Bills

Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (17:35): I still have a bit to go, but I will try to bring things forward a bit because I understand that we have been here for a while.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no; we are enjoying it.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The next contribution I want to put on the record—and those who are listening intently (no doubt many in this room as well as many in their offices upstairs) have been hearing, in some cases, the submissions I have received that I have put on the record—is, again, an unsolicited submission, that was provided to me by a counsellor for the City of Campbelltown. It states:

In reading through documents and trying to analyse implications for councils, I along with my fellow councillors have very grave concerns. In fact the bill raises more questions than it answers. We do not believe for one minute that the intent of the bill is to serve our communities for the better.

The language used is loose in its interpretation without confirming the processes involved and how the changes will affect what is in place already. In fact it is ambiguous in many parts and fails miserably to deliver a comprehensive outline of the changes. The devil is in the detail and there is not enough of this to be able to accept this as a clear and well thought out document. The following very simplistically represents our greatest concerns at the moment:

elected members will be prohibited from sitting on panels assessing development applications, therefore removing the voice of local communities affected by proposed developments. Local knowledge and vested interests in the community's wellbeing will be lost to independents who could not be, and most probably won't be local residents;

there will be an overall reduced role for councils in planning and development, leading to a lack of appropriate and area-specific developmental requirements;

fewer activities will require planning approval and councils will have substantially reduced revenue from development applications;

councils will face increased costs through having to contribute to state programs, such as the new planning portal, and will have little or no control over the quality of specific infrastructure that they will be required to fund. The increased opportunity for cost-shifting from state to local government will place a huge burden on available revenues, causing many already stretched councils to [go to] the brink of ruin. It will cause an erosion of what is now a responsive and area-specific response from local councils for their community's needs;

councils will be encouraged to amalgamate their planning functions with other councils in the region, and those that don't comply will have plans enforced on them by the minister;

council 'development plans' will be phased out and replaced with a new 'planning and design code' with more standardised provisions, limiting area-specific requirements;

there will be reduced avenues for residents to comment on or challenge inappropriate developments directly affecting them and their enjoyment of their neighbourhoods and communities.

There are not many redeeming features of the bill and the proposed changes sought will in turn create more problems than they hope to solve. Centralisation and a one-size-fits-all approach is a recipe for disaster, lacking in the necessary considerations for the most important role of government; and that is representing the needs of its people and their quality of life.

Strong words indeed. The next submission is from a purely community-based organisation. I have met with its officers and they have provided this, rather extensively, particularly to members of the other place and myself. This from the Prospect Residents Association Inc., and I will use the acronym PRA when describing them. It says:

The PRA is seriously alarmed by the changes proposed in the new planning and infrastructure bill, in particular:

elected members, both on councils and MPs, and members of the community being removed from decision-making;

the planning minister having too much control;

loss of heritage and character in historic conservation zones;

restrictions on public access to information;

the financial impost on the community to pay for various aspects implemented by the bill;

emphasis on fast tracking approvals which will lead to inappropriate development/decisions;

loss of rights and abilities to challenge inappropriate development;

the lack of criteria against which building proposals will be assessed;

the continuing misuse of interim operation which allows development to occur without community consultation;

lack of consideration of social and environmental goals.

They continue, as follows:

The PRA wants the following changes/amendments

The reinstatement of Local Council's role in planning and assessment;

Reinstate councillors on assessment panels;

Retain residents' current right to have a say about what is built next to their property in particular with regards to access to sunlight, solar power, overshadowing and privacy issues;

To give residents some certainty in a planning system, Design Codes and Design Plans should be mandatory, not advisory;

Developers should fulfill the existing requirements listed in any Council Development Plans with only a variation of 10% allowed and the community should have comment and appeal rights;

Any development exceeding the maximum building height limit in a zone, should be considered to be performance assessed with full public notification and appeal rights;

Contributory items in Historic Conservation Zones must be included in the proposed Design Code;

Adjacent residents within 100m of the boundary are performance assessed and restricted development proposals, should be notified;

The community should not have to bear the costs of the changes proposed in the Bill for example the online planning system and infrastructure costs. This will result in increased council rates;

The Minister's powers should be reduced not increased as was agreed in the Expert Panel report;

The Planning Commission should include a range of interests outside of business and development interests, including heritage, environment and community representatives;

All meetings of all decision making planning bodies must be held in public;

Remove the proposal to compel residents to allow neighbouring applicants to enter their property to undertake any work, without consent and consent must be discretionary. Compensation must be made for any damage or inconvenience, caused by such entry;

There must be compensation for damage to homes and properties from neighbouring developments;

The bill should include the consideration of social, health and environmental impacts not just economic impacts;

Availability of planning information must not be restricted and access to it should be free;

Freedom of information rights must be applied to the planning system and at the same charge as exists now;

Public notifications must occur for applications for performance assessed development and restricted development including in the newspaper.

That is an issue where it is removed, as I understand it. I will comment on that later. They go on to say:

We have serious concerns that the new system is overwhelmingly pro-development and anti community. This skewed focus will result in very poor planning decisions having long lasting negative impacts on the character of our communities which will in turn lead to increased negative impact on social and environmental aspects of our local areas. It will also significantly increase community conflict.

I have an email from a resident of Prospect who provided this to me and it would appear to be all other members of both chambers by the extensive list on the email. It states:

I am very concerned about the proposed changes to the Development Act in the new Planning and Infrastructure Bill currently before Parliament. In particular I am concerned about the erosion of my rights as an individual and as a community member. It is the following changes that concern me greatly:

Elected members, both on Councils and MPs, and members of the community being removed from decision making;

I want the Bill to be amended so that communities have reasonable input into planning the development of their local areas and can question inappropriate development proposals. The Bill also needs to be amended to constrain developers to create plans which abide by the existing Act's intentions of creating better places to live, and require them to meet the development plans as they have been agreed to;

Loss of heritage character in historic conservation zones by removing contributory items;

The financial imposition on the community to pay for various aspects implemented by the Bill eg the online system and infrastructure costs for new development which will be passed onto rate payers;

Emphasis on fast tracking approvals which will lead to inappropriate development/decisions;

Loss of rights and abilities to challenge inappropriate development;

The lack of criteria against which building plans will be assessed;

The continuing misuse of interim operations which allows development to occur without community consultation;

Lack consideration of social and environmental goals.

There is a similar theme coming through this, and I am sure those who are listening have got that. The next one is from a resident of Willunga who I have not had contact with in the past. This was an email directed to me solely. It states:

I write to express my concern regarding this Bill and urge you to take note and act on the concerns raised by Local Government and your community. As a Council Elected Member it is important to me that the electorate are able to engage with the decision makers on issues that will impact their lifestyles and quality of life.

I agree that the system in place is by no means perfect and some reforms are most likely required, however I feel that some of the proposed changes would greatly reduce how and when people can have a say in the developments occurring around them and the lack of notification and engagement opportunity they will receive prior to the development assessments being made.

I am very worried about some of the proposed reforms in particular the changes that I feel will negatively affect, not only my own quality of life and freedom afforded by democracy, but that of the community I live in and serve.

My understanding of democracy is that it is based on self-government which distributes administrative power right down to grass root levels, through various layers of government which hopefully provides enough exposure, administrative power and participation opportunity to the people, increasing efficiency and in turn making the government more accountable. Taking away decision making processes at local level is surely not an inclusive, transparent or honest way of government.

This resident of Willunga goes on to list quite a few areas which have been covered by others, but she finishes by saying:

I once again respectfully ask that you, as an elected representative of your community, take these concerns further and endeavour to influence the decision making processes of this Bill to ensure a more favourable and fairer outcome for your community.

The next one is from a chap I know who lives to the east of Adelaide. We have had some previous contact, and he sent me an email in particular about this. He is a councillor for the Mid Murray Council. He states:

I am concerned about any requirement which might force Councils to contribute to the infrastructure of any subdivision of land, in order to reduce the cost of building blocks for households. Whilst subdivisions are great for stimulating growth, any increase in population has other cost factors outside the subdivision which are not covered by the Developer. These include stormwater drainage for the new subdivisions and increased traffic on roads leading to the subdivisions. These costs are already met by Local Government, although in some cases it takes years to find the funds to install the stormwater, and in the meantime, other residents can be flooded out in severe storms due to the extra water coming from the subdivisions. Within the township of Mannum I have a backlog of footpaths that require paving, stormwater plans which Council is not prepared to fund, and a few streets in the township still requiring a bitumen surface. We are still trying to find funds to complete our Waste Management Infrastructure including Waste Transfer Stations and the future of bin banks. If we can't fund these its not fair that we should have to contribute to the infrastructure within subdivisions.

That is interesting feedback from that chap. Another resident of Mannum provided me with some feedback that I thought was rather interesting, but I do not think, for the sake of what we are doing here, that I need to repeat some of it today. I will go on to the North Adelaide Society, and this is from one of their officers who works for them in a voluntary role. He talks about some reforms within Adelaide City Council, and the planning reform and a review of some details at Adelaide City Council that are available on its website by Googling and reviewing it. The email states:

This allowed council to compare what had been delivered in the final paper with what council wanted, and teased out all the details (what was good, bad, and what was simply left silent). Council then advertised in the City North Messenger—

looking for details—

The new bill reflects political expediency in the extreme, where, after all those years of the panel taking so much detailed evidence, the minister has picked out the most convenient bits, left the hard bits untouched, and been ruthless in locking out local government from its long-held role as central to planning in SA—as it always flagged it would. The citizen charter is an excellent case in point where the panel heard so much about keeping local communities in the loop, so Labor have now come up with a charter idea—but no evidence of the charter yet exists. Finally, all the 'ministerial solutions' are uncosted.

Indeed, as I understand it, there is no money in the budget to fund solutions. The email goes on:

I think the city council's position is generally valid and reasonable, and (now a year later) makes the bill look like the political opportunism that it is.

That is an interesting reply from that chap. I am nearing the end of these submissions, but there are more things I want to reflect upon later on. This is an email from a surveyor who operates a business within Adelaide, and I had a telephone conversation with him before he sent me the email. He states:

Following our recent phone call, I am writing as a long time experienced consulting, Licensed Surveyor, who has since 1978 specialised in land divisions in my own practice and hence extremely aware of the planning process that has evolved since I was an undergraduate, lectured in the late 60's by those responsible for the preparation and implementation of the then Planning Act.

I have witnessed the land division planning processes grow from when the then State Planning Office had two officers handling land divisions under 6 allotments and an officer and assistant coordinate those land divisions over 5 allotments. These plans of division then forwarded to the appropriate council for approval. At that time councils did not engage planners or have council development plans so approval/refusal decisions were made by the elected members of council.

Today, the major review into planning laws prepared for the Planning Minister Rau by Brian Hayes QC and his committee has detailed the subsequent short fallings of the current planning system, so that now in 2015 the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill was introduced by the Minister in September with the reported fact that the Minister wants this bill approved by the end of the year. I count less than 12 sitting days now available for the debate—

This email was received on 14 October. They go on to say:

While much of the proposed bill is to be commended—

I put on the record that there are those who will find support for this. I am predominantly focusing a bit on the negatives at the moment, but I will soon, probably, provide the other side of the argument—and I recognise the great challenge. This chap goes on to say:

I wish to make mention of one glaring irony. The bill proposes community involvement through a Community Engagement Charter, particularly in the early stages when planning policies are being formed. So I find it extremely ironic that the Planning Minister has released this bill without any formal ability for public consultation and comments from professionals. Please insist that more time is given to discussing contentious issues arising in this important bill and urge public discussion, that I am told will take 5 years to implement—

I interject here to say that the minister, in his briefings I heard and his comments to me, talked about a three to five-year implementation period—

and set the direction of the state's planning and development for the next 25 years. I will also add a few comments if the bill is passed in its current form then,

The public are not aware of the significant change to moving public comment to only at the stage of setting the policy to rightly remove the current time wasting…[not in my backyard] protests.

Place undue control/power with the Minister instead of the proposed Commission, thus allowing political interference or public servant advisors to input.

The bill will place additional financial burden on all existing land owners to fund costs of developments requiring infrastructure upgrade in urban renewal projects or extension and provision in outer urban areas.

Open space provisions include 'option' provision of 12.5% open space or financial contribution to council if only one allotment is under 1 hectare in a land division of 20 or more allotments.

There is no provision to change open space contributions or provision to reduce the current 1 hectare area for residential allotments to those under 0.2 hectare area [2,000 square metres] as those allotments above 0.2 hectare provide sufficient open space.

I found in the conversation I had with him that this chap is rather passionate about it. I think that the email and the submission he has made is somewhat of an abridged version of what we spoke about at length on the telephone.

The next submission I have, still from a community-based one, which was again unsolicited but which was as a result of this person's attendance at a Prospect Residents Association meeting. The concerns raised are:

The 1993 Act focuses on

facilitating sustainable development

advancing social as well as economic goals of the community

establishing and enforcing requirements compatible with the public interest

provides for appropriate public participation in the planning process and the assessment of development proposal

is about enhancing the amenity of buildings to provide for the safety and health of people

ensuring that development plans address social and economic issues

contains the notion of contributory items when describing heritage values

contains a specific list of building requirements.

They go on to say:

This new Bill contains none of the above, and as a piece of legislation is lacking in vital detail about the proposed Planning and Design Code which is to be a comprehensive set of policies, rules [and] classifications to be applied in various parts of the State through its operation for the purposes of development assessment and related matters.

There is nothing about the public interest, sustainability or social planning except for mixed and affordable housing

These new rules will govern the use and development within a particular zone, subzone or any zone and include any matter considered appropriate by the Minister—

and then they have the exclamation words 'Wow'—

and yet there is indication of the criteria which will be used when making these decisions except 'at the discretion of the Minister'

And worrying their provisions may provide guidance for the development of the public realm [equal sign] clear the way for development on the Parklands.

There are quite a few exclamation marks after that.

As any policy or rule under the Planning and Design Code may apply in relation to development generally or any class of development—

they then raise the point: does that mean nuclear waste dump or a power station? It is amazing the level of feedback you get on these things.

Please change the name of Community Engagement Charter—under the proposal, the public is not consulted on the full meaning of the word and it 'must not relate to the assessment of applications for development authorisations'!

That is specifically in the act at about page 48 or something like that. I am trying to remember where I read it.

Indeed, 'the Commissioner may adopt an alternative way to achieving compliance with the requirement of the Charter if satisfied the alternative way is at least as effective in achieving public consultation'.

Then there are the words 'Ye, gods'.

Furthermore 'the Charter does not give rise to substantive rights and a failure to comply with the Charter does not give rise to a right of action or invalidate any decisions'.

Then in capitals it says:

Please notice how precise this is unlike the state design and planning code—

which does not exist yet.

Fear of litigation can be seen in many sections.

They go on:

The Minister has vast powers endowed by the Bill.

He or she prepares the Regional Plans and strangely, a 'regional plan is not to be taken into account for the purposes of any assessment or decision with respect to an application for a development authorisation under this act.'

Then there is a question mark.

Appoints the members of the Commission, who are not allowed to be MPs, but 'accredited professionals.'

Is responsible for preparing the all important Planning and Design Code.

The Minister makes many decisions and policies without having to consult, research, make public or justify decisions made and does so without providing a publicly accessible set of guidelines.

[The Minister] must comply with the Charter of Community Engagement, but remember the provision of 'alternative ways' of consultation!

Good news! However, if the ERD does disagree with a proposed amendment by the Minister, it then goes to both Houses of Parliament. Here at least rule without representation is challenged!

Bad news! The Minister has absolute discretion about whether or not to agree to an amendment relating to zoning if 'in the opinion of the Minister' the changes are considered to be appropriate, as in the establishment of a nuclear waste dump/power station/building developments on parkland areas.

I know what this person thinks, that is for sure.

Furthermore, if the Minister is of the opinion that it is necessary in the interests of orderly and proper development that an amendment to a Development Plan can come into operation without delay…without the need for any process under the Community Engagement Charter…on an interim basis…

and then they use the other examples that have been quoted already about the types of what they believe to be inappropriate development.

The Minister's call in powers are extended. Is there constraint on these?

This Bill is so unsubtle, so arrogant and so uncaring of ordinary people that it is frightening.

It results in our government undermining our democratic rights by assuming extraordinary powers while at the same time denying any avenue of legal recourse or questioning of decisions.

At the risk of sounding like an arrogant alarmist, the new system is too similar to autocratic regimes' ability to rule without question.

Then the person indicates who they are not going to be voting for at the next election.

Sitting suspended from 17:59 to 19:30.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The contribution will change tack somewhat now, minister. The contributions I have made so far have been based around—

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Reading out things people have said to you.

Mr GRIFFITHS: True—and I will still do it on this occasion also, but more from the industry development focus area and some areas they have because a good level of dialogue has occurred there. I acknowledge that from the Urban Development Industry of Australia, the Master Builders Association, the Housing Industry Association, the Property Council and Business SA there has been an opportunity for continued dialogue.

I put on the record that my understanding is that the minister and his staff have continued to meet with a variety of groups in an effort, as the minister mentioned at the very start, to ensure that there is an opportunity to approve things; I do acknowledge that. I think that is probably a bit reflective of the fact that 74 amendments have been provided to me, which we will debate when the opportunity arises as part of the committee stage.

I hope that some of the positions that I put, because they might be a week old, have not necessarily moved forward too much, but I understand that from the continued discussion opportunities that some things are changing almost on a daily basis.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Well, reasonably, even though there are some positions that the minister takes.

I will put on the record on this occasion that the Housing Industry Association, which has a rather strong opinion, no doubt about that, provided comment early on—I think 10 September was the first time I saw anything from the Housing Industry Association. On 12 October, they provided me with some comments, which I thought were important to put into Hansard, as follows:

The HIA has significant concerns about the Planning, Development & Infrastructure Bill that is presently before the South Australian State Parliament.

Provisions in the bill will reduce availability of land and inflate house prices. Driving up land prices will economically disempower many South Australian home buyers, denying them affordable housing on a block of land. The HIA advocates that South Australians should have freedom of choice in the type of accommodation they select, whether it is a house or a traditional quarter-acre block, a townhouse, a unit or an apartment.

While the government proposes some positive reforms to expedite planning approvals by improving local council processes, there are also some worrying aspects about the bill for the housing industry.

The Housing Industry Association (HIA) is concerned about 4 major aspects of the Bill:

Statutory Urban Growth Boundary (Greater Adelaide) provisions that the HIA advocates must be removed from the Bill, otherwise the Bill will be defeated. Urban growth boundaries are placed around capital cities or regional towns to constrain housing growth in new locations. As the supply of land subsequently diminishes, higher land prices result, as does the appearance of smaller allotments as developers try to stretch the available land to meet housing demand and maintain an affordable product. It also forces increased apartment construction to provide more affordable housing.

The Bill is not transparent in formally recognising or defining an UGB. However, a Statutory UGB is effectively created in PART 1 of the bill through a combination of environment and food production areas (Section 7)—

I interject here that my interpretation, on reading the bill, is that it talks about creating one or more. While it is possible that one or more of these may be within the boundary to be determined by the urban growth boundary, there is also, one would have to assume, the probability of creating an environmental or food production area within the urban growth boundary, clearly.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: No, the minister says that is not the case. We have another level of discussion in the committee then. The Housing Industry Association continues:

…character preservation areas (Section 11) and the declaration of a Greater Adelaide region (Section 5). The UGB becomes a balance of the land that will be left in the Greater Adelaide region after the land within that region comprising environment and food production areas and character preservation areas is excluded;

Infrastructure Tax (Infrastructure Delivery Schemes) provisions that the HIA advocates must be removed from the Bill otherwise the Bill be defeated. The HIA submits that this is effectively an insidious new tax.

The housing industry is already the highest taxed sector in Australia with 38 percent of the cost of building a new house in South Australia being attributable to Government taxes and charges. Home buyers and the industry need support from the government, not new taxes. Housing has never been less affordable for struggling families and a new infrastructure tax will not help. The Government should instead be reducing taxes on home ownership;

Planning and Design Code provisions about which more detail needs to be provided to determine their intent and effect. The HIA advocates that these provisions be removed from the Bill and only be introduced after an acceptable Planning and Design Code has been written and released for public comment;

Community Engagement Charter provisions about which more detail needs to be provided to determine their intent and effect. The HIA advocates that these provisions be removed from the Bill and only be introduced after an acceptable community engagement charter has been written and released for public comment.

I note, as do some of the representations I have referred to, that that is not available. The submission continues:

We note that a second Bill dealing with implementation measures and amendments to related laws will be developed for Parliament to consider in 2016 and that the existing planning system will continue to operate during implementation, which Government expects to take three to five years.

The HIA is disappointed that the Government did not make the bill available for public consultation prior to its introduction to the State Parliament. Had full and proper consultation occurred, many of the concerns that we have about the Bill may have been resolved in advance.

The Bill essentially covers the same elements and several new aspects that arise from the recommendations of the Expert Panel on Planning Reform, a number of which the HIA opposed.

That was 22 recommendations and 149 subrecommendations. The HIA continues:

There is a series of yet to be written subordinate procedural and policy documents that will support the operation of the Bill. Without these documents it is not possible for the HIA or the Parliament to accurately assess the full impact of the proposed new planning system.

Again the HIA, as others have done, states:

The 'devil is in the detail' of the yet to be written documents.

The Bill has been drafted as a framework for the later drafting and proclamation/publication of regulations and codes. As such it is scant on detail that in some areas is essential in order for the HIA and the Parliament, to determine the intent and effect of the Bill. It is therefore the view of the HIA that if the aforementioned areas of concern about the Bill are not addressed, then the bill should be defeated.

There is certainly a more wideranging submission on that, but I thought those were the keywords, and they express real concern. I have also had discussions with individual members within the HIA structure, and the position put by the association is one that I believe the majority of their members support. They have had a high level of feedback, and they have been available at relatively short notice to confirm the positions they hold. There were some additional words in the executive director's report, published in the October 2015 edition of SA/NT Building News magazine, that basically concur exactly with the words I have just provided to the parliament.

The next submission I have is from the Master Builders Association. I have met with officers from the association, and they have provided a rather detailed review. It is not my intention to provide that to the parliament at this stage, but I know that it has gone to the minister and is being considered. They do make some statements that I think are worthwhile reading, and I go back to the original one of 12 October, when the Master Builders Association stated:

We believe there are some excellent provisions within this Bill but we are concerned about the lack of time we have to review what is a complex piece of legislation. We believe we have provided some constructive feedback that will improve the Bill, but also note that penalties appear to have increased six-fold—part of a section we are yet to review fully.

We are more than willing to support a call for more time to consider the Bill if the end result is to provide either bipartisan support or, alternatively, clear demarcation of outstanding issues.

Since that time, they have provided a complete review based on parts 1 to 10 and then 10 to 20, which is about 50 pages in length and which I have assimilated into the question areas that I have when we get to the committee stage. The second email to me, which came on 23 October, is:

We have just finished our draft detailed submissions to the State Government—

I have been provided with a copy also—

relating to the…Bill. In the interests of goodwill, they have been provided to the State Government in an attempt to improve the Bill's provisions and structure and we are hoping that providing them to a broader audience may aid discussion.

We will continue to consult with members to work on a final version and will advise of any material changes of position when that occurs.

The challenge when it comes to all of the industry-based groups has been the ability to provide a high level of response, not because of a lack of putting resources into it but because of the time constraints they have been asked to work upon. When the bill was first introduced, there was the possibility of it being debated at the next sitting week; that did not occur. It was listed in a subsequent sitting week, but on a Thursday and it was never achieved. In all of those times I have asked the groups to provide me with feedback.

From that, in many cases they have gone and undertaken a legal based review of it, so they can consider the implications of the legislation upon the industry in which they work. I am still waiting for the final position from some of those groups, for example, the Property Council only had a meeting last night to confirm their position on that. The Urban Development Institute of Australia, whom I will refer to very soon, are not having a meeting until, I think, tomorrow night to finalise things. In a discussion with them on Monday afternoon, they provided me with 13 key priority areas based around the infrastructure levy that they have questions of, so that will be considered at the committee stage.

All these groups have tried to be proactive. Yes, they have gone to the minister, as I understand it, as part of a collective seeking some level of delay in the debate on it, and while through natural causes it has been delayed somewhat from what was intended at one stage, they have had significant time pressures in place to try to ensure that they give a fulsome review of it and to ensure that the parliament is able to consider the issues that they have raised.

In referring to the Urban Development Institute of Australia, I have had two contacts with them that I think are relevant to the contribution to the debate. The first one is one dated 17 September, in which they talk about the challenges and the time frame, but their summary at that stage they provided to me was:

The Urban Development Institute (SA):

Supports independent assessment panels and statewide standard planning rules to make the planning process faster and more certain

Supports deemed consent, online consents, joint planning arrangements, and the approach to public notification and appeal rights

Continues to oppose a legislated urban growth boundary and doesn't support any moves that will ultimately result in less choice for homebuyers in the longer term.

Calls on the Government to provide more detail regarding the reforms before introducing them, and in particular as it relates to the infrastructure because these changes will shape the way South Australians live for decades to come.

Has long sought a fairer and more transparent mechanism to fund costs of development, but is cautious of anything that could lead to homebuyers funding what has traditionally been the responsibility of government without agreement with the sector.

From a planning assessment point of view:

UDIA supports the need for the independent assessment of development applications and the proposal to exclude elected Council members and Members of Parliament from DAPS. UDIA believes that there is a need for an unbiased panel and the Government should also consider tightened controls over ex-councillors and members of other vested interest groups being excluded, particularly where there is the potential for conflict or to ignore the spirit and intent of approved development plans.

On the statewide menu of zones, their contribution was:

We believe the standardisation of zoning will result in a significant improvement to the planning system by addressing inconsistency, internal conflict, subjectivity and excessive variation in zoning rules. Therefore, we would propose that this reform is prioritised and implemented as quickly as possible to avoid the problems experienced with the Better Development Plan program where years down the track some Councils have not converted their Development Plans.

Joint Planning Arrangements

The UDIA supports joint planning arrangements including the ability to establish Regional Planning Boards allows for better regional co-operation between Councils, the State and communities. This has the potential to benefit regions on a number of fronts including planning, economic development and environmental management.

Planning consents

The UDIA supports the new capacity for 'outlined consent' to be sought by applicants (in permitted circumstances) which will assist the industry in getting an early in principle 'yes' for development proposals. This is important as it assists in gaining finance for projects and reduces risk in having to spend significant sums without any certainty.

The UDIA also strongly supports 'deemed planning consents' where an applicant can apply to have an application approved if the assessment body fails to make a decision on the application within the prescribed time—

But, as it stands we do not know what the prescribed time is. It continues:

Public notification and appeal rights

UDIA supports the planning system having an emphasis on public consultation during the setting of planning policy rather than at the application assessment stage. Therefore, the proposed public notification arrangements and appeal rights as set out in Section 42 are appropriate as is the newly introduced right of appeal against local heritage listing.

Urban Growth Boundary

The UDIA remains concerned with respect to the urban growth boundary. We believe that electors are elected to lead and the Government should make decisions on where the boundary is based upon the best expert advice, not rely on a majority in both houses of Parliament which has the potential to be compromised in the potential appeasement of many sectional interests and be at risk of being stifled.

By requiring Parliament to legislate to amend the boundary presents a great risk for South Australia in its capacity to quickly respond to future challenges and is likely to lead to it only reacting in a time of crisis. Through the current policy and zoning regimes an effective boundary is already in place. A legislated urban growth boundary may only cause future speculation and adversely impact home affordability and choice.

Therefore we do not support it in the current form before the Parliament.

Consultation on Policy Direction

Whilst the Government indicates that there has been an unprecedented level of consultation with respect to these changes, and through the Expert Panel on Planning Reform in particular, it should be noted that this Panel was only charged with assessing a new process for planning, not policy.

That is where I raised before the fact that a policy exists within the legislation. It continues:

The UDIA is concerned that significant policy decisions have now been combined with planning process reform. For example only in one small reference did the Expert Panel refer to an urban growth boundary and that was the suggestion a Planning Commission could hold an inquiry to 'set and review' an [urban growth boundary]. We believe further discussion around the reasons for this Boundary, the resultant strong push towards infill and how it will initially be set needs more consideration.

More details on the operation of the legislation and consultation with the associated regulations are required.

Infill and Infrastructure Costs

The strong promotion towards infill, it seems that there the Government's view is based on a number of assumptions related to the benefits of urban infill.

To be clear, with the right policy settings the UDIA supports both infill and as green field developments and agree wholeheartedly with the Minister's view that it's time to explore myths around the cost of infrastructure on past, current and future generations.

It's important that there is transparency with respect to the cost of different types of development so that appropriate charges can be made to those that benefit, notwithstanding there should be also a consideration of intergenerational contributions as well as a recognition of a number of taxes that already exist in the different types of development.

We call upon the Government not only to provide the analysis that's used to justify its infill focus but allow it to be independently peer reviewed as the UDIA does not agree with a number of assumptions made. In particular a number of UDIA members involved in infill development are experiencing significantly higher costs than those stated and those involved in greenfields are reporting lower. We feel that to make generational changes without this review would not be in South Australia's best interests.

Infrastructure Charging

The UDIA has done a significant amount of work with respect to infrastructure charging and has provided a model to the Government—

of which I have a copy. They continue:

We are however concerned that in the proposed legislation a number of fundament components of our model are not included. Unfortunately, it's not possible to provide for support for a model without the associated detail, particularly relating to the scope of infrastructure inclusion, the expected standard of infrastructure delivery and the extent to which different entities will be expected to contribute financially.

The UDIA is also cautious of anything that could lead to homebuyers funding what has traditionally been the responsibility of government without agreement with the sector. Of particular concern is the scope of infrastructure which residents will be required to pay and how these costs overlap with existing State and Local government taxes and charges.

Strong words, indeed. As I mentioned, in the meeting that I had with them earlier this week, they had 13 areas in relation to the infrastructure levy. They are resolving, as I understand it, the final position from the UDIA perspective on the urban growth boundary tomorrow at some time, so that creates some challenges for us.

They provided me with a copy of the UDIA infrastructure funding and delivery model, and you do not have to look too far to find an interesting name because the second page notes that, at the time of the presentation of this, Mr Stuart Moseley, was president. Mr Moseley, indeed, now works for the department and has been significantly involved in the development of this piece of legislation. I have had some contact also with the Property Council. We are nearing the end, minister, from my point of view anyway.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Excellent.

Mr GRIFFITHS: There will be others who wish to speak though.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes, an extensive list. The Property Council, as I mentioned, finalised their position last night, and I am not aware of any changes from some information that has been provided to me, but they had some general comments on the legislation.

The Property Council welcomes much of the reform proposed in the Bill (for instance moves to de-politicise assessment and some very pragmatic responses to issues for developers..

We note that there is much detail to come and a lot of the Act is principles-based. It would be beneficial to have greater clarity around timing, content and intent of the important supplements to the Bill. Examples include—

and they quote these—

Design policy

Regional plans

Planning/design code

Community Engagement Charter

Code of conduct

Professional standards/accreditation [and the]

Implementation Bill

The bill centralises much power to the Minister of the day.

It includes benchmarks around practice, e.g. cooperation/honesty, professionalism—there is a question around adequate enforcement of these benchmarks.

Overall the Bill means a policy burden shift to State Government—this must be adequately funded.

The Property Council also wants to see a firm funding commitment to the rolling out of the Commission, the development of new planning policy, and also the implementation of a modern e-planning system that facilitates access to data and is user-friendly.

I absolutely completely agree about access to that.

Contentious Areas of the Bill.

Environment & Food Production Area—

which are clauses 5 to 7—

The Minister has proposed a new requirement for Parliament to approve (after considering a report and inquiry by the State Planning Commission) any decisions about urban expansion that affect 'food production and environmental areas'.

The Minister can declare a boundary; one of those boundaries must include the Greater Adelaide Region boundary. These parameters can only be varied or revoked by declaration made upon advice from the Commission. It must then be put to both Houses of State Parliament and, to seek approval, a resolution must be passed.

It's important to note that the boundary's approval requires the support of both Houses of Parliament.

However, there are concerns that Parliament does not have the experience in complex questions of economics, social or planning policy—

interesting—

to make such a determination in a meaningful way. In fact, if independence is the intention, the Planning Commission should be an alternative decision-maker.

The Property Council's long-held national position is to oppose the introduction of urban growth boundaries as it can constrain supply and limit choice. For example, families who value extra space, or work outside of metropolitan areas, should have the ability to choose a house and lifestyle that suits their needs.

If the State Government is intent on introducing a boundary and industry seeks to further strengthen the process, the sector could recommend a firm consultation mechanism around reviewing the boundary. That is, putting a review timeframe in place…

The example they quote is a requirement to review the boundary every five years. They go on:

Infrastructure levy—

which is clauses 155 to 171—

An infrastructure delivery scheme may be initiated by the Minister acting on his own initiative or at the request of another party, including Councils, developers, or an infrastructure provider. In initiating a scheme the Minister is required to prepare, with the advice of the Planning Commission and in consultation with the relevant councils, a draft outline that:

provides detailed information about the nature and intended scope of the infrastructure;

identifies where the scheme will be established;

provides information about the proposed timing or staging of the scheme;

assesses the costs and benefits of the scheme;

outlines proposed funding arrangements (including any charges to be required in a 'contribution area'); and,

identifies the short- and long-term management arrangements for the scheme.

Now, the risks:

Gold-plating infrastructure requirements.

Currently drafted so Minister 'may'—

the word 'may' is highlighted there—

consult with ESCOSA—this is not a requirement.

Particular risks around infill/established suburbs.

Needs amendment to ensure hypothecation of the levy raised.

The opportunities that they identify are:

Developers can seek exemptions on taxes/levies through application to the Minister (could foreseeably include land tax, stamp duty).

Interesting feedback on that.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes. They also note as an opportunity:

Currently significant negotiation required to determine infrastructure issues. To the extent it enables and contemplates that costs can be passed on to other stakeholders, this is welcome.

I also had some contact with Business South Australia, and I appreciate their feedback. Mr Cairney or Mr McBride have probably liaised with the minister on that and they published an article I think in one of the Tuesday sessions probably not long after the bill was introduced where Mr McBride reported being generally supportive of it. I think it is fair to say that in my subsequent discussions with Mr Cairney the position may have changed fractionally but I will not necessarily put all that on the record.

There are some things associated with all of this that I want to raise as part of the second reading contribution. One is about contact that I know the minister has had and certainly I have had on numerous occasions with Mr Peter Grocke. The minister's staff is acknowledging that they have also received contact from Mr Grocke. In my case it has been probably over a three-year period; we are in regular contact.

He talks to me all the time about buffer zone issues as they relate to development of conflicting land uses. I have raised this issue in a brief way with the minister, I think during an estimates session, too, but for me it is an absolutely key issue. I think as part of planning reviews, particularly as buffer zones were one of the recommendations that came from the committee for sustainable agriculture—I was a member of the select committee formed on that topic where two ministers of the Crown were, at that stage, involved in different roles—about the fact that this should be one of the areas we wanted to put forward.

Mr Grocke put some very strong opinions forward. He would like to see an assurance that, from an agricultural linkage to the planning requirements as they operate across the state, where a development is approved of a land use type adjacent to a broadacre area which has an impact upon the management of that broadacre property, consideration is given to ensuring that there is no impact upon the existing broadacre opportunities.

Mr Grocke has, as I understand it, with other property owners in his area—which is predominantly within the member for Schubert's area—been meeting with local government in the area, other property owners, Primary Industries staff and I believe staff of the minister's Department of Planning.

How to move it forward is the challenge. It is something that I believe needs addressing. It is not just located and impacting upon him; it is an issue that I believe will impact upon all regional areas so I put that on the record. I have also received some correspondence from Mr Charles Teusner, who I have not met but I have received a letter from him which talks in a similar vein to concerns that have been put.

As part of the second reading contribution, I want to raise rural living development. The minister has formed a rather strong position, as I understand it. My understanding, from a variety of councils, is that where the opportunity has been sought for rural living developments to be created around regional communities, the minister has not been supportive of that. I know in a discussion the minister and I had about it, I put to him that I see it—having experienced it—as a viable opportunity around regional communities that I believe does not necessarily stifle the growth of those communities in the long term.

Just so that the minister knows, I indicate that I have written to all regional councils and outer metropolitan ones asking for feedback from them on how rural living proposals have been treated, over the last two years in particular. I have talked to some property owners who have purchased land or had it on the basis of a development opportunity that is provided for that in the longer term, whereby the position of the minister—

The Hon. J.R. Rau: They're speculators. If it's not rezoned when they buy it, they're speculators.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes, well, I'm not sure, but it is a frustration for people. Having grown up in a regional community, I have recognised for a long time the desire of some people to locate themselves in that way, where they have an area of land available to them which, in many cases, was created by titles put in place decades before, but now where an opportunity is sought to have some level of interim growth—and it is not residential, it is not deferred urban, it is a rural living opportunity on a large parcel of land—the minister's position is to not support that. That is an issue that I hold true to, and it is one where there will be even further debate when it comes to planning matters.

I want to put that on the record and, indeed, to highlight one proposal I am aware of which surprises me and which is not purely rural living. As I understand it, it is on Yorke Peninsula, and it is an application to build a farmhouse on agricultural land that is noncomplying. There is no other house that is located within this property; it is 900 acres in size.

There is a younger person, who I believe is the fifth generation of the family, the operator of the farm. They had been not disjointed from it but not operating it themselves. They have leased it out, and they wish to return to that. The farmhouse that had been previously associated with it was on a smaller block, which was subsequently sold when this young man's grandmother passed away. Now this young man wants to come back and build a house, and he has been told that it is noncomplying, the change having occurred in 2012. I have to tell you that the frustration this young fellow has is enormous. This is an issue that needs to be considered. Yes, it does not impact on a lot of other areas, but for regional communities it came as a significant surprise to me.

I want to put on the record also that I did receive some contact from the Rural Press, which is a bit unusual, about this piece of legislation. As they understand it, based on one of their previous members being an elected member of a council, there is a proposal to remove the requirement for advertising within newspapers circulating in that area. I would be interested to flush out some information on that and also what the minister's intentions on it are.

One chap who spoke to me quoted the dollar impact that it has on them. I understand from the minister's point of view that he wants to create efficiencies and wants to use technology where it exists to ensure that the information flow occurs, but from what I have read and seen there is certainly a requirement for a sign to go on a property. Indeed, it is an issue that the Rural Press members are rather concerned about.

I will acknowledge that there is no doubt that I have put a variety of positions here, and they have come from a lot of different perspectives on it. I can respect that the great challenge is to determine how to proceed on a rewrite of a bill—and I do support the intent of rewriting the bill—and how you find some level of balance. But I come back to one of my earliest comments in this contribution to the house that I cannot find anybody who supports the bill in its entirety as it is currently placed.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Of course you won't.

Mr GRIFFITHS: But, minister, every other example of legislation that I have seen—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Through the Chair.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Sorry, Deputy Speaker. I believe it to be true that, with every other example of legislation I have seen come into this place, there have been differences of opinion—and, yes, I understand that—but there has been a level of agreed position that is reached. But in this case, we have diametrically opposed positions on it. The challenge will be determining how the hell to proceed.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: They're all self-interested. You have to—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, minister! You are not in the chair.

Mr GRIFFITHS: It will be one of the hard parts for us to do. It is 207 pages, with 17 pages of amendments proposed by the minister so far, with the potential of more to come. It will be an interesting debate.

As I mentioned at the very start, I look forward to the Minister for Local Government providing a contribution on this, because there is significant impact upon the councils too. I understand there is a mood for a change completely. I understand that we want to get the best possible situation in place that provides some surety for development opportunities, a legislative framework that ensures that there is a fair way of doing things, that community involvement exists, that some surety exists in relation to an application, that some design principles are put in place, and that we have an improvement overall to what we do. The hard part is how to actually achieve it.

The minister has put forward legislation. He and his staff have put considerable time into that, and I do respect that. The Hayes review team met for 20 months, or thereabouts, and 2,500 people were directly contacted. I cannot remember the number of localities they went to, but it was extensive. I still put the position of the concerns which have been raised by the development group in the main about the urban growth boundary, because it is bizarre to me that the minister puts quite strongly that he wants the parliament to be in control of that, but there are clearly other areas within the legislation where the authority and responsibility becomes the minister's own. I am not sure about the consistency of application of how things will occur here.

We have put those concerns on behalf of all groups predominantly because, since the bill was tabled on 8 September, the consultation has been in many ways done in a lot of different forums and I understand that. There has been an effort made since then, yes, but the feedback that I received from so many groups is about the lack of opportunity to review a draft bill and to ensure that we get the outcomes from it.

Finally, I had a bit of near panic this morning in preparing some notes on this and I thank PNSG for rescuing me when it came to preparation of data on that. I do appreciate the feedback and the ability that I have had with the minister's staff in ensuring information flows existed. I do recognise that the minister has met with a variety of groups on a continuing basis. He has put himself in front of people who do not necessarily want to hear the message that he relays, but he has continued to do that.

The great challenge for this house in the first instance is to ensure that we have a really detailed debate on the bill. The concern that is genuinely expressed by all is the fact that it sets an overarching template for the legislation that is intended to come out next year, but it requires the creation of issues that are not able to be reviewed in a detailed way. It is that concern that I think all groups have and it is that concern that I believe the parliament should be discussing. So it is my intention during the committee stage to ask lots of questions, minister, to ensure that there is an opportunity for the words that you use to be recorded here and circulated for people to know the intention of the legislation at the earliest possible stage and how it is to impact upon them. I look forward to the passage of the bill.