the length of contribution, which I suggest is quite disingenuous about all of those submissions that we have outlined to the parliament from genuine people who have made that contribution, I just make the point and ask for a ruling that, unless there is going to be a disclosure—which should not come in a rebuttal, of course—that there is going to be a precinct plan proposed for the moon, you would rule that this is completely irrelevant.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not think it is a point of order. The Deputy Premier is obviously using examples in response to contributions that were made earlier in the day, and he is in order.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, there are some people who believe that when Reg Lindsay sang the son A Man Called Armstrong, which we all recall, and starting with 'On a July afternoon'—the member for Bragg reckons she was a bit young, but others of us—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I did tell you about it at some stage when you asked. Anyway, the point is that there are some people who believe that that did not actually happen at all but that at a secret filming at Universal Studios the whole thing was set up.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, Apollo 11. So Neil Armstrong never actually landed on the moon at all; that was all done in front of a green screen at Universal Studios, and people believe this. There are other people who believe that the vapour trails that come behind aircraft are delivering messages from other planets, and stuff like that.

They are in the same space as some of the allegations and conspiracy theories that have been advanced by the member for Bragg in her first one and half hour contribution: about secret meetings, people not telling people things, people hiding things and saying, 'Oh, it's a conspiracy.' It could not possibly be as simple as Mr O'Loughlin telling everybody that he had a conflict and that he did not get involved; it could not possibly be that simple. Goodness me, wouldn't that be dull.

Then there all of the other allegations we have had this morning of cover-ups and secret meetings and lack of consultation. The interesting question about the Playford conversation that is going on presently—can I give you some of the elements of the secret conspiracy that has been going on there. For the last two or three years the government has been talking to local government and anybody else out in that area who will listen, including all the landowners, about what they would like to see happen in Playford.

Unless the member for Bragg has evidence that all of those people have been sworn to secrecy or have been threatened to silence them, we start to see how absurd this assertion is. A week or so ago we put out a discussion paper—the most comprehensive discussion paper ever distributed in the planning space and we have a 12 or 14-week discussion period ahead of us in relation to that. Where I come from that is called consulting. In fact, we have 14 weeks of consulting as the crescendo to three years of consulting. In fact, consulting fatigue is bearing down on the people of the north. They have been consulted to death.

I dare say that if anyone goes doorknocking in the north in the next few months and they open the door they will say, 'Oh, no, not another consult about the development plan. Please, we've had enough of you.' Everybody knows about it—except the member for Bragg. The member for Bragg is the only one who does not know about the consultation that is going on. All of this waffle that went on for the first and second hour and a half about people not consulting with people and people not knowing about things—as I said, it is up there with Apollo 11. It is just sheer fantasy. It is conspiracy theory and completely wild stuff. The member for Bragg wanted to know why it was that I was in the chamber debating this bill and not the Minister for Infrastructure. The answer is tragic but here it is: I got the short straw. The Minister for Infrastructure—

Mr GARDNER: Point of order, sir: it is unparliamentary to refer to whether members are in the chamber or not.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am chastened.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: All right.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: And I apologise to the Minister for Infrastructure for having said such a thing about him. I am sorry, minister.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Anyway, I am just not going to pursue that particular line of questioning. Now, here we are. Can I go into a couple of matters of detail? I have tried to deal with the general propositions. Mr O'Loughlin, I think I have dealt with him. I haven't seen the expert panel advice. For those who are interested in seeing a letter from Mr Hayes about this document, no problem, it can be done. Can I also say that there has been plenty of time for the member for Bragg and others to get a briefing about this matter between the time the bill was brought in and now. I am not going to try to embarrass anybody by going into the detail of what has happened there—or not happened, as the case might be.

Written submissions: well, I am not hiding them from anybody, if anyone wants to see them. Selective consultation: I think I have dealt with the absurdity of that proposition. LGA not consulted enough: look, we have been consulting (we, me, the department) with the LGA and that is just the truth; we have been. Any assertion to the contrary is absolute unmitigated rubbish. It may be that one or other of the constituents of the LGA might or might not agree with the bill. Well, you know, let a hundred flowers bloom. I don't care. But the assertion that we have not consulted with the LGA is complete and absolute rubbish.

If one or two councils have peculiar concerns or are recalcitrants or absolutely love it, wouldn't one expect that? I mean, they are not all robots. There are 68 of them. You cannot expect them all to think exactly the same thing all the time. So I utterly reject any assertion of a lack of consultation with the LGA. Indeed, just to further that point, I read out into the Hansard the other day words that I had undertaken to read in order to assist the LGA and give them words of comfort. I wouldn't have done that if I hadn't talked to them, I wouldn't have thought.

There has been consultation obviously with the URA. We have had more again of the Apollo 11 story—there is a sniff of conspiracy, there is a conflict of interest here, there is a conflict of interest there. I know that people behind me know but do people over there understand what a conflict of interest actually is? A conflict of interest is a flag. It is not a criminal offence. It is a flag that says there is a risk in maintaining the relationship between this person and this piece of work because of another relationship.

It does not mean that person is necessarily doing anything wrong. It means that they are in a position where they might conceivably be compromised. That can be managed and, on my advice from the department, it has been managed in the instances that have been referred to repeatedly. The Ombudsman, of course, has already examined this particular exercise up hill and down dale, has made his comments, and we had a discussion about that here a while ago and that has been and gone, so for goodness sake let's not go back there.

Mr Goldsworthy: To be referred to the ICAC.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Just to help the member for Kavel, nobody refers anything to the ICAC, not even the member for Kavel. Significant though his capabilities are, not even the member for Kavel can refer anything to ICAC. Neither can I. What you can do is write a letter to the Office of Public Integrity which may or may not pass it on to the commissioner who may or may not at his discretion decide to investigate it.

That is what you can do, okay? We need to get that right because one day somebody saying that could wind up being prosecuted for saying 'I have done this' when you haven't actually done that and it is an offence to say you have. So I would hate for anything like that to happen to the member for Kavel because it would be a terrible way to end his career. I don't want that to happen.

Playford, lack of consultation: we have already discussed that. The long and short of it is that the opposition says, inasmuch as I did get a sense of what the member for Bragg was saying, 'We support the bill but it is terrible.' I think this bill is actually very important for the people of South Australia. It means that we can have a development authority which is comparable with things that have made the East Perth Redevelopment Authority or the Southbank development authority in Brisbane and other authorities like that do great work.

They pull together local government, state government and people who are entrepreneurs or developers or whatever, and they produce great outcomes with special governance arrangements to deal with the particularities of those project, as they should do. We have a second-rate planning regime until we recognise that we are deficient in not having these sorts of arrangements and that we need to get them.

The other point, before I descend into more particularity, is to say that there is an inherent inconsistency between the propositions advanced by the member for Bragg—on the one hand, complaining about the position from the perspective of the LGA and, in the next breath, complaining about the position from the perspective of the UDIA.

Let's make no mistake about what the UDIA is saying here. They are saying, 'We want local government and state government to get out of the field and hand over these powers to us as private developers.' I say this: No. 1, it is not the policy of this government, and never will be, to say that the government, through its own land management arm, which in this case is the URA, is not able to both assemble and, if it chooses to do so, develop land. If we were to cut off that particular option from the URA and say, 'You might be able to assemble land packages, but you never, never, ever will be allowed to develop them—

Ms Chapman: Didn't say that.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Well, read your Hansard and read the proposition advanced by the UDIA. The second thing is the idea that the powers contained in this bill should be entrusted to an authority which has no elected government representative on it, neither state government nor local government. Again, I reject that totally. There is nothing wrong with us as a state government, or a local government, partnering with a developer to produce an outcome using the provisions of that legislation—nothing at all wrong with that.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I invite the member for Bragg to clarify that position. Is the member for Bragg saying unequivocally that, as far as the opposition is concerned, you are happy to have the statutory powers contained in this bill handed over to a private sector operator—yes or no?

Ms Chapman: No, to develop it themselves.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: All of the powers in this bill given to a private sector developer—yes or no?

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Is that a yes or a no answer?

Ms Chapman: No.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Good—it's a no.

Mr Goldsworthy: This is out of order, Michael.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, take a point of order.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: He's working up to it. So, that is a matter of principle, I think; that is a point of difference. On the one hand, we have, if you want to characterise it, an attack from the free market sort of Tea Party end of the spectrum, and we have an attack from the extreme 'Oh, gee we're worried' LGA end of the spectrum. Two more completely irreconcilable positions I cannot imagine, and we will see in the fullness of time what happens.

Now for a bit more particularity, because I thought I had to deal with the general stuff first. First of all, consultation: the government has sought the views of interested people on this bill while it lay on the table since being introduced on 2 May. I remind members that the bill has the support of the expert panel on planning reform, which provided valuable comments, and the—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: If you had been listening, member for Bragg, instead of having a convivial with the very, very enchanting guest we have in the gallery today, you would have heard about that. I am happy to provide copies of the expert panel's advice to the opposition or to anybody else. Can I say, again for the record, that this bill has been worked on for some time. It just so happens that the bill was finalised shortly after the panel had been created, and it was thought that, in deference to the panel, even though this work had pre-dated the panel, the panel would be consulted—and they were, and they made comments and those comments were incorporated in the bill.

Since tabling, supportive comments on the bill have been made in the media by a wide number of organisations, including Community Alliance, the Local Government Association, the Property Council, the Urban Development Institute and the Civil Contractors Federation. All of these comments are very welcome and evidence broad spectrum support for the new approach to urban renewal which this bill proposes, subject to, of course, issues of detail.

I have also been pleased that a number of organisations have taken advantage of the opportunity to comment on the bill, and I am happy to provide all of their submissions to the opposition or any other member between the houses. You cannot do better than that, can you? Everybody is entitled to have that. In particular, as I indicated in my second reading remarks, my department has sought to engage with the local government sector.

Since the bill was introduced, engagement with local government has included my attendance at the Metropolitan Local Government Group meeting of mayors and chief executives on 8 May, a specific workshop provided to elected councillors and staff on 21 May, and a number of direct meetings with staff from the Local Government Association. Indeed, I would like to thank the Local Government Association for their close collaboration with my department in facilitating these discussions. The support of Local Government Association has in fact been productive and constructive.

I am particularly grateful to Mayor Rosenberg, Vice President of the LGA, for her assistance during this process, as well as the staff of the LGA Secretariat. Planning staff have also discussed the bill directly with a number of councils as part of the department's regular meeting with local government, and I am advised there is considerable interest from some councils in the potential application of the precinct planning process outlined in the bill for their own urban renewal projects. I understand that the LGA's circulation of the bill for comments from its members concluded last Friday and has informed its submission to the government.

While I am advised that the LGA's submission is still in draft and is yet to go through the formal process of endorsement by its executive—and can I say in parentheses here, this is one thing that is constantly difficult. The timelines for the LGA to go through its extensive process are not always easy to fit into a complementary arrangement with government. That is not a criticism of the LGA; it is just a fact. We appreciate the fact that we are able to consult, nevertheless, prior to that time.

I am grateful to the LGA for providing an advanced copy of its submission to the government to enable it to debate the bill and proceed with this now. It is my understanding that the LGA has also briefed the opposition, which was evident from the opposition reading out the whole letter, and gave them a copy of the draft submission. In addition to the LGA, submissions have been made to the government by the Environmental Defenders Office and the Urban Development Institute, and I am happy to share details of these with members.

In addition, I have received an advance copy of a submission from the Adelaide City Council this morning, which I am also happy to share with members. I have not, at this stage, been in a position to review this submission in detail, but many of the matters they raise are encompassed in the LGA's submission, and the government will be happy to provide a more detailed response once we have digested their comments. Bear in mind, these submissions are coming in pretty late, from our point of view. We are trying to digest them as quickly as we can and get back to people.

I want to repeat the undertaking I made upon the introduction of this bill. I am prepared to discuss reasonable amendment to the bill with any interested parties, and I am willing to provide briefings to any member who desires to inform their deliberations. Indeed, my office has already facilitated briefings for the opposition, which I understand have taken place today and before today with the Greens and the Hon. Kelly Vincent. Further to the debate today, I will be outlining my initial response to the issues raised in the submissions to date, and I am happy to then take any specific questions.

First of all, as to the role of the URA, both the URA and the Urban Development Institute have suggested changes to the function of the urban renewal authority proposed in the legislation. I want to be clear that the government is not seeking to alter the current functions of the URA in any way from those already established in the regulations under which it is currently established.

All this bill seeks to do is to elevate the URA from the regulations to become a creature of statute law. This will ensure the longevity of the URA which is necessary to ensure that long-term urban renewal projects it has been set up to achieve, are realisable using precinct planning powers provided under this bill.

Whilst the list of functions has been abbreviated from that in the regulations, our view is that this does not alter the nature or the form of the organisation in any meaningful way. For this reason, I am disinclined to accept the changes proposed by the LGA, most of which are relatively cosmetic in nature.

In relation to the submission from the UDIA, these would significantly alter the role of the URA and would, in my view, unnecessarily hamper its operations. I am not inclined to accept these, as I have remarked earlier.

In my view, the independent Expert Panel on Planning Reform chaired by Brian Hayes QC, which I established earlier this year, is the better vehicle for those types of issues to be ventilated. From the government's perspective, our intention is simply to transpose the URA in its current form into the statute in an efficient manner.

A number of the comments from the LGA relate to the consultation processes outlined in the bill at various stages of the precinct planning process. I note that, generally, the LGA supports the multiple steps outlined for upfront engagement and consultation set out in the bill and sees them as potentially a better model for many urban renewal projects than the minimum consultation requirements set out in the current Development Act.

However, I note the LGA has expressed concerns that a number of the consultation steps do not set out minimum time periods for consultation at each stage of the process and include discretionary rather than mandatory provisions. These concerns have also been raised by the Environmental Defenders Office. For example, prior to establishing a precinct, the minister is required to consult with any relevant council staff. The LGA has expressed the view that this should include a minimum time period.

Similarly, in relation to the process of public consultation on a draft precinct plan, the LGA has expressed the view that the holding of a public meeting should not be discretionary. The current provision provides only that the minister may require a public meeting to be held.

Another example relates to the establishment of a community reference panel and design review panel to support the precinct planning process. This is presently expressed as discretionary in the minister, whereas the LGA and the Environmental Defenders Office think this should be a mandatory requirement.

A further example relates to consultation with the Development Policy Advisory Committee and the Development Assessment Commission. In both cases, the LGA and the EDO have called for this consultation to be mandatory.

The policy rationale behind the discretionary nature of these revisions is to maintain a degree of flexibility within the precinct planning process. This flexibility is desirable to ensure that the process is scalable, capable of catering for large and small-scale precinct projects with the process tailored, to some degree, to the nature of the project proposed to be undertaken.

In simple terms, the more prescription we put into the process the narrower the range of urban renewal projects it is likely to be suited for. We do not want to design a process which will lock out potential investors because it is too cumbersome for their particular project. However, I accept that a level of certainty is desirable and I am considering making the detail of these consultation requirements matters that will be the subject to regulation rather than ministerial discretion.

Ms CHAPMAN: When will I see those?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: 'Considering' I said. Such an approach would preserve the flexibility we desire and which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's new-found friends in the UDIA, no doubt, would desire, while also assuring stakeholders that there will be some default expectation application to most projects most of the time.

For example, I consider it would be possible to say that consultation timeframes will be as prescribed by regulation. A regulation would then set a standard timeframe, but could also enable exceptions or abbreviations to that timeframe as appropriate.

Similarly, in relation to consultation with DPAC and DAC, it could be that the consultation requirement is made mandatory, other than in circumstances permitted by regulations. This would preserve the flexibility we are seeking to achieve while providing an appropriate default position and parliamentary oversight of any departure. Accordingly, the government will consider amendment of this nature prior to debate in the other place.

I note a number of other concerns have been raised about the oversight of the precinct planning process by the LGA and the EDO. In particular, the LGA has raised the need for the establishment of a precinct to have tighter criteria and both the LGA and the EDO have raised the need for parliamentary oversight of the precinct planning process. The criteria for establishing a precinct have been drawn from equivalent interstate legislation. So, we are not actually inventing the wheel here. We are not there with our pieces of flint and straw doing this for the first time; this has actually been done before.

They are purposive rather than prescriptive in nature to ensure that we do not rule out potential urban renewal projects by applying criteria that are too limiting in nature. We believe the process for establishing a precinct already has substantial checks and balances. These include consultation with the Minister for Planning. And can we just get this clear? The idea that everybody's in the bathtub together is not right. There is a separation between the Minister for Planning—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I'm losing them, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The Hon. J.D. Hill: Just pull the plug on that image.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Okay, new image: we are all in the same space. Is that neutral enough?

The Hon. J.D. Hill: Yes.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We are not in the same space. That is the reason, from an administrative point of view, as far as the machinery of government rules are concerned, there is a separation between the Minister for Planning and the Minister for Infrastructure. The Minister for Planning has certain roles which do not include a whole group of things that the Minister for Infrastructure is involved in—like being responsible ultimately to the parliament for the URA, like building bridges, like building roads, building railways, etc.

However, there is a difference between getting planning approval for a bridge, building a bridge and, as the member for Schubert could tell us, painting a bridge. They are three completely different things. There is already a separation in the government arrangements between the planning and building bit, and this is maintained. This is actually a check and balance within the system.

So, I come back. These include the consultation with the Minister for Planning to check aligning with the planning strategy, consultation with relevant councils, and consultation with DPAC and the Development Assessment Commission. At the master planning stage, checks and balances include consultation with the community, the use of community reference panels and design review panels, advice from the DAC, joint ministerial sign-off (in other words, both ministers have to agree), cabinet endorsement and then, of course, the endorsement of the Governor. In executive terms, this is the Rolls-Royce—

Ms Chapman: This is just you and Tom, and everyone else is a possible; that's all it is.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Cynical—so, so cynical.

Ms Chapman: What about if you and Tom disagree? You're the deputy.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I'm asked: what if the Minister for Infrastructure and I were to disagree? Then there would not be the two signatures and there would be a creative tension, as I would call it, between us until we came to a position that we could both live with, at the end of which both signatures would be applied, and there the system would be working. That is a beautiful opportunity for me to explain that.

I also note that the conferral of powers on a precinct authority is to be achieved by regulation and therefore subject to parliamentary disallowance. However, I acknowledge that the bill could be improved by the inclusion of additional checks and balances. For this reason, I will be considering the potential to include changes to the bill which would ensure each stage of the precinct planning process is reported to the parliament's standing Environment, Resources and Development Committee and the ability for that committee to recommend alterations to a precinct master plan or, if necessary, disallowance on a similar basis to a development plan amendment.

I also note the LGA's suggestion that a business case could be prepared to support the precinct declaration, and I will consider how this could be reflected in the legislation. I think such a process could also address some of the issues raised by the Adelaide City Council's submission in an effective fashion. The LGA has raised a number of issues relating to the interaction of this bill with the Development Act.

A fundamental strength of the South Australian planning system is its unitary nature; however, this type of urban renewal legislation is best placed parallel to the normal planning rules. This is consistent with the approach of all other Australian jurisdictions. The rationale for this is that urban renewal legislation is about project management and governance, as opposed to regulatory policy settings. In this sense it is akin to public works or infrastructure legislation, which also sit parallel to the normal land use planning rules.

Conceptually, we see the precinct planning process as a special mechanism to enable transformational projects that will catalyse urban renewal and regeneration to be undertaken in a more integrated and coordinated manner than the planning system currently allows. In this sense, the precinct planning process enables a project to exit the normal planning system for this public policy purpose. Very importantly, however, the legislation has been designed to then ensure that upon completion of a project there are mechanisms to return the precinct to the normal planning system.

This is similar to urban renewal legislation in other jurisdictions, although the project time frames may be lengthy. Necessarily, by establishing urban renewal processes parallel to the Development Act, careful linkage with business-as-usual planning process is required. The LGA has made a number of suggestions to improve these linkages, which I am prepared to consider; for example, providing direct linkage to the process of council strategic direction reports under the Development Act.

However, a number of the suggestions put by the LGA would fundamentally undermine the purpose of this bill and cannot be agreed to. It is essential that at some point a precinct plan overrides the underlying development plan to the extent necessary and that the precinct authority undertakes the assessment process in lieu of the normal process. Otherwise the whole object of the exercise has been defeated.

I accept the concern expressed by the LGA that precinct plans will need to be detailed and robust if the exercise of the powers to override the development plan and take over the assessment process is to be acceptable. Essentially, the precinct implementation plan will need to have sufficient detail in it to justify the streamlined certification process outlined in the bill, and this is the reason the DAC has a role to play in advising the minister on the merits of a draft implementation plan.

This is something that is best addressed by ensuring there are appropriate checks and balances in the legislation to ensure these decisions are not made lightly and that there is adequate scrutiny of each stage of the precinct planning process, including consultation with councils and government agencies. As already indicated, I am prepared to consider amendments that will strengthen these oversight and consultation requirements to this end.

The LGA has raised a number of suggestions about the interaction of a precinct authority with local government. Most significantly, the LGA has raised concern about the impact of precinct development and the revenue raising powers of a precinct authority upon long-term local government revenue and asset management programs; similar concerns have been raised by the Adelaide City Council. I am happy to respond to these issues.

Firstly, in relation to public infrastructure and assets within a precinct, I want to be clear that there are no powers in this bill that would compel a local council to accept ownership and management of any new infrastructure or public facilities. Secondly, this can only happen by negotiation. Necessarily, this will require the precinct authority to negotiate handover arrangements with local government. These are issues the URA, local government and developers are already well versed in.

Mawson Lakes is a good example of a long-term development involving a negotiated handover of assets to local government. Ideally, a precinct development project should be able to hand over assets with a revenue stream arising from the value uplift created from the precinct development. This is, of course, why it is so important that a precinct authority has revenue powers, conferrable by regulation, that enable it to attract private sector investment and underpin public realm and infrastructure capital upgrades within a precinct.

However, I accept the concern the LGA has raised about this power not being exercised without due regard to its potential impact. It seems appropriate to me that, if this power is to be exercised, there should be strong consultation requirements with the revenue agency concerned and that an assessment of the impact on long-term revenues should be considered prior to conferral.

Indeed, generally I think where a power is to be conferred upon a precinct authority there is merit in requiring consultation with the statutory entity responsible for the usual exercise of that power. I also note the LGA has expressed concern that local government should be represented on the precinct authority or the consultative panels or committees it establishes. I am willing to consider some form of this between the houses.

Finally, I note the LGA's concern that inconsistency with any council by-laws should be identified early in the precinct planning process to avoid the need for conflict down the track. This seems sensible and I am happy to think about how this could be achieved.

I note that there have been a number of different views expressed about the role of the private sector in delivering urban renewal. The UDIA has expressed the view that private developers should be able to utilise the precinct planning process. At present, a precinct may only be managed under the auspices of a public authority, that is, either local government or the state government.

On the other hand, the LGA and the EDO have both expressed concern that the ability to establish special purpose statutory corporations as precinct authorities under the bill would enable private interests to have undue influence over planning decisions, and I share that concern. I note that members of a statutory corporation will remain subject to the normal public sector accountability controls and will be required to exercise their powers having regard to their fiduciary duties as board members. The practice of nominee directors is not uncommon in the corporate world and it is appropriate for the potential for this to be allowed for precinct development.

I also note that the establishment of a statutory corporation must be done by regulation and is therefore subject to parliamentary disallowance. This seems an appropriate safeguard against improper use of this power to subvert public accountability of precinct authorities. I understand the UDIA is pushing for amendments to the bill which would open the precinct planning process to private sector applicants.

Ms Chapman: No, it doesn't.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: This is not something the government can support.

Ms Chapman: Neither do we.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That's what we understand. If you don't support it either, that is good; we are in furious agreement. The bill as it stands potentially confers wide powers on a precinct authority. Our view is that these powers should be exercised by a public authority accountable to elected officials—either a council or the state government.

However, this does not preclude joint venture arrangements being entered into by the URA or a council with a private sector, or the potential for substantial precinct planning activity to be undertaken by a private sector developer under the oversight of a public body constituted as a precinct authority. This is no different to the potential for developer-funded development plan amendments, subject to full public disclosure and oversight of these arrangements at all times.

At this stage, I do not consider it appropriate to expand the availability of the precinct planning process further in the manner suggested by the UDIA. I do not think the community or local government is ready for such a radical change, and I think the principle of public accountability would need to be resolved before such a move could ever occur. This is a matter which I expect the Expert Panel on Planning Reform will consider and I would encourage the UDIA to put its submission to the panel as part of its engagement process.

Finally, I note that some concerns have been raised about the transitional provisions in the bill. The intent of this provision is to enable projects which have already undertaken consultation processes under the current arrangements to be converted into precincts without going through all of the consultation steps that would normally be required. Obviously, projects to which this might apply would include Bowden, Tonsley and a number of council-led urban renewal projects.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (17:29): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.