Bills

Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (15:51): The next stage of my contribution is going to be about some unsolicited feedback that came to me. There was a group of people and individuals who were contacted, but there were probably about 10 groups that came through with no contact from me at all. In some of those cases, the same message has been sent to the Attorney-General and Minister for Planning. The first email is from Mr Rob Stephens, who is at Streaky Bay, so it is from a wide variety of areas, and it is about the planning bill. This letter went to the Attorney also:

Dear Sirs,

I have lived and worked in Streaky Bay for 35 years as a real estate agent and more recently I have been involved with Local Government.

There are certain issues in the new act which may be beneficial, but to have it completely taken away from locals it would be damaging.

I know we need to have certain rules and regulations but there is a lot of differing factors which are hard to swallow in the country compared to the cities.

Local knowledge can make a huge difference in decision making.

We have had a recent example of where a subdivision was approved locally but declined by the minister because the allotments were 'too large'.

This is a city mentality, nothing to do with the country or local knowledge.

I think there is a lot of decisions being made without any consultation.

Can I say that I have taken this email to have actually been about rural living allotment requirements and I will have a little bit more to say later in the debate about that, because it is a very concerning issue with the position that the minister has taken on that when it comes to considering regional areas.

The next message came only to me in this case; it did not go to the minister or any member of the Legislative Council. It is from a lady who prefers to be identified just as a concerned South Australian. She writes:

I would like to voice my concerns about the planning reforms recently proposed by the State Government.

While I understand that we need a better planning system, I would like to keep the planning system local and to continue to work with my local council to have a say on the type of development that I want in my community. I believe my view is representative of the broader community, and I would appreciate if you could keep my concerns top of mind in the decision making process on these planning reforms.

Interesting feedback. The next email is from Dr Jonathan Deakin. I mention his name by virtue of the fact that he also sent this submission to the Minister for Planning, the Hon. Robert Brokenshire, the Hon. Dennis Hood, the Hon. John Darley, the Hon. Kelly Vincent and the Hon. Mark Parnell's office. Mr Deakin's submission is:

I am appealing to you to consider the following views, on the Government's response to planning reform. I have been an elected member and member of DAPs for 13 of the past 20 years.

It is my opinion that the State Government is the legitimate authority to dictate how our planning system will manage the State's development. However, I also believe it is unfair to legislate such that Local Government shoulders the responsibility and by default the blame for unpopular policies and decisions, when it has no say in those policies and decisions.

The Expert Panel found that twenty years ago, when I was first elected to a council and allowances were minimal and planning assessment was half the work load, our planning system was 'groundbreaking'.

That goes back to the 1993 Development Act.

Now after 20 years of State Government's, Planner's and Developer's, frustration at not being able to control outcomes, we have a system that is 'unaffordable, unsustainable and unconnected', with little or no local involvement. We have been on a path of incremental policy change for the past 15 years.

Indeed, that is reflected by virtue that there has been approximately 50 amendment bills to the Development Act 1993. Mr Deakin's contribution continues:

The planning minister that started it is now our Premier—

which does not quite match in, but close—

and the changes continue with the proposed Planning, Development & Infrastructure Bill 2015, soon to come before you.

Local government has always carried the burden of administrating and responsibility for the Planning system. Today we are more professional and work in a much tighter legislative environment. We also receive 20 times the allowance to do half the work of our predecessors;

That is interesting. He continues:

I believe we have become an underutilised resource in Planning, policy, assessment and community engagement simply because we are often the voice of communities that either don't share, don't understand or don't want, the outcomes pursued by the State Government.

In conclusion when the State Government finally takes the local out of planning, they will break an important link between policy and practice, risk the wrath of the electorate and motivate Local Government into just complying with the Act and or becoming its community's planning advocate. These factors along with the anticipated increased costs, delays in assessment and unacceptable decisions will force the Government of the day to again institute reform.

He finalises that, 'Without prejudice'. The next submission received by me was from Mr Graham Webster, and I am quoting his name also because it has gone to a variety of members, including the minister. The submission states:

I write to you to ask that you vote against the wholesale changes proposed in the forthcoming Bill.

There has been great improvement in the State Planning System over the past 10 years with the Independent Members on DAPS, improved Development Plans through the Planning Library that has led to a standardisation of policies across Councils, and a very transparent process in amending Development Plans with a thorough public consultation process. Also Category 1 approvals have been standardised ensuring the speedy processing of minor developments.

There have been few problems for developers whose proposals fit within existing Development Plans.

So the truth behind the State Government's Bill is that they are bowing to unrealistic pressure by developers who don't wish to adhere to a proper process of policy, checks and balances. They want a 'free for all' system (which is no system at all).

This disregard for our well developed system is fed by greed and fear.

Greed to go higher and wider (airspace is free) and an attitude that overlooking is just bad luck for those already there.

And fear of the impending economic slowdown. This new 'system' will not improve our chances of capturing the investment dollar as developers (controlled by banks) will decide not to spend until things improve. Growth in employment will not happen just because we throw out our development rules.

Ensuring our city remains a great place to live and get around easily will bring more people to Adelaide to live and bring up families. Turning it into a Melbourne or Sydney will just make it another overcrowded place without soul.

Please don't be fooled by the assurance that the yet unseen Design Code and Regulations will ensure good development in the future. We know that is unsupported waffle. It's like saying, 'Trust us—this won't hurt!'

This disregard for our community is an insult to our intelligence. We are in your hands.

It is interesting in making comment about Mr Webster's contribution that he bases a lot of his comments on the fact that the minister is doing what the development industry wants. Indeed, the development industry, as I will say later on, also has concerns. The next submission is from a councillor at Mount Barker. It states:

It is 2015! Why do legislators, their staff and departments put so much effort in to creating unworkable, unreasonable, complicated volumes of legislation that show they have learnt NOTHING from their predecessors mistakes.

Here again the decision I made 34 years ago to be a political agnostic is explained.

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.