Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (15:36): I am pleased to resume the remarks that I was making prior to the luncheon break. I think I was making some points about the Attorney-General having a bit of a bee in his bonnet about local government, and all those matters relating to that, dating back some time.

I think I was recounting the fact that when the member for Enfield sat on the backbench near the member for Napier in the early days, in our first term here, I remember he actually undertook his own inquiry and analysis concerning local government, and then he made his recommendations public. I think it caused some issues amongst the Labor caucus at the time, particularly for the then minister for local government. I recall media interviews in relation to his investigation, report and recommendations, and you could say those media interviews were somewhat difficult for him; however, that is a bit of a history.

Talking specifically about the bill—and as I said before, I do not necessarily want to canvass all the issues that my colleagues have, because the points have been very well made, highlighting some concerns and matters with the legislation—I do have two pieces of correspondence that I have received from the local councils in my electorate, one being the Mount Barker District Council, and the other being the Adelaide Hills Council. I am not going to completely read all the correspondence because I do not have time, but I want to highlight some points that both sets of correspondence raise.

Not wanting to categorise the importance of both pieces of correspondence, there are some specific issues in relation to the infrastructure levy aspect of the legislation and how that relates to matters concerning the Mount Barker District Council.

As we know, the Mount Barker District Council has been subjected to some quite difficult issues which they have had to deal with as a consequence of this government rezoning 3,000 acres of land—basically rubber-stamping it—for residential development. That is pretty much all they did: they said, 'All this tract of land on the perimeter of Mount Barker will now be a zone for residential development,' without any assistance to the council to prepare a structure plan or any plan on how infrastructure and services might be rolled out into the future.

It took the District Council of Mount Barker months and months, and arguably hundreds of thousands of dollars, to prepare a structure plan. In the course of the preparation of that plan, they realised that there was not adequate funding to meet the costs of building the infrastructure necessary to meet the demands of the increased population, so they pitched three separate rate structures, and that has all gone through and been ratified and the community is aware of it. There are certain triggers for when those rates have to be paid.

However, what is of concern to the council is that this infrastructure levy will create some significant complications concerning the rate structures that the Mount Barker council has put in place. I will read into Hansard a letter I have received from the mayor concerning this bill. It starts, 'Dear Mark,' and then there is a heading, and it continues:

I write to you concerning the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill introduced recently to Parliament.

At its meeting on 6 October 2015 Council considered the Bill and endorsed the submission contained in Attachment 1 which details Council's concerns and seeks amendments to the Bill. I have attached a copy of our submission for your information.

Unique to the Mount Barker District Council are the implications of the Bill in respect of existing infrastructure provision arrangements that are already in place to cater for growth arising from the rezoning of the land in 2010 by the State Government, now expected to generate a population increase of nearly 30,000 people.

Council has worked closely with developers over a number of years with formal arrangements in place to secure $114 million of required infrastructure over a period of time, commensurate with the rate of growth.

It is Council's view that this Bill puts this at risk. Council seeks that the Bill be amended to eliminate this risk. That can be achieved in different ways including, for example, the addition of a provision that is:

a) unique to the Mount Barker District Council that recognizes what is in place for infrastructure provision ensures that it is not able to be undone; or

b) a generic provision that sees a Scheme (as per the Bill) only to be established over an area prior to rezoning of the subject area.

Council is also seeking the opportunity for further direct involvement in the formulation of the new legislation, particularly with respect to infrastructure provision and funding arrangements.

Yours sincerely

Ann Ferguson OAM

Mayor

I have attachment 1, and if I had time I would read it in, but I do not. It is a fairly comprehensive list of their concerns on which they seek amendments.

I know that council has written to the minister about this, as has the Adelaide Hills Council. I will quote from the very first part of the Adelaide Hills Council letter to the minister. This letter is specifically signed by Mayor Bill Spragg to the minister:

Dear Minister Rau

Comments on the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill 2015.

I refer to your letter dated 10 September 2015 in relation to the proposed new Bill. Council appreciates this opportunity to provide comments in relation to the proposed new legislation which is intended to implement the ideas for reform of the current State planning and development system, as put forward by the Expert Panel.

Councillors and staff have had briefings and have reviewed the proposed Bill and attached please find our Council's detailed comments regarding the salient elements of the Bill. Adelaide Hills Council appreciates that some of the comments in our two previous submissions to the Expert Panel have been [taken] into consideration in the drafting of the new Bill. Also our council supports any changes to the planning and development system which will make the system operate simpler, better and faster. However, we have some significant concerns in relation to the essential principles and architecture of the reforms as outlined in the Bill which are as follows—

And they list the areas of concern:

1. Denigration of the role of local government in the Development Assessment Process…

2. Cost shifting burden on councils from the implementation of these reforms…

I know the member for Bright highlighted some specific concerns in relation to this in his contribution. The list continues:

3. Centralised preparation of planning instruments and elimination of Section101a Committees…

4. Delineation of planning regions…

5. Transitional arrangements…

6. Change of Land Use for agricultural activities…

The member for Heysen spoke at length in her contribution about the importance of agricultural, horticultural and viticultural production in the Hills. The list goes on:

7. Statutory planning instruments may be Metro Centric…

8. Enforcement actions and expiations…

Both the councils that represent the significant proportion, the vast area, of my electorate have raised considerable concerns and they are quite specific. The Mount Barker council is specifically concerned about how the infrastructure levy will affect those rates they have already pitched and, obviously, the Adelaide Hills Council has other concerns.

As I said, I know both councils have written to the minister. I do not know whether they have received a reply this week to the concerns they have raised but, up until last weekend, they had not. If the minister and his department have not responded to the concerns of both those councils, I urge them to do that. I urge him, his officers and the bureaucracy to get onto this because it is very important.

The member for Heysen highlighted how unique the Adelaide Hills region is in a number of areas. A big proportion of the Adelaide Hills is in the water catchment area, which imposes a lot of restrictions and requirements. There is the Hills Face Zone.

Ms Redmond: The CFS.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: The CFS—it is a very high bushfire risk region. A lot of different things impact on the Adelaide Hills region that are quite specific and unique to that area of the state. I strongly urge the minister and seek his cooperation in dealing with and resolving the issues that those two councils have put forward.

Bill read a second time.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Madam Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Planning–1]—

Page 12, line 11—Delete '40' and substitute '60'

Amendment No 2 [Planning–1]—

Page 14, after line 9—Insert 'Community Engagement Charter—see section 44;'

Amendment No 3 [Planning–1]—

Page 18, line 6—Delete 'Part 2A' and substitute 'Part 2B'

By way of explanation for members and just as a recap, and I know that the member for Goyder is aware of these things but for others who might be not quite so familiar with what is going on, the situation is that I made it clear to all interested parties when the bill was introduced some month or more ago that I would welcome suggestions as to modifications of the bill which gave a better effect or overcame unintended consequences.

The whole raft of amendments that are here filed in my name are intended to reflect the fact that we have had ongoing conversations with people, and we have attempted to make modifications in order to deal with a great many of these. Many of them are relatively minor, but nonetheless they are probably useful changes. That is the first point.

The second point is that (and I have said this to the member for Goyder but for the record) I am expecting there will be some other amendments specifically targeting the infrastructure charge bit of the bill. They are presently being worked up with the various parties who are interested in those matters. I hope to have them here shortly, although, obviously, I do not intend to progress this at the committee stage beyond that point until such time as the opposition has had a chance to look at those.

The other point I would make, and it is just one of general observation about some of the remarks that have been made about the bill in the course of debate, is that it needs to be remembered that this legislation is like a coat hanger, if you like, for a number of other policy documents which will hang underneath it. Those documents themselves will require consultation with all the interested parties and communities and various other people involved. The step has been, first, we build the main structure, then we work on the fine grain, which we will do.

The CHAIR: Like the Harbour Bridge?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Like the Harbour Bridge, exactly. With those sort of few general words, I can say that we will be having a number of other pieces of work done on the assumption that the bill passes because, obviously, we are transitioning from a paper-based, multizonal system to an electronically managed, more compact and universal library-style of system. I think that is probably sufficient for the moment.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Can I confirm that the minister's staff provided me with a copy of the amendments on Friday of last week late in the afternoon, so I appreciate that. In the first three—being amendments 1, 2 and 3—that relate to clause 3, I indicate the opposition is supportive of that. I find it interesting that one of them refers to the interpretation of the word 'adjacent' land and, indeed, the distances involved in that where it was previously 60 and brought back to 40 in the draft bill that was put out, and now it is back to 60 as part of the amendment which has become part of the consultation from the minister. On that basis, I confirm the opposition's support for that.

I just seek one clarification: minister, you refer to the amendments for clauses 155 to 178 in part 13 about infrastructure. Therefore, can I assume that as part of our committee stage we will not be talking about that section because it is so much of a moving feast that it is rather difficult to even ask questions about that, and that will probably occur between the houses at an absolute minimum; that is, the discussions and briefings on that?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, I can confirm that and it depends where we get up to with the committee stage; it might still be here, in which case we can try to deal with those things here, say, in the next week we are sitting, if that is what turns out to be the case. Otherwise, it will be, as the member for Goyder suggested, between the houses.

Mr GRIFFITHS: My preference is that, because it is a significant section of the bill and there are a variety of opinions on that, it not be an area that we discuss until I have had the chance to consider the implications. If that area can be quarantined, I would appreciate that.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is my intention because neither the member for Goyder nor anybody else has had a chance to look at the final product. I have given the member for Goyder an indication of the direction we are going in, which is to address a couple of concerns about, basically, gold-plating and double-dipping, which we are intending to address. Obviously, the member for Goyder needs to see the words.

Ms REDMOND: Just for clarity, I take it that at the moment we are only dealing with the amendments proposed—

The CHAIR: One, two and three.

Ms REDMOND: —and we will still have an opportunity to ask questions on clause 3?

The CHAIR: The amended clause 3, yes, absolutely.

Amendments carried.

The CHAIR: You have a question, member for Heysen?

Ms REDMOND: Yes, I have several questions. I might start with the very first definition in clause 3 and that is 'accredited professional', but that refers us up to clause 81, and perhaps that is better left until we get to clause 81.

Minister, I wonder if you could clarify exactly what the impact of 'adjoining owner' is intended to be? For instance, in my own circumstances, I happen to have more than a dozen adjoining owners because I own a laneway, and the laneway leads onto a cul-de-sac. At the end of the laneway, houses from another street come up and back onto it, so I actually have a dozen neighbours in addition to the person who actually has the number next door.

Is the effect of that definition going to be that, if I were to make an application to do something that required an adjoining owner to be notified, even the person who might be 300 metres away in another street will automatically be part of the people who are notified?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think the answer to that is probably yes, but I can indicate that, because of the amendment we have put in, that is absolutely no different from the current arrangement. The present arrangement is people within 60 metres. We had it down to 40, and we brought it back to 60. So, the net result of the amendment in this clause is that it is no change from status quo.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.