Bills

Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (20:08): I rise to speak on the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill 2015. I thank the member for Goyder for his absolutely splendid contribution and the forensic examination of the bill to date in presenting both the benefits and the deficiencies of this bill. Thousands of people across South Australia have expressed their view about this bill and he has made sure that this parliament is fully apprised of the good, the bad and the ugly of this bill. That is important because, let's face it, when we are asked to pass legislation here which is going to slash people's lives and the capacity for them to be able to make determinations about the environment in which they live, in particular their built environment, then that is to be applauded. I thank him for doing so and I am indebted to him.

For that reason I do not propose to dwell at length in respect of the planning reforms that are proposed by this bill. Mr Brian Hayes QC, under a charter of the government—and handsomely paid, I am sure, to do so—has chaired a body to review planning laws. I thought it was a fairly adept move of the government, just before the election, to push this little chestnut off for a couple of years. Nevertheless, Mr Hayes and his committee is to be thanked for the work that has been undertaken and the reports they have provided, and I do thank them for that. I do not think there is any question that there was an area of reform that was needed, and it was in the planning area.

There are two aspects I want to comment on in respect of planning, and I will leave the detail entirely to the forensic examination by the member for Goyder. The first is the government's attempt to exclude elected members in councils from a role in the development assessment process. I want to make the point that it is often said they are not really a reliable body to actually undertake this work, that it should be done in an independent, professional and dispassionate manner and not by elected members who might be unfairly influenced by groups within the community they represent. Well, hello! We all represent electorates, we all represent people in this parliament, and are we influenced by the people that we represent? You bet.

The important thing is to remember that that is exactly what we are here to do in the house of the people, to represent the people of South Australia and to bring their concerns and issues to this parliament, not to be dismissed as some kind of unacceptable, biased, easily influenced body of people who should be removed and these automaton professionals brought in who are supposed to be able to rigidly enforce some strict 10 commandments that are issued by the minister. That is the reality of what we are doing here, that is why we are accountable, and that is why if we fail to do that, put the case and present the arguments to the parliament, our electorates are perfectly entitled to remove us on a four-yearly rotation. So, I make that point.

The second thing is that private planning certifications are proposed. There is a concern by councils—expressed adeptly, I am sure, by the member for Goyder—as to what the legal liability of councils will be with the compliance in respect of the planning process, where private certifiers have been involved. I support the concept of having private certifiers, but this issue does need to be clarified. I think there needs to be some reassurance given to councils in respect of that.

Enough about planning, I want to get on to the urban growth boundary, euphemistically called some kind of protection of food. What is it called—

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: Environment and food protection. What a nonsense clause that is. This is all about the 'I am in charge of planning (minister Rau plan).' That is what this is all about, so I do want to have something to say about it and I do want to have something to say about the infrastructure levy. The development restrictions and the obsession of this government to only have urban infill, as though the only place to live is in the metropolitan area of Adelaide, within the City of Adelaide, within the greater area of Adelaide, acceptable as some kind of social control of what we are all going to be doing, I find completely contemptible.

The reason is not because of the dream of someone like the Hon. Diana Laidlaw, of saying, 'Let's not have rampant, uncontrolled urban sprawl without adequate infrastructure and services.' That was important, so that everyone had some idea of what the expectation was under the planning rules of the government of the day, to be able to say, 'Look, this is what is proposed; it is going to be much easier for you to develop within the boundary than out. We have other expectations about that.' Fine, we have had that for 20 years. It has actually worked, it is in the government's own 30-year plan. Yet what does the minister do in this bill? He comes in here and says we are going to have this, what is it called—

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: Environment and food or whatever, wank that it is. Whatever it is that we are—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I beg your pardon, what did you say? Order! What was that word? I am horrified, and I am just so very, very pleased that the Rotary Club of Salisbury are no longer with us.

Ms CHAPMAN: It was conversational. If you are in any way offended by it, Deputy Speaker, I am happy to withdraw the word.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are speaking to me, you are speaking through me, and I actually had to take a second look at that one.

Ms CHAPMAN: I understand that. As I say, if you are in any way offended, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am happy to withdraw that.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, that is okay.

Ms CHAPMAN: Can I say this: for the government, and the minister in particular, to introduce this bill into this parliament, with the audacity of saying to us, 'I want to have this environment and food protected region but I'm not even going to tell you where it is. I'm not even going to give you the boundary. It's not even going to be the boundary, necessarily, that I put into our state government's 30-year plan. I'm going to have my own little paradigm and paradise of urban development when I make a decision about what it's going to be, but no other minister in the future of the state is going to be able to do it.' No; everyone else has to put up with the parliament making that determination.

If it is such a good idea then why does the minister not say, 'Well, let's just start with the 30-year plan which the government has drawn up, it's been consulted on, it's been approved, and put that in there'? But no, he wants to have his own final little say. He wants to do his own little scribble on his own little drawing and make the decision and then every other minister for planning and/or housing and urban development (whatever combination you want to have) in the future of this state is going to be bound by the parliament. Well, who the hell does he think he is? That is the question I ask. It is a disgrace, an absolute disgrace.

Leaving that little, 'I'm so important, full of kingdom' idea that he has, can I say this: overwhelmingly, the submissions we have had have been on the question of housing affordability. When you set up a legislated boundary of who is in and who is out, no matter what the paradigm is—in this case it is the planning opportunity to build a home—there is a cost and in this case it is the cost to our children and the capacity for them to be able to afford to have their own home. The immense amount of data we have been presented with to present the case that, where there have been legislated boundaries, where there have been restrictions on development, there is a massive response in increase in the cost of accommodation and the building of new homes, in land prices (obviously because of the restriction of land availability) and the housing costs that go with that.

So, what we have is the government saying, 'Well, it's always cheaper to build high-rise within a certain area.' Others will say it is actually cheaper to go greenfields and develop in those areas. I am not going to go through all the debate on that today, but I am persuaded by the fact that I have children and grandchildren and I want them to have a chance to invest in this state. I want them to have a choice about whether they have a house with three bedrooms in Noarlunga or whether they have a three-bedroom or a one-bedroom apartment on top of a garage in Gilles Street. That is the choice I want them to have, and that will depend on the family and the amalgam of the social network that they propose to live in, whatever it is, in the future.

I think it is disgraceful that the government should ignore these two things. Firstly, that the minister demand that he should have the autocratic right to set what this boundary is and then everyone else has to suffer it in the future, and not say the 30-year plan is acceptable. If he was genuinely bona fide about this then that is what he would do. The second thing is to ignore the fact that thousands of our young people are leaving the state every year.

The Hon. S.W. Key: We always have had.

Ms CHAPMAN: The member for Ashford interjects to say, 'We always have had.' That is not true. That is simply not true. South Australia was built on a migration system which is one of the best in the world.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Can you sit down for a moment, deputy leader. I am wanting to remind members that the deputy leader is entitled to be heard in silence and that it is unparliamentary to both interject and to respond to interjections. So, if we could just concentrate on the next 10 minutes getting through this speech that would be marvellous. Thank you.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: The second matter I want to raise is the infrastructure levy. It does not surprise me that the Minister for Planning would want to say that we are going to have a major review in relation to planning and then just slip in a little infrastructure levy, which gives them two things. One is, complete control. The second is, the capacity to be able to impose the cost of infrastructure outside the region of the proposed development. They are the two, in my view, fundamental flaws with respect to infrastructure.

It is reasonable for any minister to want to have a system that fairly allows for the provision of infrastructure that is necessary whether it is the usual road, rail, sewerage, electricity, child care centres, schools, and all the things that go with a modern development—no issue about that. The UDIA and others have presented different models and proposals over the years. The government has picked up one—butchered most of them—but nevertheless, in this instance, they have come along. The two things they say are, one, we are not going to have any dissidents. It is a bit like the autocratic approach, 'We are not going to have any dissidents. You are in the tent. You do not have a choice about being in the tent. You are all going to play by the same rules.' The second thing is that any existing opportunities to be able to have protection when there is not development is just going to be squashed.

The problem with that is that the retention of power vested in the minister's position of being able to determine what the essential infrastructure is going to be means that if I were to take the Mount Barker development which has had a controversial history—and incidentally, I notice it has escaped by the dropping of an ICAC inquiry this week, or last week it might have been. There was a corruption submission put to the ICAC. It was apparently cleared. So secret is the ICAC under the legal rules that were imposed by this government that first of all The Courier in Mount Barker had to get permission from Mr Lander to even publish the findings that he had on that and then, when InDaily wanted to do their proposed publication of the fact as to what had happened in relation to this, they had to go and get permission from Mr Lander to even publish that. The way this government has operated is just unbelievable.

The demonstrated history of ministers, not just the present Minister for Planning because there have been a few others under this government. I recall one who had utterly abused the major project status. I think this minister is absolutely full on when it comes to just dealing with what he wants to do by ministerial development assessments. So, they have always found different ways about how they are going to get around things, but they want a simple model in relation to who is going to pay for infrastructure.

The minister wants to have control about what it is going to be. It is far too broad for my liking. If the minister is prepared to work with those who are going to be in this space, then that is great to reach some compromise in that regard but it seems to me that the crushing of people's fundamental rights and the expectation that again the minister is going to be kingpin of the whole deal and that they are going to have control of the whole lot is just at the moment unacceptable and the government needs to back down. The minister needs to get off his high horse and understand that we are talking about real people, real assets, a real home and a real environment—and these people have made a commitment to South Australia—and not just bludgeon them into submission. There is an opportunity for that to be improved and I think it should be.

The other matter I will touch on is the Coordinator-General. We have a coordinator-general in South Australia. He is appointed and accountable to the Premier. We have not heard much about him in this debate to date because he stands alone. We have him because it is such a dog's breakfast when it comes to development in this state. Unsurprisingly we now have to have a high-powered public servant to make sure that these developments are dealt with at a higher level. So, that is no problem. I do not have an issue about having the person to assist in that. It is anything over $3 million, you can apply at the discretion of Mr Hallion as to whether he is going to take control of the process of approving that development. We have had over 100 or so since he was established, I think in mid-2014, and he deals with aged care centres, lots of service stations, lots of school developments and the like. I do not make any comment about the merits of each of these applications. Obviously, if you have a $3 million-plus development and you can fast track yours through this dog's breakfast, then it is unsurprising that people would go and knock on his door and apply to have their process put through his. I think it is not acceptable to have one rule for one group and one rule for another.

There are residential properties—not many in my electorate, I might say, but in other people's electorates—that are worth more than $3 million, whether they are rural properties or residences in other areas which could be using this to fast track their process. If the system is a mess, fix it. If it is going to be a new system, it has to apply to everybody. We need some decision from the government about what they are going to do with respect to the Coordinator General, because it certainly needs to be dealt with.

Can I conclude by saying this: the biggest single property developer in South Australia is the South Australian government, and they do it through what I would describe as a dysfunctional agency (you only have to read Auditor-General's Report and heaps of other reports since I have been here in the parliament), but in the last three years, since the Premier remodelled it from the Land Management Corporation into the Urban Renewal Authority, trading as Renewal SA, it has been an absolute financial cot case. It has cost the taxpayers a fortune.

When the urban development bill was amended to corporatise it formally by statue rather than regulation a few years ago, I remember speaking for seven and a half hours on that bill. I promise that I will not repeat that today, but let me tell you that, of the matters we raised on this side of the house, just about every one of them has come true. What has happened is that the government, as the biggest property developer in this state, having flogged off just about everything that moves in this state, has now decided that it will go into the property development business, and they are into the property development business big time.

The unfair advantage about the rest of South Australia's property development industry is that they have to pay their taxes, they have to go through the process and they do not get any subsidised promotions. These guys spend money like there is no tomorrow. In fact, with the Bowden development (and I do not criticise it specifically), something like $80 million has already been spent on getting that property up for presentation. As I once said to the head of the Land Management Corporation on Lochiel Park, I personally have no problem with a government agency picking up as an embryo a new idea in respect of urban development, giving it a go, giving it some subsidy, giving it some support, to be able to deal with sustainable energy, etc., etc.—no problem with that.

But we have a heavily subsidised government property development operator in this space, and what does the government do? Budget after budget it comes in, allocates moneys for it to be able to pick up property it wants to buy, flog off when it wants to and make a loss when it feels like it, and turn up to work when it feels like it. It is an absolute dysfunctional disgrace, and every year we come into this house and the government dividend is abolished because it just cannot even afford to pay, it is such a dysfunctional mess.

Then with the budget we have the Treasurer come in every year to tell us, 'Oh, we're going to have an exemption on stamp duty if you develop in the metropolitan area of Adelaide.' Well, hello! Do you think we came down in the last shower? No, we did not! This is all about promoting government property development to their benefit, to the exclusion of all others, and to dismiss and show disrespect for the rest of South Australians and the property industry. We have a long way to go on this bill. We commend the original objectives.

Members interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: A long, long way. I will not oppose its passage in this house, but I will say that it is far from adequate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I call the next speaker, I remind all members about standing order 142, and I will not hesitate to warn and name you.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Name me!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are not in your right spot. The member for Finniss.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (20:28): I find it a bit of a hard act to follow after the member for Goyder and member for Bragg, but I will give it my best shot. I do not object in any way to doing something about planning in South Australia, but unfortunately in this case with this Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill 2015 the minister has got everybody off side, successfully—completely everybody—and I shake my head in disbelief.

What a piece of arrogant stupidity that his party actually lets him bring something like that in here when nobody really agrees with it. It is just crazy. I do not think I have ever seen or heard from such a wide group of people opposed to a piece of legislation put up by a supposedly senior member of the government. He has brought on himself the flagellation that he is going to cop tonight, and I think that he will live to regret it. I do not even know why he is bothering to go on with it. I know where it will end up in this house, but when it gets to the other place, anything could happen with it; absolutely anything could happen with it, and it might not be back here before March next year. Who knows? Instead of having something that was cleverly done, half smart and useful and in the best interests of South Australia, he has unloaded a dinosaur.

I do not know—other members in this house may well have sat on planning panels over the years. I had 17 years of sitting on planning panels in local government and my first experience was on the former Dudley council of blessed memory where quite soon after I was elected, I think in 1989 or 1990, we had an application put in for a large coastal development by a Mr Zappacosta on the Dudley Peninsula which quickly developed into world war III at that stage between the pros and the cons, and everybody wanted to have their two bob's worth and I wondered what on earth I had gotten into. We were lobbied heavily by the developer and the whole council was on the planning panel, and eventually we supported the development and it never happened. I am sad to say that that has happened with so many things on the island over so many years and continues to happen unfortunately.

But with the bill that the minister has brought into the house this time, I cannot understand why you would bring in a bill and then let the opposition know that you are going to move 70 amendments to your own bill. I mean how unprofessional is that? Just completely stupid. On top of that, obviously, we will in due course have amendments to put to the bill. There are things like regulations. A host of regulations will be brought into play, eventually. We do not know what they are; we have no idea. My understanding is that the Local Government Association, which seemed to have got itself fairly well into gear on this, is proposing a series of amendments as well. If you think that the second reading is going to take a while, Lord knows how long will it take to get through the committee stage. We could be here Christmas Day if they are serious about wanting to get it through. I would hope that the minister has a rethink—

Mr Gardner interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: Yes, well if they put our amendments in, it will improve it. There is just so much to it that I find that, instead of the minister trying to improve the planning system—and he and I have had discussions on planning and we share similar frustrations on many things—this time he has got it wrong. Instead of having a concise document which may well have done some good, he has something there that is really going to bottle up the parliament. There is going to be a logjam in the Legislative Council, in my view, and it is going to be difficult for the minister to achieve.

The member for Bragg and the member for Goyder have both talked about the urban growth boundary that has been in place since the early 1990s. Any change by decision of the minister but now intended to become a legislative issue determined by the parliament, the development industry is opposed to, and it believes that it will drive up the cost of doing business. The last thing we need in South Australia is to drive up further the cost of business. Heaven alone knows that it is expensive enough now to do anything in South Australia. Our economy is struggling along and if it were not for the agricultural sector, in my view, we would be even worse, and that is with a bad year.

Recently I supported the minister on something to do with planning, but that was when he resumed the plan down in Victor Harbor to do with the Coles/Bunnings development. He resumed it after the council had fiddle-flopped around with it for quite some time, and he took it back.

I actually came out and supported the minister on that. I supported it because I thought that they had had plenty of time to get on with it, the City of Victor Harbor. They had had plenty of time to get on with it. They had been given extensions in which they still had not completed it, and I shared with the minister the fact that we needed to move on it. However, I did indicate to him that I viewed that the developers would have to come up with the cost of the infrastructure, rather than the City of Victor Harbor being left to pick up the pieces.

Last night, I was asked to brief the City of Victor Harbor on this bill. I simply explained to them, 'Look, this came in two or three weeks ago. We still haven't even really got into it. I don't know what's going to develop by way of debate, by way of amendments.' I went through, chapter and verse, what I knew, and I think I left them there scratching their heads because I really could not tell them what they wanted to know.

I think that the councils being removed from the development assessment panels has been an evolutionary thing and that it has probably been coming for a fair while. I know that the Local Government Association has a good degree of angst about it, and I do not like the centralising of planning. What we have seen with this government is that they have centralised again the health bureaucracy, they have centralised education, and they have taken decision-making in education, in health, and now to a large degree in planning, away from local communities.

They are a centralist, centrally planned colony in the very best tradition of communism, in my view. That said, they are in government and they have the capacity to do these things when they want to. Again, I do hope that members in another place will pick this bill to pieces and try to sort out some of the mess that is going to end up there.

The essential infrastructure levy has gone down like a lead balloon with the development industry. Why ESCOSA would be involved and why they have even considered bringing in the essential infrastructure levy I am just not sure. It is going to be an impost that nobody needs, and the levy could apply to areas outside the boundaries of development. At the very least, if the minister decides to try to tidy that up with one of his supposed 70 amendments, we will wait and see what happens.

The community involvement is most important. In fairness to this government, past governments and future governments, I do not think there will ever be a satisfactory answer to planning and development. It is always going to be a dog's breakfast. It is always going to be difficult and you are always going to get all sides of the equation having a different view on how to do it better. We have not done it too badly in South Australia. I think the current minister has tried bullyboy tactics in trying to push his own view of the world on everybody, and I know from the member for Bragg's comments tonight that she was quite emphatic about the style in which the minister has brought this into the house.

As I said earlier, it upset completely everybody—completely everybody. Heaven alone knows how it got on when it went to the Labor caucus. I can imagine that they had long and copious discussions about it, but they kept that to themselves, as indeed they should, and we have what we have. Unfortunately and regrettably, it is a sad display by an incompetent and arrogant government. More to the point, it is a sad display by an incompetent and arrogant minister, in my view, on this planning matter in particular.

I just do not trust this minister. Unfortunately, I do not trust him, and I will give you an example of that. Recently, in Kangaroo Island Council they had a development amendment on the Emu Bay area. This went through the full consultation with Planning SA, the Department of Planning. The council did all the consultation and the community was consulted. They put in place something they thought was workable. In the little township of Emu Bay, they were all comfortable with it. In August this year, the council moved that it go off for gazettal, so everybody was happy.

What did we get in the middle of the week before last? I got a phone call from disgruntled constituents on the island. It would appear that, after it had been to the ERD Committee and the council, the minister decided in his own arrogant way to alter the lines on the plan. He changed it. I said, 'I'm unaware of this. I thought it was all signed off.' It was all signed off, but my advice is that the minister changed the lines on the map and now we have just a complete mess.

I put the constituents in touch with the ERD Committee and that is going to go through a process there. However, I took it upon myself to speak to the mayor of Kangaroo Island, Mayor Peter Clements, and I said, 'Peter, is it correct that you signed off on this and it went off and that you are all satisfied with it?' He said, 'Yes.' I said, 'Is it correct, then, that after it had been through that process the minister changed the lines?' He said, 'Yes, we are furious about it. We are absolutely furious about it.' He said, 'I have written a strongly worded letter to the minister. He signed off on it Monday this week,' I think he said to me.

You cannot trust this minister at all. He is a smart-arse, I am afraid, in the language of the classics. By doing what he has done there—

Mr Duluk: Conversational swearing.

Mr PENGILLY: Conversational swearing. A smart alec, okay? Why on earth would you go and upset a community after everyone had agreed? Why would he change the lines on the map prior to it being gazetted? Why would he do that? That will take its due course and I guess that we will hear about it in the future, but it was disappointing. It was disappointing for the local community, it was disappointing for the landholders and it was disappointing for the council over there, and we now just have a complete muddle.

The community groups do not support areas of the bill and it is fair to say that they probably do support other areas of the bill, but why would you not get unanimous agreement and do all consultation before you tried to ram something like this, which has dramatic changes in it, through the House of Assembly? Why would you do it? Why would you bring in a bill and then indicate you are going to put in 70 amendments to your own bill? I shake my head.

Someone has not done their homework. Someone has not thought the thing through. I do not know whether the Deputy Premier is under pressure from his parliamentary colleagues to perform—I would not have a clue what goes on over there—but he has made a mess of this one and, as I have said for about the fourth time, he has successfully upset everyone.

The development industry supports the removal of councillors, who are elected members, from assessment panels, but they do have great concerns with the urban growth boundary. I want to hear the minister when he completes the debate on this—which may be the sitting week after next the way we are going, and it is unusual that we have so many members on this side who want to speak for so long and use up their time on this matter tonight, tomorrow and the next day.

I am wondering, because the Local Government Association of South Australia is now under new direction. They seem to have reinvented themselves and they are uptight about this bill, so it will be interesting to see where they come from. I am surprised they are not sitting in the house tonight to listen to the debate—I thought they may have been—but that is their choice, and I guess they can listen online or read Hansard tomorrow.

Mr Gardner: They're probably listening right now.

Mr PENGILLY: They probably are. They have many issues with the bill. Clearly, they have been speaking at length with the member for Goyder (the shadow planning minister) and he has listened. We want to progress planning and development in this state. We want some good outcomes for it, and I think the state deserves good outcomes. At the moment, we are not going to get good outcomes. As I also said earlier, when this bill comes back from the upper house, by the time the Hon. Mark Parnell, our members and the other Independents have all had a go at it, I do not know what it is going to look like. I really do not know what it is going to look like. It might be in a completely different form, so what is the minister going to do then?

I go back again to somewhere near where I started. He had the opportunity to do this thing properly, but he has fluffed it. He has completely fluffed it. He has made a mess of it. He has upset everybody, and now we have to go through this farce of debating a bill that is something of a muddle and something which is not supported by the vast majority of people around the state.

Where we go, I am not sure. I will listen with interest to other members' contributions in this place tonight and tomorrow. I again say that I am supportive of change. Indeed, I am supportive of substantial change, if it is what everyone agrees to, but I am not supportive of something that we do not know what we are going to end up with because we do not know the amendments, we do not know what regulations are going to come out and we do not know what amendments the Local Government Association want put into it. We are still waiting for that, and we may or may not get that.

I would suggest we will still be talking about it the week after next or in three weeks, whenever we come back here again. I am pleased to make a small contribution to this bill tonight. I just ask my colleagues on the other side if they can get hold of the minister, give him a good shake and tell him to wake up and do what he should be doing in getting agreement from most people. You are never going to get agreement on everything, we understand that; it just does not work like that.

It may well be that he says, 'I am going to give people what they need, not what they want,' but, in giving people what they need, he also needs to understand that some of what they want may be in the best interests of South Australia as well. I think, if he can actually twist what he has turned into a mess back into something half decent, we may progress something for the betterment of the state. I conclude my remarks.

Mr DULUK (Davenport) (20:46): I also rise to speak on the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill 2015, commend the member for Goyder for his contribution and note it is always difficult to follow the deputy leader and member for Finniss. South Australia's planning system is complex, cumbersome and confusing. Anyone needing to use the planning system must navigate up to 23,000 pages of planning rules across 500 residential zones and some 2,500 combinations of zones, overlays and spatial layers.

Reform is vital, which we all acknowledge, as the member for Finniss was just acknowledging then. We must create more certainty for business, homeowners and industry. We need a system that is more responsive, involves less red tape, easy to understand and delivers better outcomes, but reform must be considered, balanced and transparent. Once again, this government has illustrated that it has achieved none of those in this bill and has failed on those objectives of considered legislation, balanced legislation and transparent legislation.

The government committed to introduce the bill in July to allow consultation over the winter break. This did not happen, and the bill was introduced on 8 September. After that, we had 17 pages of amendments tabled to go with the introduced bill in September. The bill is supposed to deliver a planning system that balances the interests of the development industry, business and community; it does not.

It was expected that this bill would provide detailed information on its coverage and operation—wrong again. Key information such as the draft regulations are not available, details on the planning and design code are not available and the charter of community participation is not available. The missing details will determine what the reforms actually mean for sectors and consumers. The government wants us to take a giant leap of faith. They want us to endorse planning reforms which could affect the way South Australians live for decades to come without detailed information on how it will operate. I think this is an insult to this parliament, its members and the public of South Australia.

At a recent public meeting convened by the Community Alliance of South Australia last week, the minister left immediately after his speech. He had gone within 10 minutes. He made his contribution and left. He did not stay to hear the other speakers. He did not stay to listen to the community. This is a minister who is a key member of the government that recently launched Reforming Democracy: Deciding, Designing and Delivering Together with a message of democratic reform and bringing people into the decision-making process. None of these key elements is present in this bill.

I have a suggestion for the minister if he truly wants to involve people in the decision-making; that is, stick around and listen to them and listen to parliament and involve the parliament in the process and in consultation. For the record, and for the minister, the Community Alliance meeting resulted in a communiqué stating that the bill was to be rejected. The Community Alliance SA have asked parliament to oppose this bill, and they are not alone.

I have heard from many in the community expressing their concerns with the proposed changes to planning laws. I have received correspondence from businesses, councils, developers, representative groups and my constituents. Not one of them, not a single individual or group supports this bill in its entirety. Constituents have urged me to keep their concerns in mind and raise their objections. They have a strong resolve to keep the planning system local. They want local councils to have a say on the type of development that occurs in their community. They do not want to see a blanket decision of the minister covering all South Australia. They want to retain influence and a sense of input into planning legislation and it is for this reason that they oppose this bill.

I have received a copy of correspondence to the minister sent on behalf of the City of Mitcham, City of Onkaparinga, Adelaide City Council, and the City of Norwood, Payneham and St Peters. I have also received representations directly from many local councillors. They are all united in their opposition to these proposed reforms. The first and most notable criticism has been the lack of community consultation, and for a government that prides itself on involving the community, involving stakeholders and listening to the people, once again it is all lip service.

In particular, there is a failure to consult with local government in this proposed legislation in the lead-up to the production of this bill. When you are proposing the most substantial changes to the state planning system in some 30 years, I would have thought it may be a good idea to go out there and actually talk to those most involved in that system and consult with those who will be most affected by the changes.

The local councils are frustrated. They are frustrated that the bill goes significantly further than discussions that occurred through the expert panel process. They are frustrated by the significant lack of detail that was available throughout that process and they are frustrated that the panel was presented as a forum for potential ideas that would lead toward reform not an outcome in itself in the form of the bill.

Like many of us reading this proposed legislation, local councils believed that it would benefit everyone considerably if the regulations were provided together with the bill. You would have thought we would see those today. Without regulations it is more than a little difficult to determine the eventual outcomes envisaged by this bill and with any proposed amendments that will be put in the other place.

There are also many other more detailed concerns put forward by the councils—the proposed statewide planning and design code to replace all 68 council development plans. It may take finding information regarding these policies relevant to property easier but it will also mean that there will be less ability for the community to influence a policy that directly affects them.

The proposed charter of community participation may—and I stress 'may'—provide more opportunity to comment on planning policy up-front. I stress 'may' because we still have not seen the charter of community participation. The details of the consultation are not known. They are not known because they have not been developed. Local councils are adamant that they must be included in the development of the charter to ensure that it is implemented in the correct manner, given that councils will be responsible for delivering on the charter. I would have thought that if we are having this debate we would have the charter in front of us but, alas, we do not. Perhaps the government should have considered putting the horse before the cart. As the Mayor of Mitcham council, Glenn Spear, notes:

Had the charter been developed before the bill it could have been used to undertake thorough consultation on the draft bill prior to it being presented to the parliament.

The proposed removal of elected members of the Development Assessment Panel provides few opportunities for elected members to represent their community interests. It does not allow for the community to feel involved in the decision-making process and it removes the community's main advocate that can represent and push for outcomes that best suit a local situation.

The proposed removal of the category 3 public notification process and, therefore, removal of third-party appeal rights against development decisions, removes the community's right to review and potentially influence development decisions. Councils consider it important that the community be engaged and have an ability to have their say in relation to development within their area. Big government does not always knows best.

The proposed infrastructure scheme may result in higher council rates, particularly if you live in a new development area as council may need to recoup the cost of infrastructure otherwise funded by the developer under the current planning system. It will also likely impose a financial impost on councils, which will be responsible for the administration of such schemes.

Under the proposed changes, councils will be responsible for granting access to private land by the neighbours if they need access for stability requirements, undertake developments on the boundary and require access, or to enable an inspection of property, so that they can lodge a development application. This will have significant resourcing and enforcement implications for council. Currently, council has limited involvement with such matters, and they would like to keep it that way. They do not see it as their role to act as mediators in relation to neighbourhood disputes.

It is acknowledged that the proposed SA planning portal should provide a simpler and easier way to lodge an approval and find information in relation to a property, but many councils have already made a considerable investment in undertaking electronic assessments, storing the majority of information electronically. They are also in various stages of having an online lodgement, processing and monitoring system in their own right.

Councils are weary of further government attempts to cost shift or effect any changes that place an inequitable financial burden on them. In so many cases, time and time again, we are seeing a transfer of cost burden from this government onto every other group that is not this government in order for them, in every way, to balance their budget.

Much could have been learned and gained through utilising existing local government expertise and existing systems. Once again, the lack of transparency is a major concern for councils. They have requested information pertaining to the fees and charges associated with accessing information held on the portal. This information will be quite important to the community, especially given that the current legislation provides this as a free service.

Residents associations have also expressed their unease and opposition to the planning bill. I am sure that the member for Adelaide will touch on this, but the Prospect Residents Association has written to the minister outlining their serious concerns. They believe that the proposed changes are overwhelmingly pro-development and anti-community. They consider this skewed focus will lead to poor outcomes that will have a negative impact on the character of a local community, the social and environmental features of local areas will be adversely affected, and changes are likely to increase community conflict.

They are also alarmed at the overall tone and emphasis of the bill, in particular, elected members, both on councils and members of parliament, and members of the community being removed from the decision-making process; loss of heritage and character in historic conservation zones; the restriction 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 and decisions; and 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 operations which allow development to occur without community consultation; and, indeed, a lack of consideration of social and environmental goals.

In light of the opposition of both councils and residential associations I have already outlined, it will come as no surprise that the Local Government Association is opposing this bill. This opposition is understandable and it is to be expected. It is expected because of their experience interacting with the government, their experience being ignored, their experience where the decision-making process has failed them, and experience where this government has thrown out the rule book and made it up as they go along.

As evidenced by the Cremorne Plaza development within the City of Unley, the state government's Development Assessment Commission approved a seven-storey development. The decision was made in spite of the council's development plan allowing for only up to five storeys in this area, and it was a decision that disregarded considerable local opposition—and there were many written objections to this seven-storey proposal. This government does not listen.

We had the case most recently with the Aldi development in the City of Mitcham, where the City of Mitcham declined the proposal, not because it was against development but because it was against the location and, once again, the state government overruled the City of Mitcham on this issue. At times, local government, local community groups and local input sometimes does know best. Yet here we are being asked by the government to take a leap of faith and support a bill that has major holes in it—as some would say, more holes than Swiss cheese—and one that takes away the right to consultation by local communities.

Another vocal opponent to this bill is the Environmental Defenders Office South Australia. They do believe that environmental matters have been prioritised or have received appropriate consideration in this bill. Given the importance of our environment and ensuring its sustainability, environmental matters should be at the forefront of decision-making.

The bill reduces community participation in the planning system and fails to accord appropriate checks and balances on the powers of the minister and the proposed state planning commission. Further, it is also unclear whether the environment minister will have a power of veto if the minister is unsatisfied with the planning proposal meeting South Australia's broader environmental considerations.

Among the EDO's key concerns is that the primary objective of the proposed new planning system will be to promote and facilitate development. Recognition of community ownership of the planning system, sustainability and intergenerational equity is relegated to planning principles. There are fears that when courts interpret the act, they will look to the economic aims, with environmental and social impacts only secondary thoughts. It is important that a precautionary principle is included to prioritise social and environmental goals.

The Housing Industry Association has also raised its concerns with the planning bill. The HIA is well positioned to comment on the bill as Australia's largest residential building organisation. The HIA believes the urban growth boundary must be removed from the bill. They advocate that the supply of land will diminish, higher land prices will result and the appearance of smaller allotments will spawn as developers try to stretch available land to meet housing demand and maintain an affordable product should the urban growth boundary be included.

The key word is transparency and this is raised time and time again from every single stakeholder group that is concerned with this bill. The HIA's concern is that the bill is not transparent in formally recognising or defining the urban growth boundary. The HIA strongly opposed the new infrastructure scheme and what it refers to as an insidious new tax. The HIA note that the housing industry is already the highest taxed sector in Australia, with 38 per cent of the cost of building a new house in South Australia being attributable to government taxes and charges. Thirty-eight per cent of the cost of building a new house in South Australia is attributable to government taxes and charges. It is quite incredible when you really think about it.

The Property Council claims that the proposal may amount to stamp duty by stealth. We welcomed the government's announcement in the state budget—and I know the Treasurer is in the house right now—that it will abolish stamp duty on commercial property transactions, but there was no point in taking that step and then slapping down a new tax through the development levy by stealth. At a time when we need to improve housing affordability, it is difficult to understand how this proposal is going to help homebuyers, in particular first homebuyers.

The HIA is calling for more transparency in response to the proposed Planning and Design Code. Details are needed to determine the intent and effect of those proposed changes. The HIA want these provisions removed from the bill. They could then be introduced after an acceptable planning and design code has been written and released for public comment. No-one is actually against the bill and no-one is against making improvements to the planning act, but let's work out what we are talking about. Let's look at the codes. Let's look at the regulations. Let's look at the Charter of Community Participation so we know what we are actually talking about.

The HIA has asked for more transparency, this time concerning the Charter of Community Participation and, again, they have asked for this provision to be removed. It should only be introduced after an acceptable charter has been written and released for public comment. The HIA has reiterated widespread disappointment that the government did not make the bill available for public consultation prior to its introduction into parliament. It has also added its voice to the criticism of the government's omission of key regulation and procedural and policy documents that will support the operation of the bill.

Without these documents, it is not possible for the HIA or parliament to accurately assess the full impact of the proposed new planning system. This bill is scant in detail, even though it is over 200 pages. It is detail that the HIA, and every other interested party, considers essential to determine the intent and effect of the bill. Without this information, and without addressing the concerns I have detailed today, the Housing Industry Association is another group that advocates for this bill to be defeated.

The bill will have significant impact on rural South Australia, as well as metropolitan Adelaide. It will deliver a major overhaul of the state's planning system, a system that protects and administers the houses we live in, the infrastructure and services we need, and our places of work and recreation. We all want a planning system that is easier to understand and simpler to deal with, but the system needs to be balanced, fair, have broad support and reflect the interest of all users—individuals, communities, businesses and industry. As it stands, the minister's proposed planning reforms do not deliver.

South Australia's planning system is integral to the competitiveness of our state and, right now, we need to be competitive. The regulatory impact statement prepared last month in response to the proposed reforms highlighted the relationship between the planning system and economic activity.

Over 10 years to March 2015 the median value of construction work done (property and related work) in South Australia was approximately $8.1 billion, or 4.5 per cent of Australia's construction industry. At some stage all of this construction work has had interaction with the planning system. This interaction may have been directly through planning and building approvals or indirectly through accessing strategically planned and funded infrastructure. In any case, these interactions with the planning system are linked to regulatory processes such as the Development Act 1993, and can delay economic activity.

New legislation is a must, I think we all agree with that. We must improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the system to deliver better outcomes for all those who interact with it, and it must be improved to deliver better outcomes for our economy. However, we need to be certain that the changes we make deliver the right outcomes for South Australia and South Australians. The quality and execution of that change will determine whether the reforms are able to kickstart the investment they promise or leave us in a quagmire of confusion and discontent, just like the new cycling laws.

We need to listen to industry groups in the community, we need to take their feedback on board in order to deliver a system that is clear and easy to navigate, and that enables development that is in everyone's best interest. Based on what feedback has been received so far, we have a long way to go in this matter.

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (21:06): I am pleased to be speaking today on the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill 2015. Whilst I welcome the government's initiative to improve our very complex and cumbersome planning legislation, albeit after almost 14 years in government, I would like to raise some of the concerns that have been brought to my attention by constituents and community leaders.

On behalf of Prospect council, Kristina Barnett expressed concerns around local government being removed from decision-making and fewer activities requiring planning approval at council level, which will reduce revenue through development application fees and have a financial imposition on local government, which will then come back to ratepayers. There are concerns around the definition of merit to be defined, which she is concerned will be used as an escape clause, and that communities need to retain a level of input into the planning system. There are concerns around the loss of heritage and character and that there is an emphasis on fast tracking and rushed decisions. There are concerns with the loss of rights and the ability to challenge, with the lack of detail on the code making it impossible to understand, and a lack of consideration of social and environmental goals.

On behalf of Community Alliance SA, Tom Matthews, the President, has sent through his list of concerns, including too much power to the minister, which is a contradiction of the recommendation of the panel to be at arms length. There are concerns that the minister appoints the planning commission and the assessment panel, that the bill does not include heritage, that regulations are not available so what provision is there for the community to be involved, that local government is not involved, and that there is a lack of detail about the environment and food protection areas. There are concerns with the infrastructure levy, outrage at nearby development being reduced from 60 metres to 40 metres, concerns with clause 118 regarding the time within which decisions must be made, and concerns with clause 133 regarding access to neighbouring land.

On behalf of the North Adelaide Society, John Bridgeland, the secretary, has concerns with the political expediency in the extreme, that the minister has picked out the most convenient bits and left the hard bits untouched, and has been ruthless in locking out local government. There is no evidence of community involvement in the charter, and the work of the expert panel was just a stunt.

The president of the Prospect Residents Association, Elizabeth Crisp, is opposed to the removal of local government from decision-making. There are concerns that the minister has too much power and that there is potential loss of heritage and conservation zones. There is concern that residents will be restricted in accessing information, that the fast tracking of applications will lead to rushed decisions and inappropriate developments, that there is a lack of consideration of social and environmental goals. She is opposed to the reduction of public consultation, and the public wants transparency on the planning and design code. Any development exceeding maximum building heights in the zone should have comment and appeal rights, adjacent residents within 100 metres should be notified, and the public should not bear the cost of the e-planning system and infrastructure levy through council rates. They are opposed to access through neighbours' land, and the availability of planning information must not be restricted.

Some of the individual submissions from people who attended the forum that was held at the Burnside Town Hall last week, which was put on by the Community Alliance of SA, include: that the new planning legislation does not include existing key provisions to ensure sustainable development, advancing social and economic goals within the community, establishing and enforcing requirements compatible with the public interest, and ensuring development plans address social and economic issues; the bill lacks vital detail, including information on the design code; the minister has the discretion to make decisions and has too much power; the bill is unsubtle, arrogant and uncaring of ordinary people; and the public are not consulted.

We have already had many concerns in my electorate under the current legislation, particularly in Prospect, along Churchill Road and some of the side streets. People who bought into the neighbourhood under restrictions that were placed on them when they were building or redeveloping their land were led to believe that at the lower end of Prospect, along Churchill Road and Davenport Terrace, there would be duplexes and maybe town houses and they built within those restrictions. They also see it as completely unfair that the height limits are extremely increased and the type of living and environment they thought they had bought into, with duplexes and town houses of one and two storeys, now they are finding five-storey tilt-ups next to them with only one car park allocated. Their side streets are so full that on a recent occasion a fire truck could not get through and the firemen had to doorknock to get people to move their cars off the street.

I think the current planning, with the DPAs that have gone through, was already bad enough, but this goes too far by locking the community out. It certainly poses a risk of lack of parking, congestion, traffic and financial disadvantage to people who have already built or redeveloped in the area under different restrictions. We had a situation recently, on Richman Avenue in Prospect, where a four-storey 10-unit block on just over 500 square metres on a narrow side street was somehow passed off as part of the urban corridor zone, where it has no frontage facing Prospect Road, and the residents are extremely upset about that decision. It is important that we ensure this does not continue in the future.

As it stands, the current bill (the bill that is being introduced), as was quoted at the Burnside Town Hall last week, allows good ministers to do good things but bad ministers to do bad things. The credibility of the current minister bringing in this legislation is from the government that brought people Mount Barker, the Gillman deal, Buckland Park, the O-Bahn and the Festival Plaza. The people who were at this meeting made it quite clear that they do not trust the minister with that type of power, as the government does not have a very good track record.

As far as Prospect goes, all of the tilt-up, high-rise and the rush for development, particularly along Churchill Road and also along Prospect Road, where there are narrow streets being used to access some of the high-rise developments that do front onto Prospect Road, is causing a lot of issues for local residents. Prospect already has the second highest density in the state of 2,726.8 persons per square mile. So, my residents are asking: why are we doing this? Why are we giving more power to developers? Why are we cutting out the residents' rights to be consulted and to have a say? People buy into different areas for the feel of the area, for the tree-lined streets in Prospect, for the large size blocks, for the sandstone houses, and then suddenly they do not live in that area anymore. Nearly every second house in my electorate is being demolished and high-rises are going up everywhere. So, we need to stop and think about what we are doing.

I recently had dinner with some of the principals and governing chairs of the schools in my electorate. All of the schools are completely full and they are saying, 'Where will the children go who are moving into all of these developments? Where is the population going to be educated?'

So, the government is not really thinking ahead as to how they will manage all the infrastructure required for this density in population, particularly in the inner suburbs and particularly in the city as well where the schools are at capacity. We are expecting 30,000 people to be living in the city. Some of the comments from the Community Alliance forum are as follows:

The codes must be developed and presented to the public otherwise it is like handing a blank cheque to the Minister.

Another comment is as follows:

Interpretation is different to everyone. It is not consistent and it is not law.

The state government has a very bad record and so do some of the DAPs, I must say, on how they interpret when you only have guidelines. As we can see from this planning legislation, we do not even have the codes developed, so we are expected to pass something when we do not even know what the true outcomes are and how the community will be involved. There are lots of things we do not know which I will list soon. Other comments from the forum were:

Minister Rau seems to have the final say on everything, changes the rules with a flick of a pen.

Ministerial DPAs are destroying the ambiance and everything that is unique and good in areas like Prospect and Unley with a flick of a pen.

Environmental issues have been removed from the bill. There is unseemly haste by the minister which is of great concern. Consensus takes time, so what is the rush? Another comment was:

Treatment of the community and local government being taken out stinks. Current format of experts and elected members on panels is working well as the community has a voice.

To quote Malcolm Turnbull:

Human capital value is achieved by involving every level of Government working together.

This bill appears to exclude local government which many consider as their local voice on planning matters. What is it that we are rushing to fix?

Other concerns with this draft legislation are that we do not know what the design codes are. They have not been provided. The urban growth boundary: we do not know where it is. It has not been provided. The local government is not sure of its thoughts because there is not enough information that has been provided. The Local Government Association does not support the bill in its current form and issues raised include the role of the community being reduced, areas where the bill does not require consultation with local government, no prescribed roles in key areas, statewide codes will result in a loss of local policy, financial impact of infrastructure levy and removal of local government from assessment panels. The Local Government Association has already requested some 60 amendments.

There are a variety of opinions and interpretations. The minister has returned many powers to himself. The e-portal was a good idea but at what cost to council and ratepayers? The essential infrastructure levy appears to be a cost transfer from the state government to others, and many have concerns around this. The community involvement is at the front end only prior to most people being engaged. It seems very rushed with little detail and already the government has put forward over 70 amendments. The charter for community participation is deliberately not available. There has been a removal of local government members on the DAP and there is not sufficient time to provide a detailed review.

I would like to put on the record the Community Alliance motion that was carried on Wednesday 21 October 2015, as follows:

The Community Forum rejects the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill 2015 and calls on the SA Parliament to oppose the Bill in its present form as it fails to recognise:

1. That Ecologically Sustainable Development must be an overarching objective of a new planning system in South Australia;

2. That a Community Engagement Charter supported by Government must be developed and mandated to enable community input into planning policy and development assessment;

3. That Council Development Assessment Panels must retain the involvement of elected members;

4. That as proposed by the Expert Panel Heritage must be placed on new foundations;

5. That the Planning Commission must be independent and at arms length from the Minister for Planning;

6. This Forum empowers the Community Alliance SA to initiate action to 'Bury the Bill' and to call on the State Government to 'Put the People Back into Planning and Development in SA'.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (21:19): As a small child I spent a lot of time in Delhi Street, which is one street back from South Terrace, at my grandparents' place, which comes off Pulteney Street. They lived in a row terrace house there. Adelaide was full of people back then, and nobody wants a city that is not full of people: we want vibrant cities, vibrant places and good planning.

As a small child I grew up in Hogarth Road, Elizabeth, and that was a brand-new, well-thought out (in those days), planned city—a city of the future. Tom Playford was out there with the Housing Trust and created this wonderful new metropolis for the workers of South Australia. We all had a vast choice—a number of jobs we could walk into on any day, we could just go from job to job. We always had a choice of places in which we could live. Planning was very much in its infancy, though. Those were the exceptions to the rule, where a lot of people lived in Adelaide because the houses were still there, and then we had these one or two new opportunities.

There have been some outstanding examples of bad planning that we have seen over the last few days. The member for Adelaide reminded me of one in particular. I grew up in Elizabeth and then we moved to Salisbury when I was a kid, and we used to go out to Buckland Park and work on a family friend's farm cutting lucerne. During winter when the floods came through that whole area would flood. Buckland Park is very flood prone—why you would want to put a development out there because of that alone, never mind the distance from public transport and infrastructure. Why would you do that? If you are going to plan housing developments, going to plan the way the state is going to develop, let's do it properly. Nobody wants to have poor planning.

Recently I wrote to one of my councils and in that letter I said, because of the decisions this council was making on planning, that I have some sympathy for the direction of the Minister for Planning. And I do have some sympathy for it, because unfortunately my experience in my nearly 14 years in this place is that a lot of local government planning decisions have been consistently inconsistent. I remind myself all the time—and I remind people who come to see me about planning issues—that the development plans are based on guidelines: they are not hard and fast, locked-in-stone rules, and you can have variations on a theme. We see that all the time.

Down in my own electorate of Morphett there are some amazing examples, unfortunate examples, of where the planning guidelines have been used to their absolute maximum variation on a spectrum of what is I think considered acceptable and what is right at the very end, where you have a 1930s or 1940s bungalow, and next to it you have a two-storey, stucco duplex—quite nice looking in some people's eyes—completely out of context.

The reason I wrote to this council and said that I had some sympathy with minister Rau's bill was because I had an elderly lady come to see me about council refusing to allow her to build a carport on the front of her little bungalow. Either side of her 1930s little bungalow were new buildings—two-storey, stucco McMansions, you might want to call them. She had been living in her bungalow for many years—I think well over 50 years—and she had looked after it, and now, because of her age, she wanted to be able to park her car in a carport at the front of her house. The council said, 'No, it's got to be at the side of the house.' The problem is that you cannot park it at the side of the house.

She had a firm, who I have dealt with, who specialise in state heritage and heritage structures. She engaged them to design and hopefully build this carport on the front of her house. Council were still saying no. So, I wrote to the council and said, 'This is just a nonsense, an example of the nonsense that councils come up with in their rules and regulations.' To top it off, the letter she got back from council said that there would be no negotiation, no correspondence entered into. Well, whoever wrote that letter obviously had not dealt with me as their local member, because that is not an acceptable way to deal with my constituents, and I have spoken to the Mayor and to the CEO of the council, and things are moving along. That is an example of what we have to try to avoid.

Having said that, in this legislation we are seeing the aim of removing elected members from council development assessment panels. We are standing here as elected members, and the member for Bragg talked about that. We are here as elected members trying to overrule other elected members. Well, if that is not democracy at work, having two layers of council, then this government had better bring in some legislation to get rid of local government. I do not think that is ever going to work; I do not think this government has any intention of doing that so let's not write off the input from local government from that other sphere of government that we have in our democratic system in South Australia.

I have been very aware of the need to have good planning for many years, from right back when Philip Highway was a dirt road when I was a tiny kid. Then, of course, when we moved down to Glenelg in the early nineties, when Holdfast Shores was being developed, there was the public furore going on about that development down there: the high-rise on the foreshore, the changing of Glenelg, and the 'You can't see the sea when you drive down Anzac Highway.' There were so many furphies, and so much rubbish put out there about what is now one of the best developments that I think money could buy in South Australia.

That is evidenced by the prices that people are paying to go and live there, the fact that the restaurants are always full down there, and the fact that the lifestyle is one to be envied, by everybody in the world, I would say. The fact that we have the most highly densely populated part of South Australia in Glenelg North there around Holdfast Shores is evidence of the fact that people want that sort of development and they want that sort of style of living nowadays.

They want it done properly, though; they do not want it just slapped up and done as we did in the seventies and eighties. I remember the view I had on the northern side of our home on the South Esplanade at Glenelg, where there was a 1970s cream brick building, 10 storeys high. I think it is one of the most ugly buildings in South Australia, quite honestly. There are lots of issues associated with it now and our older strata title buildings, which will be another issue for this government to approach. But those are the sort of developments that we do not want in South Australia now. We do want good quality development and we do want good quality planning.

I have spoken to the minister and had a presentation from him on some of his ideas and some of his greenfield and brownfield developments, and they are very good, but let's not escape from the fact that this all has to be done in a cool, open and transparent manner with everybody's input. For the minister to say that he appointed a panel of people with expertise in this area and they spoke to 2,500 people is all very well, but there would not be a member in this place who has not received dozens, if not more than that, of submissions and complaints from people about the way this bill is being handled in this place.

The need to make sure that we expose these pieces of legislation to rigorous debate is something that I congratulate the member for Goyder on. He has done a terrific job in here, going through this bill—this piece of legislation—methodically and forensically. He has read into the Hansard the submissions he has received, as many of us have been doing as we have been making our contributions. He has done a great job, and I look forward to his contribution in committee, because I know that the Attorney-General is no slouch. He knows what the lie of the land is, no pun intended. But he will have to answer the questions, he will have to be clear, and he will have to show that this is not just a case of the executive ignoring the parliament.

There is going to be ministerial accountability, whether it is in this place or the other place, when the amendments are put through. It is going to be an issue for everybody to listen to the debate and read the debate, because there will be many people out there who will be reading this debate, every word of it, because they realise this is looking for a long-term solution for a long-term problem. With planning—and the minister has said this—we cannot just keep limping along with four-year plans because that suits the political cycle. We have to have long-term solutions for long-term planning.

When you build a house nowadays, you would like to think it is going to last that 100 years that some of the heritage buildings we have are shown to be worthy of. Some of our older buildings now are 150 years old. They are in need of repair, but there was quality building then. The planning that was involved back then, just in building those buildings, has shown the merit of the determination of those people back then.

What we need to do now is make sure that not only are the layout, the types of buildings, the sympathy with neighbouring structures in place, but also that we have good social benefit, because it is not just about living in a house, locking the door, going inside, turning the alarms on and going to bed. It is about living in a neighbourhood; it is about living in a community; it is about living in a state where you are proud to drive around the place and show visitors, show your friends where you live because you have good planning, good residences, good residential developments, good commercial developments, good retail developments.

Certainly, in my electorate of Morphett, there have been a lot of issues over the years with the developments, but if you were down there on Saturday and Saturday night, it was just jam-packed. You could not move down Jetty Road. The restaurants were full; it was as vibrant as you could ever wish. That is what we are after; I hope that is what this minister is after, to try to promote that type of planning, that type of sustainable development in South Australia.

The Institute of Public Administration Australia put out an article in their journal just recently entitled, 'Can we plan too much?' It mainly talked about the 2010 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide, but in the conclusion of that article, the author, who is an academic with the University of New South Wales, said:

…it is questionable whether the present strategic planning processes for Adelaide are the most suitable. It means frequent and laborious revision of the so-called long-term strategic plans. This occurs because the plans are predicated on long-term population forecasts over which the state government has only partial and uncertain influence. Long-term growth scenarios are useful in developing some broad information about their likely land use, infrastructure and built environment consequences, and the demands on natural resources. But they also depend on assumptions about social economic and technological conditions that are rarely realized.

We have to be very careful in the assumptions that we are working on, and the predictions and plans. We have seen it; we have seen this government go from the mirage in the desert with Roxby and embracing it as the El Dorado of South Australia to now—what have we got? It is there; you can see it, you can smell it, but you cannot grab it. It is not there for us to use just yet. We need to make sure that we heed that advice from the Institute of Public Administration. Can we plan too much? Well, I do not think we can plan too much, as long as that planning takes into account the need for getting accurate information.

As I said before in my remarks, we have all had numerous submissions. I am not going to go through all the submissions that I have received—certainly, the member for Goyder has done an excellent job there—but I must say that the Local Government Association submission is one that I do need to pay some regard to, because it is a very important part of our community, of our society, of our governance in South Australia. In its submission that was, I understand, released just a matter of days ago, it states on page 2:

We need a planning system that balances our economic goals with the protection and enhancement of our attractive, resilient and sustainable communities.

The LGA goes on to say:

The LGA had an expectation that it would have a four week period to comment on the details provided within this Bill. Subsequently, and unfortunately it has been introduced and may be debated before the conclusion of our consultation.

The LGA has 11 issues that are currently of concern. I am not going to read all of those. I think that the member for Goyder has listed those, and certainly anybody who is interested should go to the LGA submission. It is very concerned about a number of issues there, and it is for this minister to explain to this house what he is going to do to satisfy those concerns of the Local Government Association, which after all represents 63 different organisations, local governments in South Australia, with their elected members trying to do their best for each of their communities.

The housing industry bodies have also put in submissions and, as other members have said, particularly the member for Goyder, not one of these organisations thinks this bill is great the way it is. In fact, the government does not think this bill is great the way it is, because we have 74 government amendments filed for us to consider. If you think this debate is long, I remember being here until three and four in the morning and getting the taxi vouchers at 10 o'clock at night and then getting a newspaper given to us before midnight to read. If you think this debate is long, it should be, it needs to be and it must be. We are representing our communities, those who have elected us to put us in this place.

One of those that has also sent in a submission, and we have heard from other members about these particular concerns, is a group that has been formed as a result of this legislation, the Community Alliance SA Inc. They had a meeting recently and issued a communique. It was a public meeting. There were hundreds of people there. I think the minister was there. Certainly the shadow minister, the member for Adelaide and the member for Hartley were there.

The communique that came out of this, as other members have also said, was to oppose the bill in its present form. We are seeing that over and over again, to oppose this bill in its present form. I hope that the government, with its 74 amendments, is doing something about heeding the concerns of the Community Alliance, the Local Government Association and the housing industry bodies. Everybody that has contacted us should be listened to. That is how democracy works.

We do not all know everything. We are not all fonts of wisdom on particular issues in this place. That is why we have our advisers and our experts but, at the same time, everybody wants to have a fair go and be listened to. We are all very concerned about good outcomes, so this debate is a healthy debate. Let us remind ourselves, though, from the minister's second reading speech, of what he has tried to do.

He set up an independent panel that undertook a comprehensive review of the planning systems, and he acknowledged that it was not going to be fixed by tweaks and tinkering, and the panel was prepared to be bold and it did not shy away from inconvenient truths. The truth is that this legislation is very, very inconvenient for the government because they are having to answer to the people of South Australia and they are having to answer to this parliament. The executive cannot ignore this parliament and cannot push this through like they did with such things as cycling regulations where they bypassed the parliament.

There is going to be ministerial accountability on this. As I remember John Hill said in October 2003 about public health, the public expects a good public health system and the buck stops with the minister. The planning responsibility for our communities in South Australia stops with this Minister for Planning. The buck will stop with him. In his second reading speech the minister said, 'I hope we can approach this bill in a genuine spirit of collaboration.' Well, we are. We want to get it right. The minister obviously wants to get it right, otherwise he would not have filed 74 amendments. The minister then went on to say that they have left:

…current local heritage provisions essentially untouched while we undertake a close examination of the benefits of integrating our state and local heritage laws…[and] Aboriginal heritage laws are also untouched by this Bill.

That is a good thing. Having lived in a state heritage house and spent many thousands of dollars restoring it, I think any support this government can give to preserve our state, local and Aboriginal heritage is a good thing. I am concerned, though, when the minister said in his second reading speech:

We have also chosen to leave the Urban Renewal Act essentially unchanged for the time being.

So there is obviously more to come there. He said:

…we have decided that issues around open space and public realm, although partly addressed in this Bill, require further work in the longer-term consideration.

So open space and public realm, where are we going with that? It is another debate we will have another day. The thing we do know about this legislation is that it will be debated in this place at length and it will be examined at length in committee and the government has nobody to blame but themselves because they have come in here pushing it through. They said they have had consultation but we know the history of consultation in this place is a farce. This bill is good legislation that needs to be tidied up.

Sitting extended beyond 22:00 on motion of Hon. S.E. Close.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (21:40): I rise to speak to the Planning, Development and—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is that the whole speech in your hand? I am getting a bit worried.

Mr PEDERICK: Madam Deputy Speaker, this is the whole bill—the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill 2015. It is a bill for an act to provide for matters that are relevant to the use, development and management of land and buildings, including by providing a planning system to regulate development within the state, rules with respect to the design, construction and use of buildings, and other initiatives to facilitate the development of infrastructure, facilities and environments that will benefit the community; to repeal the Development Act 1993; to make related amendments to the Character Preservation (Barossa Valley) Act 2012, the Character Preservation (McLaren Vale) Act 2012, the Environment, Resources and Development Court Act 1993, the Liquor Licensing Act 1997, the Local Government Act 1999, the Public Sector Act 2009 and the Urban Renewal Act 1995; and for other purposes.

No, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not be reading the whole bill word for word because I will run out of time, sadly. The rush with which a bill of this size, which was only read a first time on 8 September 2015, is to be progressed through this house is ridiculous. So often we see legislation that has supposedly been out in the realm for a couple of years being organised and, all of a sudden, there is a big rush to get it through. Why the hurry? We must ask: what is the rush? I think we realised it was so rushed when we saw that the government already had 74 amendments in place. How many more other amendments will be coming in from other members, whether from the debate in this place or the other place?

In relation to the information the minister has put on the record, he has indicated that an independent expert panel was set up a couple of years ago to undertake the review of the planning system. The panel supposedly met with over 2,500 people, including professional, industry, local government and community groups, to have a look at planning into the future.

The member for Morphett talked about heritage provisions that will be essentially untouched. A whole range of local and state heritage essentially will be untouched, but Aboriginal heritage laws will also be untouched. Certainly, the existing linkages between the mining laws and the planning system are undisturbed, but I note the issues we have with mining, especially in what we call the 'suburban zone', create some angst.

I have had a bit to do with what I guess you would call inside country mines at Mindarie and Strathalbyn. To ensure that they are conducted in a professional manner and that people come at them in the right way from both sides of the fence, whether they are landholders or potential miners, they need to undertake negotiations in good faith; otherwise, people on either side of the debate just get their backs up and all the negotiations fall into a hole. So much more work needs to be done in regard to the relationship, especially considering that the state—which is essentially all the people of this state—owns the rights to the minerals, but we also must make sure that the people who own the land above those minerals have a very fair go.

In saying that, I note that in the minister's contribution he talked about new protection for our farmlands and environmental areas around Adelaide and the formative environment and food production reserve, and he talked about giving this reserve appropriate authority. There has been a lot of politics made out of reserving farmland and, quite frankly, I am a man who believes that the market should decide.

Many people who went to my area around Coomandook and Coonalpyn once farmed in areas like Para Hills, Gawler and Angle Vale, and my own family came out of Angle Vale. I also note that within this planning bill there is provision for compulsory acquisition. I think I have spoken in this house before about my grandfather who had two lots of compulsory acquisition: one in 1939, for some of the weapons dumps at Angle Vale, and then in 1950, for part of the Edinburgh air base. We were basically getting squeezed out. I think my father lasted another 10 or 11 years before he came down to Coomandook; he thought he was ahead of compulsory acquisition and then they decided to shift the Dukes Highway and they took another 7½ acres.

Mr Treloar: He must have been wondering.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, he must have been wondering, exactly. He was well compensated, I must say, with new fencing and new gates, and a lot of that is still in place, apart from the areas that have been burnt by the bushfires that happen occasionally. It does concern me that there are these so-called protections put in place when I think that the market can decide.

If we look at forward planning and greater ideas that have come out of this place, I look at a former premier and former member for Norwood, as it was back then, Don Dunstan, and his thoughts on putting another city at Monarto. That was probably a very good idea and the one thing I would agree with the former premier on.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: He probably thought it was okay to go past 6 o'clock as well at the pub.

Mr PEDERICK: Probably a very good idea.

Mr Treloar: Can he speak from there?

Mr PEDERICK: No, I think he should be chucked out.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I could call him to order if you like.

Mr PEDERICK: It is up to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. What we have seen with development over time is the rushed development at Mount Barker, and we have seen developments around Gawler and towards Freeling. When you think of the best land in this state, the very best land in this state, we are probably sitting right on top of it; in fact, I think we are. This land we are sitting on here, on the banks of the Torrens, where the City of Adelaide was first developed because of access to water obviously in those early years, would be some if not the most productive land in the state. But you cannot wind the clock back, and it would be ridiculous to do that, but I am a firm believer that you let the market decide.

My father used to tell me many stories about some of the people who sold land around Salisbury when it was all farming country. You have to remember that he was born in 1920. He talked about people who came out with a good deal and some who came out with a better deal further down the track when they realised what was on offer, and so on; it has just been a progression. Yes, there has to be some planning, but it has to be sensible planning.

I think we have seen some anomalies with what has happened in the so-called preservation of the Barossa and the McLaren Vale areas. Certainly, those acts had to be watered down a fair bit because there were some circumstances in there that were unforeseen, especially when people may have wanted to develop another house on their farming property (and that is alright if you want to perhaps set up a museum), but sometimes that may not be the best outcome. I think there might have been better ways to get around it, but it is what it is and we have what we have. Getting back to Monarto, the one good thing we got out of that is that we have a world-acclaimed zoo out there. Sadly, we lost that little chimpanzee in the last couple of days.

We need to be far more forward looking at where we are going to put populations. I do not believe that Adelaide should be moving further up and down north and south, and I would be looking at opportunities further east towards my electorate and the potential out there. There is going to be some great developments out there with the Motorsport Park opening up at Tailem Bend and so on. Certainly, people are taking advantage of those opportunities.

I note that part of the contribution the minister made was talking about making sure that our market gardeners, vignerons and fruit growers spread throughout the Fleurieu and the Adelaide Hills can be certain that their livelihood will not be affected by opportunistic urban development. It is interesting that, as far as the urban growth boundary that is discussed in this legislation, there does not appear to be a northern boundary. Certainly, there are growers who want to go to the north of Gawler River and develop that, and I think that there is plenty of opportunity with the wastewater from Bolivar to open up some more market garden opportunities. We have certainly seen the opportunities with respect to the people with their major glasshouse operations to the north of Adelaide.

The Hills Face Zone has always been something that I have looked at with a little bit of intrigue. It seems that in past decades people have been able to develop to a certain level and then, if there happens to be some empty blocks on the Hills Face Zone, even though they might be amongst other housing, you cannot develop them, or if you wish to develop them, you have to go through that many rules and regulations to get there, it is almost not worth the time. So, you can get bound up in the rules and regulations.

We have a minister who is concerned about how dense the living is around the city. He made the point in his contribution that our city is a 'legacy of cheap petrol, ignorance of climate change, a love affair with private motor vehicles, and concealed state government subsidies of greenfield development infrastructure costs'.

That is all very interesting but, as we found with the debate about the car park tax, many of us do rely on our vehicles to get where we want to go. Certainly, we regional members do need to use our vehicles to get into the city. I am sure that even members on the other side value the use of those vehicles. Just because you want to build these closely-built accommodation areas in the city, I wonder whether it truly is the answer. Yes, it does put a lot of people in one spot, but that can breed its own issues as well, but perhaps I am speaking as someone who likes living in a wide open space.

I note that in another section of the bill, the minister talks about local councils still having a central role in planning policy. I very much doubt that, judging from the feedback I have had about what local councils are concerned about, and certainly from looking through the bill. It seems to be a bill that is more about fast-tracking where the government wants to go, fast-tracking development, getting their approval through, whether it is through the Planning Commission or the planning board that will be instituted in regard to this.

I think that there needs to be far more debate in both houses, and certainly, as has been indicated before, there will be quite a bit of debate when we get to the committee stage. One thing that is a move forward, as long as it is put in a user-friendly format, is planning information being accessible on a central e-planning portal.

I note that, apart from the 74 government amendments in relation to this bill, this bill does not include consequential amendments that will be necessary in the future across the statute books, nor does it address all the reforms the government agreed it would enact when they issued their response to the expert panel's report back in March. So once this bill has been considered—and we have to see whether it survives the duration of the houses—there will need to be a further bill dealing with consequential amendments, transitional arrangements and related implementation measures, and that will have to come into this house next year. There is a whole lot of work to do before all of this even comes into play.

In relation to planning, I would put it second to water and water security issues as an issue in my electorate. There are plenty of opportunistic people who think their land, their farm or their rural living allotment should be one that you can either cut in half or take a bit off the corner and rezone so that they can capitalise on their investment. That can be a long tortuous process as you take the issue either to local government or the state government to try to work out where the future lies for these people.

I acknowledge that some of this is opportunistic. People, in my belief, cannot just buy a block on the edge of a large town and believe that it might be a rural living block now, but they will be able to cut up a four-hectare block into housing allotments one day and get on with it. I do note though that the Rural City of Murray Bridge, being the major centre in my electorate, is looking to open up some of its areas. It is a pretty rapidly growing city. Even during the drought numbers grew and it is up to about 21,000 or so as a population. Its access to the city puts it in a very good spot. It is about an hour's travelling time to get into the centre of the city, depending on the traffic.

Planning has to be right, otherwise you have a whole range of flawed circumstances. In relation to the Motorsport Park that is happening at Tailem Bend, that is exactly the right place, not just for my electorate but, I believe, for the state. There was a proposal, not long before this proposal became cemented in, to have a dragstrip out by Monarto Zoo. It was totally out of order. It was not going to happen as far as I was concerned, but this guy was determined to have a go at setting up a dragstrip and because the land is zoned for different sporting activities—there are go-karts and model planes, etc.—that can operate out there I think he thought he was going to get it through. Thankfully, this other proposal came up and that is on the cards.

In relation to when people put up a development proposal, I am certainly a firm believer that, if there is a need for a buffer zone, the proponent of that proposal needs to incorporate the buffer on their land. It causes a lot of angst when people say, 'We have built a house next to a farm and we wonder why there is a harvester going all hours on a hot night.' There is a reason for that: it is a farmer reaping his crop. Or it could be next to a vineyard and the grape harvesters are going all night, as they do. It is about people not understanding where they have relocated to and what they have brought into and then expecting things to change around them.

That has caused some warped issues to happen where engineering firms have had to move. There is one that had to move out of Mount Barker. It came into Murray Bridge but, sadly, it went out of business because of health reasons within the family. People need to understand that if you build near a vineyard, a farm, a semi-industrial facility, or even a slaughterhouse, for that matter, you need to understand what goes on there and know what you are getting into.

In closing, there is going to be a lot of debate in the committee stage of this bill to see that we get it right. It is outrageous that it has been rushed into the house after so-called two years of work, but I think we will be here for a long time yet when we get to the committee stage, and rigorously go through all the amendments. I commend the other speakers, especially the member for Goyder, who did such a fine job as the lead speaker in regard to this bill.

Time expired.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (22:00): I rise this evening to make a contribution on this bill, the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill 2015, and note the good work of the shadow minister in researching and preparing papers and the diligent manner in which he delivered his contribution. I also look forward to the scrutiny that he will provide, as will other members on this side, during the committee stage. I also note the contributions of my colleagues on this side; there are many who have preceded me and there are more to come, I guarantee that there are more to come. I think what that does is highlight the significance of this bill and the importance of planning to all of us within our electorates, the importance of considered development within our electorates, which we all want to see.

The bill before the parliament consists of some 207 pages—and I note that the member for Hammond has a complete copy sitting next to me here now, which is no doubt a handy reference. There are 74 government amendments already flagged for this bill, so obviously, even after all the consultation and all the preparation, the government has not managed to get this anywhere near right. However, I do appreciate the fact that the amendments have been tabled; no doubt there will be more amendments to come during the committee stage, because it is so important for us to get this right.

The intention of the bill is to provide for matters that are relevant to the use, development and management of land and buildings, including providing a planning system to regulate development within the state, rules with respect to design, construction and use of buildings and other initiatives to facilitate the development infrastructure facilities and environments that will benefit the community. That says it all.

I often think that the unsung heroes of the development of this state were, in fact, the surveyors. In the early days of settlement the surveyors would go out and, out of virgin scrub in a virgin landscape, they would carve out roads, farms, railways and townships with simply a gang of axemen and a chain measure. Life was much simpler then; in those early days they were, in their own way, doing the job of planning. It was a decision that was often made on the go, depending on the lay of the land, depending on the topography, depending on the settlers. Life has become a lot more complicated, necessarily so, and legislation has become a lot more complicated, also necessarily so. However, it does not need to be too complicated.

Many of the points that have been made here in this debate today have been urging caution in terms of the increased power and control of government, and particularly the planning minister. I suggest that in many ways he already has that power, he already has that ultimate authority, and I would like to relate a couple of stories from my own electorate that demonstrate that.

There have been a number of development applications from within the electorate of Flinders; without naming them I can think of three, definitively, that have been put forward by existing landowners for subdivision. They have been supported by local government and, in this case, from at least two separate local councils; they have been supported by councils.

In one case in particular the local council did about 10 years work developing this proposal. A lot of time was spent with the developer, a lot of time was spent with the department. Ultimately, they got it to the point where it could proceed to the minister's desk and, to the surprise and disappointment of all concerned, the minister did not sign that application. That has occurred on at least three occasions that I am aware of, and there may be more. So, in fact, the minister already has the ultimate authority. What this bill does is consolidate that power. What people are looking for in a bill such as this is for some of the power to go back to the people, to be retained by local government, to be retained by the people who are actually living in the area and are proposing the development.

The member for Hammond made some interesting points about the market making decisions. If I can refer back to the reasons given by the Minister for Planning for not signing the development applications I was just referring to. One was that he was concerned about the use of arable acres and good farming land being taken up by housing development. Once again, the member for Hammond highlighted the point that some of the very best and most productive land in this whole state is under the city of Adelaide.

You cannot wind the clock back, but I think we are becoming a little bit precious about such things as arable acres. People forget how big this state is, how big Australia is, how big the Eyre Peninsula is, in fact. By my reckoning, the governmental zoning of Eyre Peninsula defines that area as being about the same size as the country of Scotland. It is a huge area. I can guarantee that a housing development here and there will not impact significantly on the arable acres available, nor the productive capacity of the peninsula or the state as a whole.

Within this bill an urban boundary is talked about. There seems to be no line or demarcation as to where this might be. It is an urban growth boundary. It is very difficult for us to make comment or judgement on a boundary that is proposed and yet has not been determined. I firmly believe that the market itself will take care of such things. Once again, I think people are beginning to talk about food production areas but are getting a little bit precious about the importance of planning these areas.

For example, I would be interested to see if the Barossa, which of course is contained within the seat of Schubert and the good member for Schubert represents his community very well, but it is interesting to me to note that it is often reported as a primary food production area and yet most of the produce from that area is one that is purchased through discretionary spending. I wonder in my own mind what makes a business in the lower north of the state necessarily more valuable than a business in the upper north of the state, or is the value of a business in the upper north of the state any different to that on the Yorke Peninsula or the Eyre Peninsula? As individual businesses they are equally as important, in my mind. Even though the productive capacity of the land may be different, to the families who live and work there it is equally as important. So, there are questions in my mind about how these determining factors are arrived at.

There is talk of an essential infrastructure levy. In my mind, that is simply a government solution to cost transfers from the state government to others. There seems to be very little community involvement in planning and development and infrastructure proposed in this bill, far less than we have even now. Of course, there are local government members on development assessment panels and there is discussion about removing or stopping local councillors from being appointed to those panels. So, there is significant discussion still to be had.

Relating back to my own electorate once again, the other reason the minister gave for not signing the development applications that I was talking about before was that he could not see that there was a demand for these particular developments. I would suggest to the minister that that is not his decision to make. I think we need to manage development but not control it. Surely, minister, it is for the market to decide what sort of subdivisions and housing availability should occur, not ultimately the minister himself.

One thing that has caused a great deal of grief in the electorate of Flinders over the last half dozen years at least—because it precedes my time in here, precedes the Weatherill government and this minister—is the so-called coastal conservation zone. In fact, it was implemented when minister Holloway in the other place was the planning minister, so it is at least half a dozen years ago since this zone was implemented. What has occurred is that a coastal conservation zone has been put in place right around the coastline of Eyre Peninsula with very little consultation. There was some consultation but little with landowners. There is about 2,500 kilometres of coastline on Eyre Peninsula. Almost half of South Australia's coastline is classified as Eyre Peninsula coastline.

Around this entire length, there is a coastal conservation zone which has caused much angst to existing landowners and the local governments involved in defining it. My first introduction to the coastal conservation zone was from landowners who lived in the Far West of the state and was not within a local government area but lived in the outer areas. They had some coastal property. It was farming property but some of it was near the coast and much to their surprise they discovered one day without any notification or any consultation that a significant part of their coastal section was defined as coastal conservation zone. What this meant was that that land could continue to be used for farming but at no point could it ever be subdivided. That may or may not have mattered to the landowner but they were surprised that the government could make such a move without their input.

Further to that, the coastal conservation zone was implemented within the district councils within the settled areas and, if you will bear with me, the following coastal councils in the electorate of Flinders were affected: Ceduna, Streaky Bay, Elliston, Lower Eyre, to a degree Port Lincoln City Council, Tumby Bay, Cleve, Franklin Harbour and, outside of my electorate, the City of Whyalla was no doubt impacted as well.

Some years have been spent on discussions between the councils and government trying to decide where this coastal conservation zone should be, where the line should be drawn. Invariably, the locals are not happy, and I say that because in many situations freehold landowners who own farming property are finding that the line is drawn well back from the coastline, well into their freehold property and, in some cases, includes their primary water source. In some cases, it includes coastal townships. Port Gibbon, for example, in the District Council of Franklin Harbour is included within a coastal conservation zone. It is a town, a coastal town. How own earth is future development ever going to occur in an existing township when it is contained within a coastal conservation zone?

This zone has obviously not been ground-truthed by the government. My guess is that most of it was done by satellite imagery and topographical maps because when one comes to inspect some of these sites, as I have with many landowners who have raised the issue with me, we find that in some instances we are up on a cliff face, yet within a coastal conservation zone. I can only imagine, and I am supposing, that part of the reason for this coastal conservation zone is to protect vulnerable coastline from such things as tidal surges, rising sea levels, storm damage and all that sort of thing. Unless the government and departments actually ground-truth coastal areas, they could never really know what the topography is. I think that has been a significant oversight by the government and caused much grief not just to the landowners, often they are freehold, but also to local government who have tried to work their way through this without putting the government offside, without putting local landowners offside, and have found it incredibly difficult. Of course it precludes much development that might have been planned for future times.

Lucky Bay is another example: a coastal community north of Cowell. I know that between 25 and 30 per cent of Cowell's economic activity is derived from Lucky Bay, yet that entire community—mostly shacks admittedly, but some are permanent dwellings—are within a coastal conservation zone, and their future is under a cloud.

I think there are significant questions still to be asked. The minister needs to take a serious look at what he is imposing upon particularly country communities, and the lack of opportunity they will have under his guidance for future development, because ultimately a housing development, for example, even if it is a rural living subdivision (and I know the minister particularly does not like rural living) creates economic activity. It gives jobs to surveyors and town planners, and then there is construction and the delivery of utilities, all involving tradespeople, all who live in towns, all who have families and all who support their local shop, school, hospital, etc. At the stroke of a pen a minister can decide the future development or not of a small country town, and a lot of our country towns are desperately in need for that spike in economic activity.

I look forward to the committee stage. I understand that it is a significant bill, an attempt to bring planning and development into the 21^st century. My understanding is that there were some thousands of pages in the legislation, and that will need to be—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Scrutinised.

Mr TRELOAR: Scrutinised—that was not the word I was looking for, but I will come back to that at every opportunity. Again, I congratulate the member for Goyder as our shadow minister on all the work he has done, and look forward to future contributions later this evening.

Mr WINGARD (Mitchell) (22:17): I rise to speak on the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill and to acknowledge the speakers on my side of the house who have already spoken on this bill. Unfortunately, my speech is starting much like many of theirs and much like it does on so many bills this government puts before the house. The government has written this bill and already drafted 70 amendments: can you believe it? The government has not made clear what regulations they want to attach to this bill. We are being told that 46 areas are yet to be created.

A draft of the charter for community participation deliberately is not available: yet again there are too many unanswered questions, and the government is just hoping the people of South Australia will not notice their poor handling of this matter or others before the house. I have been contacted by a number of local councils and other stakeholders who already have been mentioned by members before me, so I will speak mostly on behalf of the two local councils in my electorate.

The City of Marion is still looking at the legislation; it has not debated the bill yet. Unofficially it has indicated they have some concerns, but I will not put their issues on the record until they contact me with their formal position. The City of Onkaparinga on the other hand provided a much more detailed finding, and local ward councillors, Heidi Greaves and Gary Hennessy, both contacted me personally to voice their concerns. Mayor Lorraine Rosenberg sent through a 41-page, in-depth report, and I would like to table some of the findings here tonight.

To start with, it is pointed out that the planning minister wrote to the mayor in September 2015 referring to a website and phone number for further information. It encourages the council to take advantage of the website resources and various forums and workshops. However, it was also noted that there was no specific invitation in the letter to the council to provide comments. The council had concerns about the lack of time they have had to fully appreciate the content of the bill, but that is nothing new for this government; that is the way they operate. There is an overarching concern that has been the underlying theme in speeches across the night and that is a lack of transparency and a lack of consultation.

I refer to a document sent to me by the City of Norwood, Payneham and St Peters as well referring to this bill and they talk about the lack of consultation with government. In fact, they say there are many instances under the bill where provision is not made for consultation with councils, which is concerning. For example:

There is no consultation on the establishment of sub-regions, the decision to initiate an infrastructure scheme and the funding arrangements under an infrastructure scheme (even where the Council is to contribute to its funding). The Council requests that this aspect of the Bill be reconsidered.

But, again, I say it is no surprise. This government is very secretive in the way it operates and does not divulge to stakeholders what is, in fact, going on. The development industry as a whole has indicated that sufficient time has not been provided for the detailed review, particularly where legal support has been engaged. Other concerns that have alarm bells ringing with this bill are that nothing has been presented on the planning and design code, and the line on the map for the urban growth boundary is not available for review.

It sounds absurd, I know, but in this bill the government is proposing an urban growth boundary although it will not show where it is. It has been suggested that this sits in the arrogant camp or the inept camp—you can make up your mind where it falls. I will leave that to you to decide: putting an urban growth boundary line in the bill and not letting people know where it will run is unbelievable. Again that theme of highlighting a lack of detail rears its head with this bill, and others delivered by this government.

The Onkaparinga council have stated that they do not support this bill in its present form. I do not think any member has managed to find anyone who supports this bill in its current form, but I will outline a few of the Onkaparinga council's concerns.

…Council has made a concerted effort to engage in each stage of the reform process.

In short, they will not support this bill in its present form and some of the points they raise centre on the following:

Many of the reforms recommended by the Expert Panel could be achieved through amendments to the Development Act and the Development Regulations. Many 'blockages' in our present system are caused by our archaic definitions and concepts, particularly in the Regulations, which have not been amended to overcome modern demands and Court authorities which affect their meaning.

The Bill is difficult to support whilst much of the finer detail that will inform its implementation is left to regulations, the Planning and Design Code and design standards and practice directions.

So just take that in for a second: the government is moving a bill with 46 regulations and they want people to submit their thoughts and have their say, and they want to pass it through this house, when they have not actually put those regulations on the table. Sounds absurd? I think it is.

Whilst the Bill reduces the role of councils and the community in planning and assessment processes, the consequence of such decisions will continue to rest with council and its community.

That is another concern that the City of Onkaparinga has raised.

Council queries whether sufficient resourcing will be provided to DPTI to create and implement the Planning and Design Code, and the new system. Planning decision-making processes consume considerable resources and from our experiences with DPTI, delays in DPAs are common place, as are delays in referral reports and other matters handled by the Development Assessment Commission (DAC). Considerable additional resourcing will need to be provided to DPTI to handle the implementation and management of the proposed new system.

You can see it is just not clear and the council has concerns. They also go on to say:

The bill contains many cost-shifting measures which will require council to fund the implementation of the new system (particularly the e-planning system)—

and I will talk more about that in a moment—

and essential infrastructure. Council is opposed to these mechanisms and urges the state government to remove them. These cost-shifting mechanisms have the potential to compromise council's ability to deliver services to its community.

The council is not clear on how this bill runs. In fact no-one is clear on what is happening with this bill and that is where the concerns are arising. Other things pointed out by the City of Onkaparinga are that objects and duties are not supported:

The Council submits that the objects of the bill be amended to better balance competing factors in the planning system and the needs of our community. This can be achieved through expressly recognising the need for balance in managing economic prosperity with orderly development that is sensitive to social, cultural and environmental factors.

In fact, it has been pointed out by a number of stakeholders that environmental factors are not mentioned at all throughout this bill. The City of Onkaparinga also does not support the planning policy documents and planning and design code which I have already mentioned, but:

Council recognises the government's intent to create a series of planning policy documents to replace the planning strategy and to create a streamlined and integrated Planning and Design Code, supplemented by design standards.

The Bill contains no detail as to whether council will be consulted by the Minister when these documents are prepared. The new Planning and Design Code should be informed by our understanding of place first (as articulated through our Development Plan), rather than be amended post-implementation to reflect this.

The council believes it ought to be involved up front and throughout the development.

The council has raised other issues under that same heading. They raise the fact that the point behind these statements is to raise concerns about the ability of DPTI to achieve a planning and design code which is effective, consistent and which properly accounts for local needs where appropriate without significant funds being provided to it. They are worried about the funding that is going to go to DPTI.

The assessment panels as well are not supported by the City of Onkaparinga. Restricted pathways are not supported:

Council is very concerned that there is no requirement to inform council of a restricted development other than through the public notification mechanism. Councils should be kept notified of such applications due to the community interest they generate.

The council believes they should be advised as soon as the State Planning Commission (SPC) receives and categorises an application as restricted, to ensure that they agree that it is a correct determination and correct procedure.

Ministerial assessment and alternative assessment pathways for crown development and infrastructure are also not supported by the City of Onkaparinga. Reduced public notification and loss of appeal rights are also not supported. The council notes that the bill is likely to result in reduced public notification and reduced appeal rights. While the council appreciates this is predicated on improved up-front discussion with the community on matters of policy, such as through the new citizens participation charter, the council respects these changes will not meet community expectations and will create additional angst in response to development occurring throughout the council area.

Essential infrastructure funding is not supported. It is something that a lot of members have talked about already this evening and that I have raised previously as well. The council is concerned by:

…the potential breadth of the essential infrastructure delivery scheme and extremely broad definition of 'essential infrastructure', which can include additional infrastructure designated by the Planning and Design Code and the regulations. The definition of essential infrastructure should be limited so that its breadth can only be increased through an amending Act of Parliament to ensure public confidence in the delivery scheme, particularly given that it proposes a form of indirect taxation to fund infrastructure.

It is no surprise that the council has identified that this government is looking at another form of taxation and, as they claim, an indirect taxation to fund infrastructure.

Further, the council is concerned that the Bill does not propose any express mechanisms to ensure that the savings to be achieved by the scheme will be passed on to the purchasers of new allotments of land by developers. Without such a mechanism, the intended savings to first home owners to increase rates of home ownership in South Australia arguably will never be achieved.

The council understands from comments made to various forums that the passing on of savings will be left to the market.

Other points that the council has not supported include entry onto land. The council is wholly opposed to the new provisions that require local government to be involved in the access to land through the bill. Most development applications in the Onkaparinga council area require retaining walls, fences and other structures that cannot be constructed without entering onto neighbouring land. The resource implications of these provisions in issuing notices, considering applications for authorisation and enforcing these provisions are significant.

The City of Onkaparinga submits that such matters should be left to individual landowners to resolve between themselves, as is currently achieved through the Fences Act. Involving councils in such matters will only result in resource implications and will not significantly improve development outcomes. The City of Onkaparinga is not in the business of being a mediator in civil matters between neighbours. It is simply not their role and the provisions of the bill should be deleted altogether. That is what they conclude by saying when talking about entry onto land. Clearly, we can see that it is not supported.

Amendments to the Local Government Act 1999 are not supported, either. Enforcement and compliance is supported subject to amendments. They say:

Council notes the new enforcement and compliance 'tools' of adverse publicity orders, civil penalties, enforceable voluntary undertakings and the recovery of economic benefits. However, [the council is] concerned these mechanisms are made only available to the proposed State Planning Commission and not councils.

They query the intent behind this and say:

Creating new enforcement tools exercisable by the Commission only gives rise to community expectations that the Commission will use those tools. Without significant resourcing being provided to the Commission, these tools are ineffective.

Again, more concerns are being raised by the City of Onkaparinga.

E-Planning, I said I would mention, and that is supported subject to satisfactory funding arrangements. Again, we can see the theme of the issues being raised by the council, with funding being a notable concern. They say:

Council is pleased to see the 'framework' for the state-wide planning portal. If the portal is developed consistent with the Bill's framework and appropriately resourced, it will provide a sophisticated lodgement and information system, increase openness and transparency in the planning system and will increase public access to planning documents.

The council, however:

…urge the government to carefully consider the fees and charges for access and use of the online planning portal as many of [the City of Onkaparinga] residents are elderly and/or on low incomes and would not be able to afford significant fees and charges to access this system.

Council currently has an operational e-planning system in the City of Onkaparinga and they strongly encourage the state government to undertake meaningful consultation and collaboration with the City of Onkaparinga and other councils who have undertaken such projects in establishing the portal. They say:

There is opportunity to save significant time, money and resources by analysing and exploiting the work already undertaken by councils in developing their own systems.

The council will be willing to share their experiences with the government in this regard. That is something I will keep very close watch on, because there is a great opportunity, with the support of the councils involved, where bringing all the systems together can potentially save money for ratepayers and save money for the people of South Australia, because we know at the moment people are hurting in their hip pocket. So the e-planning system and the option is being put forward for the government to work with the councils and look at some ways that they can all come together with work that has already been done and save a lot of money for people in the Onkaparinga council area in particular. Local heritage is supported in principle. The council goes on to say:

We support the inclusion of local heritage places within the proposed Planning and Design Code, which is intended to be an integrated and comprehensive list of places of local heritage significance. However, it is essential that the existing local heritage places in council's area be 'carried over' or incorporated into the code, so that the important protections afforded to those local heritage places are not lost.

Tree protection is supported in principle but the big issue and the common theme that has come through from all the speakers before me tonight and is pointed out in the conclusion of the council's submission is the time frame for submissions. They say:

Council notes there is no formal consultation process for submissions and comments on the Bill…We would appreciate clarification on the government's intentions concerning the progress of the Bill and further consultation intentions. This will enable proper engagement on the details of the Bill and ensure that it benefits from the combined wisdom of local government and the development industry.

Clearly, there are issues here amongst a lot of the key stakeholders, as I have pointed out, and taking the time to talk about one of the councils in my electorate, the City of Onkaparinga, has made it abundantly clear that this government has forced this through and not consulted, as would be seen fit. A lot of organisations, including the City of Marion, have struggled to get together an assessment of this bill.

We have mentioned already that 70 or more amendments have been made to the bill since it has been put forward, and there are 46 regulations which the government is keeping secret and will not allow anyone to see. Again, it beggars belief, and I can understand why people are very confused, but that is the way this government does business. They do not like to let people know what is going on. In fact, they like to keep things secret, and they like to trick South Australians wherever possible.

Having gone through all those proposals, I must commend the City of Onkaparinga for being ahead of the game and putting together these issues with this bill. You have to be ahead of the game because this government will be sneaky and try to get their legislation or regulations through without stakeholder involvement. They will be as sneaky and as tricky as they possibly can. That is what they do, and that is what they give to South Australians. I believe South Australians deserve a heck of a lot better.

Unfortunately, like many others, in the brief time line that has been given, the City of Marion council did not have enough time but, when I do receive their thoughts and concerns, I will forward them on to the minister. Sadly, as this government has proven, whilst we will put issues forward, we will want to discuss things and we will want to debate things with them, it is very unlikely that they will listen.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (23:36): A new planning act—how amazing! I was a councillor on the then Beachport district council at the time we developed the first plan for the Beachport district, and I remember at the time having some concerns about what might be the outcome of having a district plan. Would it restrict what people could do in the future?

To my mind, planning is about achieving orderly planning, and I think everybody agrees with that, but there are some really important aspects to having a plan for a region or an area or even a small parcel of the state's land area. The way we go about planning, the detail we put into a plan and the zoning that we apply to certain parcels of land have a huge impact on the value of that land.

We have seen many instant millionaires created by a simple zoning change. The dollar value that can be created by simple changes—the stroke of a pen on a piece of paper—which have an incredible impact on the way that a piece of land can be utilised means that this is an area of public policy which has become, and is the subject of, inquiries into corruption and has become an area where those who wish to make a quick buck spend a fair bit of time.

It appears to me, with the current minister, that there is a huge conflict in where that power to make those sorts of decisions might lie. The minister seems to have some sort of problem with the local government sector. The minister seems to think that, at the very best, the local government sector is incompetent and, at the worst, maybe it is corrupt from end to end.

I do not accept very much of that at all. I think the people who are involved in local government throughout the state, by and large, are community members who have a passion for their local community and want to see the right thing done within that community. That does not always work out correctly, but having a planning system which dissipates the powers down through the hierarchy, I think, is less subject to corrupt practices than one which concentrates the powers towards the top of the pyramidal structure.

One of the problems that I really have with this particular piece of legislation, and it reflects the modus operandi of this government, is that it seeks to centralise power. It seeks to bring many powers to the hand of the minister.

Mr Goldsworthy: Socialism.

Mr WILLIAMS: My colleague the member for Kavel uttered the word 'socialism' and, yes, it is socialism at its worst. It is concentrating the power into the hands of the very few and isolating the many. There are a number of things about this that I have grave fears about. One is, as I have intimated, that it opens up much more readily the spectre of corruption within planning decision-making because only a small handful of people are involved in the decision-making.

This government does not have a good track record. If we hark back to a few years ago, to what happened in the Mount Barker area, there was a travesty delivered to the people of the Mount Barker district by this government because the minister was wont to get certain outcomes irrespective of what the local community wanted.

The current minister says, 'I don't want to see that sort of thing happen again. I want to make sure it doesn't happen.' I would suggest by further concentrating power and giving himself or any future minister even more powers than previous ministers had is not going to help and is not going to mitigate against that circumstance happening again.

We have been debating for some time now a series of events that have happened with regard to the land at Gillman. This is a classic example of where planning can have a huge influence on the value of a piece of land. Here is a piece of land that has no intrinsic value but it seems to me that it has a significant value because it is very close to the metropolitan area. It has a significant value because it can be used as a dumping ground. It being used as a dumping ground for unwanted fill taken from other sites which are being developed reduces the cost of getting rid of that material. All of a sudden, by dumping fill on the land, a developer converts what was a low-value, and to date a useless piece of land as far as development goes and can realise a huge potential value for that piece of land.

The point I want to make with regard to this is the secrecy that surrounds that particular deal. There are a huge number of questions about the relationship between the government and the so-called prospective purchasers of that piece of land and the deal that has been signed up. The way our planning system operates today has allowed that to happen and I suspect, unfortunately, that the proposals before the parliament currently will exacerbate that problem because there will be even less scrutiny by local communities with regard to decisions as to how parcels of land may be treated and may be zoned in the future.

Any person could stand up and say that we need orderly planning, and they will not get a lot of pushback—that is something everybody would agree with: we need orderly planning. However, when you use that as an excuse to consolidate power so that we have one person sitting at the top of the pyramid who has the ultimate power—because that will give us the ultimate amount of order throughout the system—I think the question we should all be asking is: will that deliver that outcome or will it deliver the opposite? I would suggest it may well deliver the opposite.

There are a number of specific things I want to raise here tonight with regard to this. I have just heard a number of my colleagues talking about this, and they reminded us of the fact that we are just talking here about the act and that there will be plethora of regulations that will sit underneath this act, none of which has been put on the table.

Over many years, under the existing planning act, regulations have been created, amended, changed and developed, so I do not think that anybody can really stand up in front us and say, 'We're not quite sure what the regulations are going to look like as yet, so we can't table them.' The reality is that the minister and his advisers and his staff and the people who have developed this act would have a very clear understanding of what those regulations are going to look like.

I have made this comment many times before in this place: I think that as a parliament we sell ourselves very much short by not insisting that the regulations that sit under the act are not brought to the parliament at the same time as the act is being debated, because we are being asked to give head powers not knowing how those head powers are going to be used into the future. I have been here long enough to experience what I can only describe as abuse of not dissimilar head powers through the regulation-making process.

A classic example comes to mind which is quite recent: the changes to our road rules to allow a completely new set of regulations with regard to bicycle riders. I would have thought that it would have been eminently sensible for the parliament to have debated those changes so that every member of this place, who wears responsibility back to his and her electorate, could have brought their perspective to the discussion on how we should change those laws.

But the reality is that the Minister for Transport and his cabinet colleagues, by the stroke of a pen, have changed the law in South Australia and made it quite difficult for the community to have any real input into that. On the one hand, we have the parliament here as the principal law-making body of the state, and then we have this regulation-making power which is given to ministers, and which I would say, in my experience, has been abused by ministers on a regular basis under this government. There used to be a time when the regulation never came into effect until after the expiry of the 14 sitting day period, where a disallowance motion may be moved, unless the minister sought dispensation by claiming that the regulation needed to be brought in immediately.

When I came into this place, it was very rare for a regulation to have a request that it be brought into being or be promulgated forthwith. My understanding is that that happens all the time, not just regularly but all the time: virtually every regulation is promulgated forthwith. That, to my mind, is an abuse of the power by ministers of this government and it is an affront to this parliament. As I have said, I have argued this ever since I have been in this place: regulations, to my mind, should be brought to the parliament at the time that the bill is being debated so that we know what we are debating. That is one of the problems I have with this bill and obviously many others.

The urban growth boundary is a little bit of a hobbyhorse of mine. Why would we even contemplate an urban growth boundary? The reason we need to—and this government has decided that it needs to—have an urban boundary is a failure of government policy. It is an absolute and abject failure of government policy. If we had decent policy to govern for the whole of South Australia and disseminate the largesse of state across the state, we would not need an urban growth boundary.

Unfortunately, in South Australia the Labor Party controls most of the electorates in metropolitan Adelaide and nothing outside, apart from the city of Whyalla and the surrounding area. It has no interest in the rest of the state. Notwithstanding what the Treasurer said in question time today, this government has no interest outside metropolitan Adelaide. That is the only reason we would even consider an urban growth boundary. If we had policies which disseminated the largesse of government across the state and developed our regional towns and cities, we would not need a requirement for an urban growth boundary.

If you look at any of the other states in Australia, you have some very large and significant cities—even Western Australia, outside metropolitan Perth Mandurah is to the south, Geraldton to the north and Kalgoorlie to the east. These are major cities. Look around South Australia and what do you have? Mount Gambier, the second biggest population centre in the state, has 23,000 or 23,500 people. It is a joke that we have to put an urban growth boundary around the City of Adelaide to control development when we have all these viable centres out in the rural areas which, by and large, have declining populations, or certainly populations that are growing very slowly because of a lack of support from the government. I think the government has got that absolutely wrong.

Infrastructure delivery schemes—give me a break. We have a system that works well now, but the minister would have us believe that he can deliver cheaper land to new home owners. It is a nonsense. All he will do is deliver greater profits to developers. I have talked about the power of the zoning decision to create instant millionaires. This particular part of the policy will do nothing other than create more wealth for developers.

I suggest to members on the other side who do not understand the fundamental principles of economics that they look at the elasticity of demand and supply. The relative elasticity of demand and supply is very important every time we make one of these decisions. This government has totally ignored it. For the minister to contemplate that he can deliver cheaper land to first home buyers is a nonsense because the controlling influence is held by the developers and they will screw the first home buyers just as they have in the past. It is not always their fault.

A lot of the fault rests at the feet of the government of the day that keeps putting more burdensome regulations on the development of land and the opening up of new parcels of land for housing development. The minister might look at his own record and the record of his forebears to overcome that problem. I just noticed the clock and it was a bit frightening. I am amazed at the way time expires in this place.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are?

Mr WILLIAMS: I am, indeed. One of the issues I want to bring to the attention of the house is the biggest issue in my electorate with regard to planning—that is, fire regulations. I had a phone call from a constituent a fortnight ago who wanted to build some sheds on his farm. Let's understand where this farm is. It is in the Keith area, in the north of my electorate, where there is a lot of irrigated lucerne and irrigation pumps all over the place with great water supplies.

If he wants to build a major shed, a significant shed, to store produce from his farm, he has to put in water storage tanks for firefighting purposes. This constituent told me that he had ordered three sheds at around about $90,000 each to buy and about $25,000 to $30,000 each to construct. So we have a $120,000 or $130,000 piece of infrastructure times three. Then he was told by the local council that by the time he put in the appropriate water supply—tanks, guttering, pipes, fire hydrants—it was another $40,000 a shed. He cancelled two of the sheds and told me that he would have cancelled the third one but it had already been delivered to his farm.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: That has nothing to do with the local community having a say, I say to the member for Newland. All that does is demonstrate how remote the member for Newland is from the real world.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do not respond to him. Ignore him.

Mr WILLIAMS: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. This is an issue that has been going on and on and on in my electorate, and I can cite many similar cases with significant developments that have been stopped, or of people running small businesses, and in some cases sporting clubs, being almost driven to the wall, financially speaking, because of the fire regulations, which are nonsense. If I had a shed full of hay out in the middle of my farm and it caught fire, it would not matter how much water I had sitting in a tank next to the shed, the shed and the hay would be gone before the local fire truck got anywhere near it. It is a nonsense, yet we have these sorts of regulations. In my electorate—and from talking to my colleagues it is common throughout rural South Australia—this is a big issue.

Ms BEDFORD: Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed: