Bills

Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 3.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Just following on from the answer that I think I was giving before reporting progress, can I just say that one of the drafting instructions for this bill was that, as much as possible, the definitions in the existing legislation, if they are still useful, would be replicated. The reason for that was we did not want the courts to infer that a new definition therefore means a new interpretation.

Where it has been possible to simply transpose an existing, known and long-understood definition from the existing act and bring it across here, that is exactly what we have done, with the intention that, as we bring it across, it should mean the same here as it meant before.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Can I apologise for my tardiness and for the disruption of the house; I thought we were 5.30, minister. If I can go to the interpretation for 'building', my understanding is that there have been some discussions about that in the past, and a question that has been put to me by one of my respondents in the Local Government Association is: is there an opportunity for it to have some amendments in terms of temporary structures?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think the Local Government Association, like all the other people who have been invited to put propositions to me, eventually came up with a settled position at the end of last week. We are looking at things they put forward and we will consider everything they have put forward. Some of it is not going to be as easy to consider as other things, but we will consider everything they put forward. But I can tell you that my advice is that definition is again the existing definition just moved across; we have not altered the status quo at all.

The CHAIR: Member for Heysen, your first question has been answered. Do you have a second question?

Ms REDMOND: Yes, I am still on clause 3, Chair.

The CHAIR: And this is your second question?

Ms REDMOND: Yes, it is. I do have more than three questions, but I know that I will not get to them, so I have to try to pick and choose which are the most important. I want to clarify in the definition of 'construct'—

The Hon. J.R. Rau: It is the existing act.

Ms REDMOND: It is the existing act. So, I have the minister's assurance that that is exactly unaltered?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that that is exactly the same as the existing act.

Ms REDMOND: It is a while since I have looked at it, but it used to be the case, for instance, that one did not need a development approval to renovate something inside a house but, under that definition of 'construct', clearly 'construct' would certainly incorporate renovating an internal kitchen, bathroom, lounge room or whatever.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I just say that, whatever the present situation is about that, I think there are other bits of the existing act that create certain presumptions. The point is that we are not disturbing the existing thing. So, if the existing situation is that you do not need approval to do stuff inside, we are not attempting to disturb that in any way.

Ms REDMOND: The definition of 'development', again can I hear from the minister whether that is an identical definition to what we have at the moment? I mentioned in my second reading contribution, for instance, the effect of paragraph (d), which creates the meaning within 'development' as including the construction of 'a road, street or thoroughfare on land'. So, if I on my block of land simply scraped a passage for my car to be driven onto it, then technically that would be caught within the definition, and historically certainly that was never likely to be caught within the definition.

Similarly, under paragraph (g) of that same definition, 'the external painting of a building', it seems to me that that is wider than what was previously there, although I readily concede that I have not looked at it for some time, so it may have changed in the interim. Can the minister give any assurance that these things are not in fact any change, in particular paragraphs (d), (g) and (h)—that is, 'in relation to a regulated tree—any tree-damaging activity'—all seem to me to be further than what I had understood the law to go before.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: In relation to those, (c) and (d) I am advised are exactly the same. I think it is worth mentioning also, in the context of (a), that really begs the question about zoning to some extent, which is another topic, but let's leave that for the time being. The next one was (e), I think.

Ms Redmond: No, it was (g), external painting and trees.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is not materially different. However, the words 'specified' and 'Planning and Design Code' are different because this legislation has the Planning and Design Code which did not exist in the previous legislation, but otherwise it is the same. Previously, it was a reference to regs. That is an insignificant technical change. It does not change the reference to painting or other things: that is from the existing act. There is no change in (h).

The CHAIR: Any further questions on clause 3 as amended?

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, can I ask a question about paragraph (i) and the creation of fortifications: is that the same as previously? Mr Dennis is saying yes.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that is the same.

Mr GRIFFITHS: In the interpretation of 'division', referring to paragraph (c), where a period of six years is mentioned twice, is that a transfer from the current act, or where has this come from?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, I am advised again that that part of it is exactly the same. The only bit that is different, if I can point that out, are the words 'but does not include a lease, licence or agreement of the class excluded from the ambit of this paragraph by the regulations'.

Mr GRIFFITHS: My next question relates to the interpretation of 'domestic partner' over the page and the last half of the second line: 'whether declared as such under that Act or not'. I am just seeking some clarification on that.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is a lift exactly from, as I understand it, as I am advised, the existing provision.

Mr GRIFFITHS: It is possible that I might have more than three questions on this clause because it is quite substantial, Chair.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am very happy to answer the questions, but can I emphasise again that I was at pains to say to parliamentary counsel, 'Please, if you can pick up stuff which is already a known quantity under the existing legislation that everyone understands and it's not problematic, let's pick it up, bring it across and use it in the new one so that people don't start off with having to wrap their heads around completely new terminology.' We have endeavoured to keep things as consistent as possible.

Mr GRIFFITHS: My question relates to 'essential infrastructure', which is new because it has been brought into this bill for the first time. It gives examples, from (a) through to (k), of what essential infrastructure means. Because we are not talking about the infrastructure levy at this stage, my very broad question is: is it probable or possible that a levy could be created for the establishment of all these different categories of essential infrastructure?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Theoretically, yes. The point is that this defines the ambit of what a scheme might seek to include. Whether that ambit was deemed, by the process that we are about to deal with under section 150 and beyond, to be excessive or at excessive cost is a completely different proposition. That is intended to put some boundaries around what we think the types of things that should be contemplated by the infrastructure concept might be.

Mr GRIFFITHS: My question comes automatically from that because I can relate to most of the areas, but then (i) and (j) in particular relate to services and facilities that would normally be provided by the wider taxpayer, instead of an area in which the levy is potentially able to be implemented.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The utility of this definition of 'infrastructure' is for universal application across the act, not just for that scheme. So, there are other bits of the act which deal with essential infrastructure and so forth and the approval method for those things, which are not connected with the infrastructure charge provisions.

I think what we are actually going to be able to offer you in due course when we get the infrastructure charge thing is that it might be that this general definition is modified to some extent, or there is some other mechanism that deals with the question that you are asking. The reason that is there is because there are other bits of the act which deal with the provision of approvals for essential services which this is intended to underpin.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I refer to page 17 at about line 8 and 'local heritage place'. The very broad question I have is: do the current listings automatically go on to the Planning and Design Code?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Ultimately that is a transitional matter, and I think that I have explained to the member for Goyder and others who have asked about this before that, assuming this bill is passed, there is then the need for a transitional bill which will deal with how a whole range of things transition from where they are now to sitting under the new scheme.

That said, the intention is, yes. I think I also mentioned that with respect to heritage we have only just lightly touched here because it is a topic all of itself. But the intention is that, in effect, if you are a heritage place now, once the transitional arrangements are finished you will continue to be a heritage place.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Chair, I thank the minister for his confirmation of that, and because he talked about transitional arrangements that are in place here I do have a question that goes back to clause 2, and I apologise for this. Subclause (2) of that states:

Section 7(5) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1915 does not apply to this Act.

I am intrigued as to why that is there.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That provision is the one that says, 'Look, failing everything else, this thing will become operational in two years.' Full stop. We believe that there may be elements of this thing which take longer than two years to be fully ready to become operational and therefore that provision enables there to be greater flexibility about when some aspects of this become operational.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I refer to page 18 and the interpretation for 'precinct authority'. It is a term that has only just started to become used in South Australia. I am wondering whether the minister can confirm whether there are any areas that are declared to have a precinct authority in place already?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Not yet. There is work being done in relation to a few potential candidates for this, but, as far as I am aware, we don't yet have one of these, but I think the time is soon coming where we will. I have had councils, developers and all sorts of different groups in the community expressing an interest in this provision. However, there are certain procedural formalities to be undergone before such a thing can be established, and so far we do not have anyone who has completed that process. I am not sure whether there are any actively pursuing or vigorously pursuing that sort of process at the moment. There certainly were a number nibbling but how serious they are, I do not know.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I appreciate the openness that exists in this questioning, too, minister. In looking to establish this, because there are so many other areas of the bill that talk about regulations to be drafted, will the creation of a precinct authority, given that it will occur in the future, occur via regulation or legislation?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The creation of the precinct authority, as I understand it, would be under the Urban Renewal Act. The parliament dealt with amendments to the Urban Renewal Act, if I recall, about 2½ years ago, which facilitated within the Urban Renewal Act the creation of these precincts. We are not disturbing that piece of legislation: we are simply cross-referencing that legislation in here.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I remember the shadow minister expressing concern about precinct authorities at the time. If I can now go down to 'public notice' just to seek some clarification. This is based on some of the words that I mentioned yesterday from regional newspapers, in particular, that are concerned about a different form of public notice that no longer requires notice to be given in circulating newspapers.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: All I can say is that definition is no different to the current definition. That is, we are not disturbing that at all, and I guess that is a matter for regulation from time to time, but we are not changing anything here.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Towards the bottom of page 19 is 'swimming pool safety features'. It might be a broad question, but the minister's staff and I have both been contacted by people who work in this area and represent the association who have been rather concerned about what they see as inconsistencies and interpretation and the potential for people to be at risk as a result of that. They have asked me and, I believe, your staff, for some form of guidance on that. Is it intended that regulations will flow through that will deal with this area of concern?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Basically, the story is this: there is a clause further in the bill which is the active clause which empowers the making of regulations to achieve this. Again, this would be the sort of thing that we would be wanting to have conversations with the industry about to make sure those regulations are correct.

Mr GRIFFITHS: On pages 25 and 26 where it talks about additional penalties and default penalties, I wonder if you can provide me with the details. I have noticed that in areas of the bill, but I am just looking for an explanation as to what the intent of that means, and if there is any indication of the dollar penalty that might be attached to that, or is it some form of physical penalty?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The actual penalties are specified in the offence provisions themselves which are elsewhere in the bill and, substantially, except for the word 'penalty', these are again replications of the existing provisions.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Going back to 'essential infrastructure', I have had a request put to me—for clarification only—does the definition of 'essential infrastructure' include public transport and public lighting? It states 'other infrastructure', so I am wondering if that would be potentially included there?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It does not appear to explicitly do that, but arguably some of these other provisions are sufficiently general to be able to pick that up—I do not know. Can I come back to the point I made before: this should not be read as being specifically about the infrastructure charge; it might be about requiring planning approval to put up a power station, or planning approval to run powerlines from A to B, or planning approval to build a school or something. That is the context in which this sits in this part of the legislation.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 4.

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

Amendment No 4 [Planning–1]—

Page 21, lines 15 to 17—Delete paragraph (d) and substitute:

(d) there is an increase in the intensity of the use of the land which is prescribed by the Planning and Design Code as constituting a material increase in use for the purposes of this paragraph.

This is the reason for the amendments. Again, I emphasise that all of these amendments have come out of the consultation since the bill has come through, so we are responding on an ongoing basis to the feedback we have been getting from people.

The first of these amendments clarifies that the Planning and Design Code can define the circumstances in which a material increase in the intensity of the use of land would be considered to be a change of use. Such a definition could be used to clarify the case law on the topic in Caltex Australia Petroleum Pty Ltd v City of Holdfast Bay (2014) SASCFC 59. In summary, in that case the Supreme Court decided that such considerations have no bearing in determining the change in the use of land. So, that is the first one that you were talking about.

Mr GRIFFITHS: My question was indeed: why the rewrite? I can sort of understand now. I indicate that I will have to consult on this one just to make sure there is support for it in different areas, but I will not vote against it at this stage.

Amendment carried.

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

Amendment No 5 [Planning–1]—

Page 21, after line 28—Insert:

(3a) The resumption of an activity carried out on land (or, if there is more than 1 activity that has been carried out, the most significant activity) after a period of cessation of the activity will also be regarded as a change in the use of land if—

(a) the activity, on its resumption, would be inconsistent with a zoning policy that applies in relation to the area where the land is located; and

(b) the period intervening between the cessation and the resumption exceeds—

(i) 12 months; or

(ii) such longer period allowed by the Planning and Design Code in the relevant case.

(3b) Subsection (3a) does not apply in circumstances prescribed by the regulations.

These amendments address case law arising from a decision in Leeming & Anor v Corporation of the City of Port Adelaide (1987) 45 SASR 506. The amendments ensure that the resumption of activities after cessation of a 12-month or longer period allowed by the planning and design code would be classified as a change of use and will therefore trigger a new application if the resumption is inconsistent with the current zoning policy at that location. To avoid unintended consequences and still afford appropriate scrutiny, this subclause may be disapplied by regulation.

I do not know how clear that is. This really applies to, in particular, urban renewal issues but, in this particular case, there was a factory which I think was known as Mighty Meats, or something of that nature, down at Port Adelaide. This factory shut shop, in effect. I am paraphrasing this case, but the gist of it is that it shut shop and then, many years later, somebody wanted to restart the thing. The issue was: at what point do whatever the existing user rights are disappear?

Obviously, there is a balance here. What we have said here is this. Let's say we have a particular activity which is an industrial activity and it is going on in a certain part of the city. The land initially is zoned appropriately for that, and that activity is within the zoning—that is fine. Then, at some later point, there is an urban renewal concept and that land, along with adjoining land, is rezoned for urban renewal of some description. As long as they keep doing what they are doing, the fact that the land has been rezoned does not matter because they are—

Mr Griffiths: Or had been doing, in this case.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, because they are an existing use. So, the fact is they are doing the industrial activity, and the zoning then changes to urban renewal land. They can still keep doing the industrial activity even if it is inconsistent with urban renewal land because they have an existing user right.

The point is that, as the law stands presently, it might be that they can shut that factory down and almost indefinitely there is the potential for the revival of that into the future by a subsequent purchaser, the effect of which, in the example I have given to the house now, would be to sterilise that whole area from any potential development because nobody would want to take the risk that this activity would not spontaneously re-emerge and bring the character of the area into a completely different space again. That is the gist of it.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Paragraph (b)(i) talks about a 12-month period, but then it goes on to say 'such longer period allowed by the Planning and Design Code'. I still do not know what that means. As you said, there is a period defined in it, but then it is something that could be any period into the future that is part of the code that you bring in at a later date.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is true, but this is the worst possible outcome—sorry; the shortest possible outcome. So, it might be that, for some reasons, we would say in certain cases we would give an existing user the opportunity to continue on after a period of, let me call it, non-activity of longer than 12 months before any of this affected them, but that would be in the code and it would be because there is an individual assessment for that particular piece of land that there was a good reason why we should vary it from this provision.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I understand that, but if I can put to you that part of the submission from the Local Government Association was that there should be some form of end period. I have suggested it be between a five and 10-year period, as a maximum point. In the thoughts that you are having about what the code might look like in its eventual form, is there some form of limit that you are looking at?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am not, but again, if the LGA wants to put that to me, such a period but no longer than five years, or something, I am entirely happy to take that on board.

Amendment carried.

Mr GRIFFITHS: It has also been put to me by the Local Government Association about the establishment of some form of mechanism for the declaration of the land use at a particular point in time. I do not know the practical way this would occur, and that is the challenge because it would create some level of bureaucratic issue attached to it all, but has this been part of the consideration given to it as part of the amendment proposals?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Again, I am not opposed to looking at that if there is a particular suggestion, but I am mindful that we do not want to burden this thing with too much red tape. I am open to hearing what they have to say and, provided it is not burdensome for somebody, I am open to that.

Ms REDMOND: Clause 4. I just wanted to clarify some of these provisions about the change in the use of land. Traditionally, I guess, it has been the case that people understood that if you had an existing use then for some time thereafter you could reopen whatever it might be, but after a certain amount of time the right to do that would expire, and I understand you are putting some definition around that. I am a bit curious as to how some of these definitions might work. In the beginning, where you are talking about determining whether there has been a change in the use of land, the commencement or revival of a particular use will be regarded as a change in the use if the use supersedes a previous use of the land or, for instance, in the next paragraph, the commencement or revival follows on from a period of non-use.

In farming sectors, for instance, and in parts of my electorate, we have areas where people are specifically trying to adjust their farming practices to get certification for organic and so on. How does that definition impact on someone who chooses to leave areas fallow for perhaps more than a year, and/or if you have on your property a quarry that you do not access and use, how do those sorts of activities become impacted by this definition?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is a good question. I have given some thought to this. The circumstances in which I see this provision having work to do is where we have a change in the zone and then a change in the use. So, in the member for Heysen's example of a farmer who says, 'I am going to leave this field fallow for a period of time,' provided that area continues to be zoned appropriately for that farming activity this issue does not arise, and likewise with a quarry. If the zoning for the quarry continues to be extractive activity or whatever the appropriate formulation is, and they do not use it for a period of time, that is fine. There is no change.

What we are attempting to pick up is if you can imagine something like Clipsal and we decide that we are going to put a new zone over that area on the basis that in the future we aspire to see that as an urban infill and development opportunity, but there are existing operators there who are doing things they have done for a long time. Now, as long as they keep doing them, that change in zoning is not going to impact on them because they have existing user rights. What we try to achieve here is to say, if you then close up shop or you change from being a tannery to being a restaurant or something, then within a certain space of time, whatever established right you had to continue doing that now superseded zonal activity terminates. That is the point of it. People who are continuing to do activities in an area where the zoning continues to authorise that activity are not touched by this.

Ms REDMOND: I seek some further clarification on that. What if, though, there is a change in the zoning in that sort of example where people are leaving their fields fallow or whatever they are not doing on their property, and there is a change in zoning but they had always anticipated that after five years or whatever they would go back to farming in the way they did? Perhaps I could incorporate my next question into this which is this idea of being superseded by some other use because it seems to me that a farmer may well change from farming various stock to being a more intensive farmer or having fruit and vegetable growing for that matter. They may change the nature of the farming that they are doing and I am interested in what impact those choices that currently may be unaffected for a farmer might be implicated by this clause.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not believe this disturbs what would happen compared with what would happen now for those people. We actually have two distinctly different things here. The first one is the notion of, say, a farmer who is doing broadacre cereal crops who then elects to go for an orchard or something. That either is a change in use or it is not, according to the existing rules, and we are not really seeking to disturb whether or not that crosses that threshold at all.

What we are saying, though, is whatever the answer to that question is whether it is okay for you to switch to apricots without seeking approval from the council for the permission to change, whether or not that is the case now, what we are concerned about is where that whole area is rezoned for some completely different purpose like houses or something. Really this is not so much aimed at agriculture, I have to be honest with you.

The second element I am trying to explain is more for infill. We are talking about residual industrial sites basically sitting in the middle of areas which are prime development opportunities, and the fact that that industrial site might potentially at some point years in the future revive its activity, that then sterilises that whole precinct from any future investment on the basis that if that thing starts up again we will not be able to sell our apartments or whatever the case might be. But that is the second question. The first question about whether moving from cereal crops to apricots constitutes a change of use, we are not changing that. That will continue to be assessed in the way that it presently is determined.

The CHAIR: It is more like the Bradken foundry thing where it is in the middle of—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Who can say?

Ms REDMOND: Can I just clarify whether that then is the impact of what appears in this copy of subclause (4):

A change of use within a use class specified in the Planning and Design Code will not be regarded as a change in the use of land under this Act.

Is that the implication of that subclause?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, that is part of it and because what we are going to wind up having when this is all finished is fewer planning zones, if you like—we will go from having hundreds and hundreds of them to, say, 50—one of them might just be agricultural zone, which would be a broader zone than it presently is. The impact of that might well be that there is less need for an application to change a use, but that would be something we would have to work through with those communities because, of course, we know that those interface issues with one kind of agriculture and another can themselves be an issue, but that would be a matter for that code.

Just to pick up an example, in the Barossa Valley it might be that you say that you can do anything you like which is 'agricultural', but if you want to stick grape vines right up to your neighbour's fence that requires an approval because you putting grape vines up to your neighbour's fence might have implications for what your neighbour can do. That can be managed in the code.

Ms REDMOND: Will that code then, minister, also take account of one of the troublesome areas up in the Hills, and elsewhere around the country as I understand it, this conflict between traditional farming and organic farming, where organic farmers are saying, 'I don't want the spray, or whatever it is, to drift onto my property because that is going to impact my ability to be certified'? Is that going to be dealt with under this new regime?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, it is not, but can I say this, just following this conversation through. In terms of unscrambling existing eggs with neighbours, that is incredibly difficult because we would be arbitrarily changing existing user rights where people are continuing to do whatever it is they are doing. There is nothing in this bill that even contemplates going back into history and recalibrating all of those relationships—that would be crazy—but what is will remain. Whether or not the ultimate new codes that come in wish to address that in a prospective sense will be a matter for conversation when those new codes are being worked through. That may or may not be something that anyone has got an appetite for.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Following on from the questions from the member for Heysen, I think there is an appetite for it, minister.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: But it is not in here.

Mr GRIFFITHS: No, but it is important to understand because there is a person you spoke to on Sunday a week ago who provided you with some information (and who I have spoken to numerous times also); that is, the way in which the vines were approved to be developed on the adjoining property has impacted upon the ability of his property to be profitable—that is what he put to me—and it has equity impacts and pressure from families and all that sort of thing. That is where I think there needs to be an interface between the PIRSA department and the planning department to ensure there is a process put in place to pay respect to an existing land use.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I totally get what the member for Goyder is saying. Can I just say, though, that as a policy area of government this is a PIRSA policy area, but the actual instrument by which whatever the PIRSA policy ultimately turns out to be is delivered could potentially be these codes, if that makes sense.

Obviously, I am not the minister for primary industries nor are my planning department people experts in anything to do with agriculture, so none of us are well placed to be able to make what might be very fine judgements about these things. But if your question is if somebody in government were to make a policy decision which all the farming community was prepared to accept, could, in some years to come, these codes be a help, the answer is yes.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I believe that a discussion needs to occur, and I am aware that there are officers of your department who have been involved in discussions with PIRSA staff and property owners. So it is occurring at one level, but I do respect it will take some time to filter up through the system and an agreement needs to be in place, and it is a contentious one in many areas also; I do understand that because it will impact on what visions people have for their own property when considering the impact upon others.

Ms REDMOND: I do have one further question on clause 4, and it relates to the provisions at the very end which provide that a change of use under the planning and design code which is a minor change of use will not be regarded as a change of use and, in the final part, if the extent is 'trifling or insignificant'.

My question is twofold: (1) who gets to decide what is minor and what is trifling or insignificant, and (2) am I correct in my assumption, with regard to those terms, that when we are talking about a minor change of use we are talking about the nature of the change, and when you are talking about a 'trifling or insignificant' extent you are talking about the area over which that change is occurring, so that if someone were to take just a few hundred metres of many acres then that would be considered trifling?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that is the current section, so that does not represent a change.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 5.

Ms REDMOND: Could the minister give some indication as to how many planning regions he proposes to have and, in a general sense, what are the boundaries of Greater Adelaide that are proposed by the minister?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Essentially, this is a voluntary tool. There is a process of engagement with local government in order to come to a landing on these things. I think, in terms of the planning regions constituting greater Adelaide for the purposes of the act, I do not see any necessary reason why we would be departing from the existing arrangements, which are as follows: the government departments and agencies have used a consistent set of boundaries to define 12 administrative regions in the state since 2007. Adoption of uniform state regions is a prerequisite for more effective planning and service delivery. The regional boundaries help public sector and local government partners develop and improve reporting, planning and service delivery systems. They also relate to targets in the State Strategic Plan.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Do the 12 regions all follow local government boundaries, minister?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, not necessarily; I am advised that they are taken into account. If you want more information on that particular thing, we can get that to you in the next day or so, if you want to have a look at those. But, again, this is picking up an existing known set of regions.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I had been aware of those, but because we talk about subregions also being created—and I presume there would be a desire to ensure that there is some community of interest created around things—is it the intention to try to ensure that council boundaries as they currently exist form at least those subregional boundaries?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Maybe. Here is the thing: if you take an area like the area around the Barossa, you have Light Regional Council, Gawler council, Barossa Council, and I think there is—

Mr Griffiths: Mallala.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Mallala, yes. So, you need to be careful because council boundaries do not necessarily make much sense either. We will take them into account, but you could have bizarre situations where you have what amounts to a single community of interest which has multiple municipal masters, and it might not make sense to chop that up.

Ms REDMOND: I am curious about this idea that, under subclause (8), the proclamation may be defined in a document lodged in the General Registry Office by the minister. That seems to me to be an unusual thing to do, so I would like to find out why and what the purpose is of lodging something in the general registry to define those things. But, secondly, if I can ask the second part of that question, there is a reference in both this clause and in clause 6 and I think elsewhere to the SA planning portal. I am curious as to the use of that term, particularly as it does not appear in the definitions clause.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Let's start with the second one first. That concerned me, too, because I am not a computer kind of chap, but apparently the planning portal is intended to describe what ultimately will be the online interface between the planning department and the consumer. We have a definition on page 18—

Mr Picton: Does it refer to the interweb?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It does refer to the interweb somewhere, let me see. It is defined 'see Part 4 Division 2', which then takes us off somewhere else. As to the other bit of the member for Heysen's question, members might recall that, when we did the protection zone for the Barossa Valley and for McLaren Vale, we decided that to avoid any ambiguity about where the lines were and who was in and who was out, we would use the method of a deposited plan to define those things so that anybody who was puzzled about it could actually obtain a copy of this plan and that would define clearly, in a map form, where the boundaries were. It is not without precedent, and that is the proposition we were suggesting we would pick up here.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Subclause (4) where it starts, 'The Minister must, before a proclamation is made under this section' seek advice and that sort of thing—the Local Government Association has put a request to me for a copy of that advice to be provided to councils that are directly affected by any proposals for regions to be established. Is that possible to be achieved?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: On the face of it, that does not sound to be an unreasonable proposition. We will have a look at that. I am not troubled by that, unless anyone else is. It just adds a little bit of extra work for somebody. Let's have a think about it. We are not seeking to hide anything from them. I cannot imagine they will not already know by the time we got to this stage. I will have a think about it.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Still on the same area, but it is about 'seek the advice of the Commission' (indeed, this is a 'minister must'). Does the minister have to accept that advice?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, the minister does not, bearing in mind, though, that the advice that the minister gets from the commission is advice that is on the public record. The tension we have tried to create here is thus: the commission provides independent advice to the minister; the minister does not have to follow that advice, but if the minister does not, everybody in this place and everybody out there is going to know the minister is not following the advice of the commission.

The intention there was that that should precipitate questions to the minister: 'Why aren't you following what the commission has said?' That is the reason for that, because let's be real about this, you cannot say that an unelected commission can ultimately fetter the discretion of the executive government by making a determination in this area which the executive government is bound to accept, come what may.

There has to be a mechanism—even police chiefs can be directed by the police minister, provided the police minister wants to go through the process of issuing an instrument which becomes a public instrument, and they then have to wear all of the consequences of the public knowing, and that is why it does not happen. My expectation is that the minister would need to be very certain of their ground indeed to be ignoring recommendations from the commission.

Sitting suspended from 17:59 to 19:30.

The CHAIR: We are back on clause 5. Who would like to ask the next question?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have been reflecting on where we were up to immediately before the break, and I would like to supplement what I said before about the minister providing some information about there being a departure from the recommendations of the commission. In saying that, I had in mind the annual report requirements in the legislation. I think, though, in light of our conversation, it would be wise for us to consider something a little bit more timely.

I have spoken to parliamentary counsel, and we will look at working up something which just deals with that specific point about where there is a proposition advanced by the commission, and the minister substantially departs from that proposition. Perhaps both the recommendation and the departure could go up on the portal so that you do not have to wait for the annual report. It seems to me it would not be a bad thing if it happened in a timely fashion.

The CHAIR: You are back talking on the interweb again, are you?

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

Ms REDMOND: Following on from that, it still seems to me that there is a significant problem given the current situation, for instance, with the Gillman land and the way in which the minister, the cabinet and the government significantly departed from the clear recommendation of the Urban Renewal people, the board the government had engaged as their independent authority (who made it very clear that they did not approve) and the government. Regardless of the questions asked in this chamber, regardless of an ICAC commissioner finding public maladministration, there appear to be absolutely no consequences.

My question to the minister: is he prepared to consider inserting into these provisions any potential for there to be an actual court-heard appeal against such a situation where the minister clearly departs from the very clear and unambiguous advice which is contrary to what the minister decides to do—whether it be a matter of the advice of the commissioner or, in the preceding subsection, the fact that he is supposed to seek to reflect on the community's interest and take into account local government, and so on, making submissions?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There are a couple of comments I would make about that. The first one is that the comparison between this particular matter and anything to do with Gillman is really apples and oranges because this is confined within this particular piece of legislation; that touches upon many different things. So, that comparison does not really stand. As to the question about taking things further than that, as I said, I am quite happy to entertain the notion about shining sunlight on a difference of view between the minister and the commission in, as I was indicating, almost contemporaneous terms. However, the notion of turning that into an opportunity for, potentially, expensive and time consuming and system-crippling litigation is not something that I am prepared to entertain.

The CHAIR: Do we have another question on clause 5?

Mr GRIFFITHS: Please, as clause 5 is a rather important one.

The CHAIR: There has to be an end to it at some point.

Mr GRIFFITHS: True. Minister, I am interested to find out, within the plans, whether the greater Adelaide area will be declared first or will the regions be declared first? Is there a natural order that will occur?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that the greater Adelaide area must be declared first. The greater Adelaide area has other functions within the legislation; that is sort of an anchor or keystone region, so that would be the first.

Mr GRIFFITHS: It is interesting that the review of the 30-year plan is occurring this year. Is there an expectation of a linkage between the boundaries and areas defined in the 30-year plan and where we will find the Greater Adelaide region to be established?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Predominantly, the 30-year plan is a policy document about development policy, I guess, on a macro scale for the city. In that sense, it does not necessarily have any direct interaction with this particular proposition, but in practice I expect there would be some alignment between those two things. I guess the time for us to be exploring this might be a little later, when we are talking about the environment and food protection area perhaps. Clearly, the contemplation is that the 30-year plan's final articulation will take into account whatever this legislation sets forth as a set of frameworks.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Certainly, areas that are within the greater Adelaide region will provide opportunity for return financially, so they would presumably also represent some level of risk for investors—potentially, with a zoning change, if it is in or out and all that sort of thing. It depends on where it may be. I know you have talked to me, and it enforces the fact that existing zoning rights will continue.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Correct.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes, I understand that, but there are those who choose to make decisions based on what they see are possibilities in the future. Have you given any consideration to that when it comes to the time lines you intend to set for the declaration of the greater Adelaide region?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. First of all, I have said this, but I think it is worth putting it on the record here: it is not my intention, and it will not be the case, that this legislation or the transitional arrangements will have the effect of, in effect, retrospectively removing a change in zoning that people have already obtained, because those people have spent time and effort and they have got to a point where there has been a change of zoning. It is not my intention through this to deprive any person of that.

On the other hand, I do not believe it is a responsibility of this parliament or the government to be the final guarantor of land speculators. If people want to speculate on property being zoned one way or the other at some point or other in time in the future, they are absolutely entitled to do that, that is entirely their business, but they do so as speculators, and I do not see that it is our collective responsibility to ensure that speculators always make a profit.

Mr GRIFFITHS: No, and I understand the comment from the minister, but it has been put to me that there may be an opportunity for some level of review before the implementation of the first lines on the maps. Is it the intention, upon a decision having been made and the Governor subsequently proclaiming that, for a recommendation to be made to the Governor and then it comes into law, or is there an intention for some version of draft, with consultation to be involved, or just put in place?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The thing I have been discussing is this: I am a little bit concerned that there is some unnecessary concern, and consequently some shadowboxing and a degree of paranoia, about what this whole thing might be. So, what I am looking at presently is to see whether I can actually formulate a proposition which would be attached to this bill in the same way as the McLaren Vale and Barossa Valley propositions were attached to that. I am very close to having a document I can share with the member for Goyder, and I think you would say it is a very conservative document, in the sense that it does not seek to do anything presently that anyone could regard as dramatic. It is required, under the legislation, to provide for at least 15 years of land supply and all those other bits and pieces.

I think I might have said this to the member already, but I will say it for the record: given that Adelaide is a long but not necessarily deep city (and I do not mean that in a philosophical sense) and that it basically has a north-south sort of axis, if you like, at the present time Adelaide is contained in terms of its southern boundary by the McLaren Vale protection zone. It is my intention, and I have made it clear, that the boundary that we are talking about in this legislation would be absolutely identical to that, so it will not make anybody better off or worse off.

In the west, of course, we have the gulf, so there is no development likely out there. To the east, picking up where McLaren Vale intersects with the Hills Face Zone, you then have another long boundary, if I can call it that, which is the Hills Face Zone. That boundary has been there for a long time but it is not without its problems. I say that because I think it is probably fair to say that there are anomalies up and down that boundary which have been there for a long time because it has been too difficult for anybody to manage the process that would be involved in dealing with those anomalies. That is something I am trying to deal with here, I might add, but I will come back to that later when we get to it.

The next bit is the north-east and that is bounded by the Barossa protection area. Again, there is no intention to fiddle with that. The area that is the only area about which there is any conversation to be had is, in effect, the northern boundary from the Barossa protection area to the gulf. So, I have already coloured in three-quarters of what the thing is going to look like. There is that last piece and I am 98 per cent sure I know what it should look like. I hope to be 100 per cent sure in a day or two, or three, and I will share it with the member and other interested people.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I got excited, I think you said a day or two?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is it.

Ms Redmond: We might be finished with clause 5 by then.

Mr GRIFFITHS: We might have to continue the debate long enough to actually—

The CHAIR: No, I do not think that is a good idea.

Mr GRIFFITHS: That was tempting.

The CHAIR: We need to try to move on.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I understand. As I understand it, with any changes that occur in subsequent times there is a process involved in that which presumably involves parliamentary debate, or is a declaration made?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It involves the process which is in section 50, is it? That is right; it is section 5. Both houses of parliament have an opportunity or are invited to approve; that is the process.

Ms Redmond: Or not approve it.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Or not approve, indeed. This, I emphasise, means that the minister of the day is losing power, not gaining power, losing power and surrendering it to the parliament.

Mr GRIFFITHS: That is an important point for me to make, and I know that it was raised in a lot of submissions we have received, but changes require parliamentary debate to occur. The first instance of seeing it is after the chamber has debated it, it is not before the full realm of it occurs, I understand that, but it is a level of frustration that has been there ever since we first talked about it. On that basis, I am prepared to sign off on clause 5 now.

Clause passed.

Clause 6.

Ms REDMOND: I have one technical question on clause 6, which also applies to clause 5. It is simply this, that the way it is worded:

The Minister may, by notice published in the Gazette and on the SA planning portal, establish a subregion within a planning region.

Does that mean, in its application, that if, for instance, the publication simply appeared on one or other of the Gazette or the planning portal then that would invalidate it and it would not be a valid publication and a valid establishment of a region or a subregion unless and until it was published in both of those places?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Good question. It is not intended to be a procedural precedent, but it could have that effect. We do not have a portal yet either, which of course is another point.

Ms REDMOND: I live in a parallel universe where these things do not exist anyway.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, me too. I am advised that it would require both.

Ms REDMOND: Is it like the TARDIS?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Something like that, yes. It will require both.

The CHAIR: It is not like a TARDIS at all.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I just say to members, it certainly helps me. I did actually ask them not to use the term 'portal' because it confused me and they should just say 'interweb'.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The problem is that would not have been subject to legal challenge, minister, unfortunately.

The CHAIR: No, because he has already defined what the interweb would be in here if he was allowed to use it.

Mr GRIFFITHS: And it is on Hansard.

The CHAIR: But it would have been a definition for interweb.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Sorry, yes. Firstly, I apologise for not wearing a tie. It is the first time I am in the chamber without a tie, so it is poor of me and I do apologise.

The CHAIR: You are the only one who noticed. I would not have said anything if I were you.

Mr GRIFFITHS: No, well, I thought it was necessary to do so. I want to ask about the subregions. We have already asked a question about the precinct authorities but there is no intention for a subregion. It will follow the 12 lines that you talked about before. It is not intended to be that small, so it would be considered to be a precinct authority?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The subregions would be within the 12 regions, so there would be elements within those bigger regions, yes.

Mr GRIFFITHS: But if the precinct authority is there for a potential subregion within a region, what form of boundary would a subregion follow? Is it likely to be based around a suburb or is it more around a township or a council area?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think what we have sought to have here is a reasonably flexible thing which could be applied to different circumstances, but it could be a region of particular interest—for example, in an agricultural setting a particular type of activity, or it could be a precinct if a precinct is established. But it is intended to offer the opportunity of saying just because a high level code has an application over these 12 big elements, it might be that subelements in those 12 areas require quite special additional consideration. That is the notion of it. It is intended to be quite flexible. The other matter that has been brought to my attention is that consideration would also be given to things like service delivery boundaries and things of that nature.

Mr GRIFFITHS: So, boundaries would probably mean individual property boundaries, so there is some recognised line that exists. I think the term I wrote here was 'reasonable' which was in the declaration of regions where I asked a question on behalf of the Local Government Association for the councils that might be impacted by that to receive a copy of it before it becomes formalised. If a subregion is to be declared, there is an opportunity for that level of dialogue to occur elsewhere?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not immediately see any difficulty with that. It is something we can take on notice. The only question I have about any of these types of proposals is not whether I have any objection to them so much; it is to whether or not we are creating lots and lots of red tape and all we are going to do is tie people up in it. If there was a more generalised thing that reasonable attempts should be made to engage with the communities—yes, it is a matter of policy anyway. I am happy to look at it but I just do not want us to have set up all these very bureaucratic trip-wires in the thing if we can avoid it.

Clause passed.

Clause 7.

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

Amendment No 6 [Planning–1]—

Page 24, lines 15 and 16—Delete subclause (6) and substitute:

(6) The Minister may only act under subsection (5) if—

(a) the Minister has, before publishing the notice under that subsection, obtained the advice of the Commission under subsection (7); or

(b) the Minister is acting on the advice of the Commission after a review under subsection (7a).

The CHAIR: Do you want to say anything toward it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, we have dealt with it.

The CHAIR: Do you have any questions about amendment No. 6?

Mr GRIFFITHS: Does it follow a similar philosophy to some other amendments that were moved earlier; is that what you are saying when you say you have dealt with it?

The CHAIR: Is amendment No. 6 to clause 7 consequential on anything else? Is that the question?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The gist of this was that one of the concerns was that this would be a 'set and forget' thing and nobody would ever do anything about it, and this is to address the concern that some people have that these boundaries would become completely immutable. The proposition is that we would say that every five years there should be an automatic review by the commissioner of whether these boundaries were still okay, having regard to certain principles.

I might add that that is one of the opportunities that I see for this longstanding question about the Hills Face Zone to be tackled in some sort of systematic fashion where an independent commission would be able to hear from people who had arguments one way or the other. That independent commission would be able to then make recommendations to government which ultimately would come before the parliament before they were approved or not approved.

I have looked frankly at various attempts made by various people prior to me to try to do something about this and all of them have run into very choppy water for different reasons. This is an attempt to give an independent authority an opportunity to engage in some of that very complex conversation and provide independent advice to the minister and the parliament.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I thank the minister for that explanation as to what the intent of the amendment is, and just to state that I, like probably many others in this place, have visited areas within the Hills Face Zone and have had a variety of options proposed to us as to what might eventuate there. I know that in some cases it has been a matter that has been considered by local government and I think there has been correspondence through the office no doubt, and with previous ministers about it, so any opportunity to review that to ensure that there is an informed review is a good one, so I support the amendment.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will just add this. Were we not to start this process with the default position being status quo is protected, we would create all sorts of unnecessary anxiety and all sorts of trouble, so that is why the starting point for this is that the initial eastern boundary will be identical with the Hills Face Zone boundary so everybody can have comfort that this is not in any way detracting from the integrity of that currently, but there is a process here whereby that can be, in the future, independently reviewed and recommendations made which ultimately the parliament will accept or not.

Amendment carried.

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

Amendment No 7 [Planning–1]—

Page 24, line 17—Delete 'subsection (5)' and substitute 'subsection (6)(a)'

Amendment carried.

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

Amendment No 8 [Planning–1]—

Page 24, after line 19—Insert:

(7a) The Commission must, in connection with the operation of subsection (6)(b)—

(a) conduct a review of the environment and food production areas established under this section on a 5 yearly basis; and

(b) as part of a review, conduct an inquiry; and

(c) furnish a report on the outcome of the review to the Minister.

(7b) The purpose of a review under subsection (7a) is to assess whether adequate provision exists outside environment and food production areas to accommodate housing and employment growth over the longer term (being at least a 15 year period) in a manner that avoids undue upward pressure on the cost of housing, transport and other services.

(7c) The Commission may recommend a change by the Minister under subsection (6)(b) if (and only if)—

(a) the Commission is satisfied—

(i) that provision is not being made to accommodate the growth referred to in subsection (7b); and

(ii) that that provision cannot reasonably be achieved through the processes of urban renewal and the consolidation of existing urban areas; or

(b) the Commission is satisfied that the change is minor or trivial in nature and will address a recognised anomaly.

Mr GRIFFITHS: This is a rather substantial amendment. I was wondering if the minister might like to give an explanation for it.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: This is amendment No. 8 to clause 7. This is intended to provide the practical steps involved in that five-year review that I spoke of a little while ago.

Mr GRIFFITHS: On that basis, if I can just ask a question of the minister. I apologise, as other members might not have seen the amendments so it is probably just you and me on this one, but under (7a)(c) it talks about furnishing a report on the outcomes of the review to the minister. Is that report publicly available and published on the portal?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that under subclause (8)(a)(ii), that is published by being laid before both houses of parliament.

Amendment carried.

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

Amendment No 9 [Planning–1]—

Page 24, line 23—After 'subsection (7)' insert 'or subsection (7a) (as the case requires)'

Amendment carried.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: While I am thinking of it, can I just make the point that another theme you will find through this legislation is an elevated role for the parliament in oversight of this. There are many places here where the parliament is invited to participate in these processes. Again, to the extent that there has been some ill-informed commentary about things being hidden away in cupboards, quite the contrary is the case. There is a clear intention here that the parliament, which is, after all, a very public place—

The CHAIR: We are talking about general clause 7.

Mr GRIFFITHS: If I can just respond to that. When you talk about 'hidden away in cupboards', the problem is that the first version is, to some degree, hidden in the cupboard, because it is that level that would have been nice to discuss.

The CHAIR: Comment?

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes.

Ms REDMOND: I just want to be clear about a couple of things on environment and food production areas. In particular, as I understand the clause, first of all the minister can declare one or more environment and food production areas within greater Adelaide but not within a character preservation area. Can you first identify what is meant by 'character preservation area' and how, in practice, those two things interrelate?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Good question. As to the methodology of the declaration, as I was trying to explain before, I think we are looking at a different method whereby we might just produce a map and that be dealt with at the same time as this. That is first point.

The second point is that as to those character areas, there are only two of them: the Barossa Valley and McLaren Vale. In the case of both of those, because there was a long conversation with those communities about what they would look like, we are saying that, whatever else the minister might want to do, you do not muck around with those things using this. If you want to change anything in those areas, you should be talking to the people in those communities and using their special legislation rather than using this. That is the intention of it.

Ms REDMOND: That being the case—apart from McLaren Vale and the Barossa; we will exclude those—if you are then going to establish your environment and food production areas, I am a bit puzzled as to why the first consideration refers to you, as the minister, having to:

seek to ensure—

(a) that areas of rural, landscape or environmental significance within Greater Adelaide are protected from urban encroachment…

rather than referring again in that particular wording of the clause to that food production aspect. It seems to me that food production is a key element of what we are trying to protect.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think that is a good point, and we will look at it.

Ms REDMOND: We all recognise that Adelaide cannot go on expanding north and south, and it has nowhere to go east and west, basically. That said, I get the feeling, in reading this particular area, that the government's response seems to be to say, 'Well, we are going to do an urban consolidation and we are going to move people onto smaller and smaller blocks of land, because we want the city to grow to more people.'

My question is: how much consideration, if any at all, was given to the idea of making some of our regional cities bigger and decentralising things like, for instance, the department of agriculture or the department for planning? At the moment our biggest city is Mount Gambier, which has about 25,000, Port Lincoln is a bit less than that and so on, but other states, which have more successful economies, have a more spread out population.

I think one of the problems we have in South Australia is that we are so focused on Adelaide and the only choice is going to be that continual infill. I do not expect that the minister was listening when I made my contribution on the second reading, but I mentioned having recently attended a talk by Professor Chris Daniels about the importance of urban ecology and the fact that Adelaide, far from being a city with lots of parks, actually has less park per head than a lot of other major cities in the world and that what gives us our advantage as a green city is the fact that we have, and still continue to have at this stage, large backyards. The more we do that urban infill that you are talking about here, the less we are going to have of that, and so I wonder whether any consideration was given to how all of this applies beyond the Greater Adelaide area and to the eventual development of the whole state?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Good questions. First of all, as to the regions, this legislation is intended to be helpful for the regions as well. We are very keen, and have been very keen, to work with regional clusters of councils to see whether we can provide opportunities for development which are linked to the way in which the planning system works for them. Ultimately, the populations of regions are driven by employment opportunities largely and there is a limit to what the planning system can deliver to regions in terms of direct employment opportunities.

That said, I am happy to be very positive about the regions and, in fact, in the not too distant past we have done some work with SELGA in the South-East trying to find opportunities which were opportunities that local communities there, who were actually working very well together, had identified for growth in the Mount Gambier area. So, yes, I am very keen to help the regions.

As to the business about urban consolidation, I cannot emphasise enough that we are thinking about increasing the range of choice, not reducing the range of choice. We are actually saying, in terms of the infill opportunities, that we are creating an environment where it is possible for there to be a choice which hitherto has not been available much in Adelaide, which is the relatively compact inner city dwelling opportunity. It does not suit everybody, but there are a lot of people it does suit, and it can be delivered at very affordable prices.

That opportunity is something which all the demographic trends I have seen indicate is more likely to be an option that people are coming to consider because we have an increasing number of single-person households and ageing people in our population, and for those people the notion of having the traditional home of three bedrooms, a big backyard and all that sort of stuff, is not necessarily what they are after.

So what we are trying to do is increase the choice opportunity at that more consolidated end where people would be living in, not large units generally, but two, three or four-storey buildings and at the same time having adequate supply for those people on the periphery who wish not to buy an established home in the inner city somewhere but, for reasons of affordability or lifestyle, to go out to somewhere near Gawler or something of that nature. We already have 25 years' worth of rezoned land for those people to build on, assuming consumption rates continue roughly as they are, and all the trends, I have to say, are suggesting that the consumption rates for that peripheral land are reducing as there is a shift in market preference for different types of living opportunities.

To get to the other point the member for Heysen made, which I totally agree with, one of the things we have to watch out about in urban consolidation is that public open space—or, in some instances, privately owned public space—is provided for in these developments so that there is the opportunity for people to live in more of a higher density community but still have access to that open space.

If you go down and have a look at the development that is occurring at Clipsal, for instance, that is planned around open space elements. If you look at the plans for Glenside, I think there are 10, 11 or 12 hectares of open space as part of that project. I acknowledge very much the urban consolidation agenda needs to be mindful of public open space and privately owned, publicly accessible space.

The member for Goyder and I saw some of this in Canada where part of the process of renewal in Toronto, I think, was they had these requirements of some of these larger developers that they do things like provide for a park as part of their building which they then maintain at their own expense, and that is a condition of their development approval.

They also have requirements, which I also am very keen on, which are that in some instances a development approval might be dependent upon, for example, them providing a floor of their building at very concessional rates for, say, a child care centre which otherwise would not be able to be there because the commercial cost of that would be prohibitive. All of these things are important aspects. We are transitioning from a very simple model of housing into a more sophisticated one and we do have to be aware of all of those issues. They are very important.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I certainly appreciate the word 'choice' and that is an important thing. I suppose the choice that the development group has made in their submissions to you and me, and others, is that they do not accept it. They believe that it adds the risk of a greater cost to home ownership options. It is a philosophical point that—

The Hon. J.R. Rau: I can respond to that.

Mr GRIFFITHS: You have done in public places, anyway, so I understand that. It will be interesting to see how it occurs, but I have to hope that the eventual outcome is a benefit to the people of South Australia. I do appreciate that in Canada there are creative provisions being made within developments to provide some level of open space.

In Adelaide itself, when I am here I am relatively close to Lightsview and I see the development there where it is a model of squares that are created where the community interacts and their home is built on probably 90 per cent of a smaller allotment. I understand there is a changing model that is occurring when it comes to residential needs but, from my point of view and that of the opposition members, when we talk to everybody it is about that choice being there and what the financial impact will be.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I just make this other point, too. There are some people who lobby people on the opposition and me about this particular question who lobby using the words 'affordable housing' as if they are making pleas on behalf of the poor and the oppressed for the opportunity to own their own home. What they are actually doing is making a plea for a particular model of business, which has its roots in the 1950s and is no longer representative of great value for money for our community, to be able to continue with hidden government subsidies, which suits them fine because that is what they do.

These people are going to have to consider changing and evolving just like the rest of us do. These are very self-serving comments which are always put behind the mascot of the poor suffering person looking for a house. That is a handy little mascot to trot out, but it is not the real mascot they are interested in.

The second point I would make is, if we are interested in public finance, the cost to the taxpayer of the future, beyond the forward estimates, of greenfield development is something like six times as much as the cost of reasonably designed infill development. In other words, the infill development is utilising existing resources which have reserve capacity which we then get for free, as a community, because that capacity has been paid for by someone a long time ago; we get that for nothing because it is already there.

When we start putting stuff out on the fringe we have to start from the beginning and, because the costs of these projects are spread over five, 10 or 15 years, the full impact of these on future taxpayers is never reflected in the forward estimates, never. That is the hidden subsidy that these people who whinge and complain and play the violin about affordability, that is what they are interested in, seeing that hidden subsidy out beyond the forward estimates.

The other point I will make is that in terms of employment opportunities, again, studies have been done indicating that the jobs generated by infill are roughly in the order of 2½ times the number of jobs generated for the same amount of activity in greenfields development. So if you look at it from the point of view of what is good for our children's position as taxpayers in the future it is a no-brainer: infill wins hands down. If you look at it from the point of view of what sort of activity is going to give our community more employment opportunities, again it is a no-brainer: infill wins hands down.

I know there are some particularly self-serving individuals who are really beating this drum and saying that it is all about looking after the affordability and all these other things, but that is not what they are on about at all. What they are on about is harvesting public funds beyond the forward estimates to subsidise a business model that has not taken into account that we are now in the 21^st century. I am not saying that means there is no place for them—indeed, we have 25 years' worth of land for them at the moment—but it does mean that it rings a little bit hollow when they come out with the wailing and gnashing of teeth, worrying about housing affordability.

As to affordability, I just make the following point. We did some rezoning not that long ago in the metro area. One area we rezoned—at the request of the relevant council, which was Prospect—was Churchill Road. In the last 12 to 18 months Churchill Road has become a very active development area very close to the city. You can get a two-bedroom apartment there, in some places I have been to, at around the $300,000 mark. I accept that not everyone wants to live in a two-bedroom apartment, I accept that, but I can tell members that to be able to be in a brand-new building, in walking distance to the Parklands, walking distance even if you wanted to walk to work for a job in the city, able to catch a bus going past your front door into the city, able to ride your bike into the city, for that sort of money, that is a demonstration that affordability is not just about three-bedroom brick veneer places on 700 square metres.

If you want to take into account the cost of transport, how much it costs for someone who is living 60 kilometres from the city to commute to work every day, both in time and money, compared to someone who is able to walk from Churchill Road through the Parklands, it is, again, a completely different proposition. So there is some self-serving stuff out there, but I do not think the people who are writing those letters to you will ever accept those propositions.

Ms REDMOND: I have a couple of questions in relation to the provisions of subclause (3), which relates to applications for proposed development in an environment and food production area involving a division of land that creates an additional allotment. Again, minister, I will assume that you were not listening to my second reading contribution, but I spoke about the fact that up in my area—which I presume would be pretty likely to be zoned a food production area—I had a situation a number of years where Mount George Road dissected a property that was on one title. That property happened to have a chicken farm on it, with a house and three big sheds for chickens on one side of the road and three big sheds for chickens on the other side of the road, but technically all on one allotment.

This big chicken farm, therefore, had thousands of truck movements every year, because the baby chickens were brought in and the full grown chickens were taken out; the food was brought in and the chicken poop was taken out. Everything involved lots and lots of truck movements. There were lots of smells. The neighbourhood did not particularly like it, but it was existing use and so it was able to continue.

The people running the chicken farm said, 'Look, we're happy to close down our chicken farm and we're happy to completely dismantle all the chicken sheds and reinstate the land and make everything really nice, but to do that and to be able to afford to do all that, we need to be able to create the piece of land across the road as a separate allotment and sell that 11 acres. We're happy to have all sorts of environmental controls on the sort of house that can be built on that 11 acres.' However, it was not approved. Even though the council supported it, it was not approved because it created an extra allotment, and creation of an extra allotment in the watershed zone was a no-no.

And so, in spite of the fact that it absolutely, patently would have been a massive improvement for the environment, it could not go ahead because it was creating an extra allotment. I just wonder whether I can get any sort of assurance that under this system—given that it says if you are creating an extra allotment you are not going to be able to do that unless the commission concurs in the granting of the authorisation—there would not be a similar problem if that same situation were to arise today.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. I understand the question. The answer is that what we have essentially done here is we have picked up the formula that we used in the McLaren Vale and Barossa Valley protection areas. This is not intended to prohibit anything other than, in effect, subdivision for residential purposes. That is the primary mischief that we are trying to deal with.

One of the problems is, in order to deal with that, it is all very well to say that you cannot subdivide for houses, but we did encounter when we were going through all this business about McLaren Vale some fairly tricky characters out there. You are going to be shocked by this. There are some people who used to do little tricks like saying, 'I want to chop my farm in half and put a house on each bit,' and then, 'I want to chop that in half and put a house on each bit,' and then 'I want to chop that in half.' Instead of doing the one-off, grand slam residential development, it is residential by stealth.

The other one is, 'If you just let me build a house for mum on the block, it will be good.' Then they build the house for mum and say, 'Mum doesn't like it anymore. Can we subdivide that house off and give it to somebody else?'

Ms Redmond: 'Mum died.'

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, 'Mum's passed away. Can we just sever that from the rest of our property and sell that?' And then, 'Oh, Uncle George wouldn't mind a house. Can we build a house for him?' and so on. You have to be a bit careful. There are some tricky people out there who try to avoid the spirit and intent of these things by being a bit cute. That is why this is framed up this way. We are picking up exactly what we said in McLaren and Barossa.

Ms REDMOND: Just lastly on that, though, subclause (3) of that clause, is worded 'a relevant authority, other than the Commission or the Minister, must not grant development authorisation…unless the Commission concurs.' Obviously, commission, if it is going to want to grant development authority is going to concur with its own decision, but I take it that the way that is worded, the minister, whoever that might be, is able to make a decision regardless and in contravention of the intent of the clause as it otherwise would read?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that that is the scheme. Nobody has asked me to do that in the Barossa or McLaren so far, but we will have a look at that, because that is not my intention. I can tell you this, the last thing I want to be doing as planning minister is having to consider whether individual people can build a house on allotments all over the state.

I am advised that the role of the minister is, however, circumscribed if you go to clause 104, I believe. The circumstances, I am advised, in which the minister could act in such a way would, in effect, as I understand it, be only in terms of what is presently known as a major development, where it is called in. We will look at it. It is not my intention to go around approving individual houses, I can assure you.

Mr PEDERICK: Minister, I am a bit of a believer in market forces, and as I indicated in my speech my family had to move out of the Angle Vale area when compulsory acquisition was underway in 1939 and 1950. My father knew Salisbury and Elizabeth as open paddocks. I am a bit concerned (and this may sound odd) that some people, who you may think are speculators, may wish to cash in—and it happens everywhere no matter where you are, whether there is a town growing or urban growth. How will you map out these food production areas, especially when I do not believe there is a line to the north at this stage and we are looking at horticulture pushing out north past the Gawler River? Is there an appeal process for people who may be caught under this section who just have a farm or property that is an unviable operating size? As time goes on you have to get bigger or get out.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There are a couple of things: first, as I indicated before, we will be providing a map, and in a couple of days time you will be able to see what is going on, and you will be calmed considerably by that. The second point I make (and I cannot make this too strongly), is that as far as I am concerned this parliament, this government, all of us are not in any way going to be the guarantors of land speculators. If they want to go out there and speculate on land, good for them. It is a bit like going next door here: you put all your money on No. 36 black, it comes up, terrific! If the does not, tough! They are the rules.

That is one group of people. The other group of people who I understand you are talking about are not just straight-up speculators but people who have an existing use of land and they maybe have a retirement notion in their head and maybe have other issues they are trying to work through. They think that if somebody could just wave a magic wand and change the zoning of their land and make it worth 10 times what it is now, the world would be a happier place, and I am sure that is true for them, but it is not good planning policy.

I would like me to give me the X-Lotto numbers for next Saturday night—that would be very good. But that is just not the way the world works. It is not the responsibility of the planning system to attend to the personal circumstances of individual people or families who find that the market, the economy or their circumstances have changed and that it would be really handy to get a lot of money. It is not that I am not sympathetic to them—I am—but it is not the responsibility of the planning system to distort good planning decisions in order to put money in those people's pockets. It is not what the planning system is about.

The planning system is not a wealth generation scheme for individuals, that is not the object of it, and if it were we would have this mad scramble by everyone, 'rezone me, rezone me', and whoever got through the gate first would get rezoned, buy a great big house and have one of those fancy cars and drive around and have a great time. For all the people at the back, bad luck, you were not first in the queue. That is not how you do planning policy. It has to be orderly, and it has to have a rationale, and that orderly rationale cannot take into account whether I personally am financially stretched and therefore pick me first. That cannot be a consideration.

I am not being dismissive of the difficulties some people are in, and I understand that, particularly in some of these fringe zones, where there are all sorts of contending things, and then you have family break-ups. There are a million and one reasons why things are difficult; I get that. The planning system is not an arm of social welfare. The planning system is not there to provide wealth to particular individuals who are, through no fault of their own, suffering hardship. That is why we have social welfare provisions, that is what they do.

Mr PEDERICK: Minister, I appreciate that answer, but you may end up with people in these food production areas who may own only small pieces each. Let's leave it as the value as a food production area, let's forget about the speculation: it is totally unviable to operate it. There is really no out because, if it is unviable for them, it is unviable for anyone to buy that land. I guess that is another point I am making.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I get that, but can I emphasise again: we are not interested in taking a piece of land which is presently not zoned for food production and make it zoned for food production. We are not going to do that, so nobody need be fearful that the land they presently have which is zoned for something other than food production will be, because of this, suddenly zoned for food production. What we are saying is that that will not change. If you are zoned for food production now and you are in the area we are talking about, you will continue to be zoned for food production. We are not taking anything off you.

Mr PEDERICK: I want to ask another question, and this happened in other areas that have been developed, and they have been food production areas. You can mandate a food production, but that does not necessarily mean that it produces food. You can end up with a whole heap of alpaca farms and a whole heap of horse blocks. Surely, you cannot mandate just because it is open country that they are going to grow food there. You are going to end up with a position where some people may have this country in the food production area that might be running something that does not really produce much at all.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That may be the case, and it is not exclusively food production; it is also environmental values and landscape and various other things.

Ms Vlahos: Animal husbandry.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, animal husbandry. The member for Hammond has almost led me onto one of my favourite topics, which is what I refer to as the hobby farm, but I am not going to go there because that could consume a lot of time unnecessarily.

Mr DULUK: Minister, a point of clarification for me, with respect to subclause (3)(b), where it says:

(b) if the Commission is the relevant authority, the Commission must not grant development authorisation to the development unless the council for the area where the proposed development is situated concurs in the granting of the authorisation;

Do you not ever see a situation where the minister or the commission would overrule a council where they do not approve of an area becoming one of food production?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is correct.

Mr DULUK: I assume that the recent Parafield Gardens food production area would fall under this sort of regime going forward. If Salisbury council were to say no, the government would never envisage a case where they would overrule that decision of council?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. Again, despite what one hears of the radio, this is a very important role we are giving to local government. If that community does not want this to happen, it is not going to happen.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am interested in the specifics. I understand food production completely, but I am interested in the environment: is there some guidance on that? They usually talk about landscape, I think. I am interested in the factors that will be given as part of the consideration of what an environmental area will be as part of a zone that is established.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Probably the best example I can give people so that it makes some sense is if you look at the Barossa and McLaren Vale protection zones. There you have an outer perimeter and within that perimeter you have townships which are sort of excised from it, so it has a Swiss cheese look.

The townships pursue their own zoning dictates but, once you get outside the township and you break back into the protection zone, there is a restriction on what you can do, and that restriction is that you cannot subdivide for residential purposes, full stop. You can do anything else—you can have a distillery or a winery or a tourism event, subject to it being otherwise acceptable.

We were trying to characterise what quality these areas we are talking about would have which are now predominately to the north of the city. We are asking: if you look at the Barossa and McLaren Vale areas, what is the predominant function in there? It is sort of environment, landscape, horticulture, agriculture, food production and suchlike. We are just attempting to say in that short descriptor that these are the sorts of predominant activities in this area and that the only activity that is completely excluded is subdivision of that land to put houses on it.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Because the bill states in the second line of subclause (1) 'establish 1 or more', I have taken that literally and assume that there will be more than one. However, my recollection is that as part of the second reading contribution you talked about the fact that the environment and food protection area is likely to be the line at the top. Are we going to have more than one of these areas actually created? If not, does that mean that everything that is not urban use therefore becomes one of these areas?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is a matter of terminology but, because this is being chopped up, there is a bit that is already fixed up, if you like, with McLaren Vale down south, and then we are inserting a piece there, so that is one piece of the puzzle, and that then collides with the Barossa Valley. If you can imagine a jigsaw where the jigsaw forms an arc around the city pretty well, we are saying that a couple of those pieces are already in place. We are going to insert a couple of others, and the net effect will be that it is a continuous thing, but it may not be that every bit of those pieces we are adding will adjoin another piece because there is already McLaren Vale in the middle or there is already the Barossa in the corner, or whatever it might be.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I know that this is within another department, PIRSA, but primary production priority areas, apparently there is an intention that there will be an eventual declaration that states that, but it only exists within what is basically the Greater Adelaide area, which I found rather bizarre. The member for Hammond and I heard about this when we were on the select committee for sustainable agriculture.

Can I assume that, on the basis of this becoming law and these areas rolling out, there is going to be a priority that will flow from this to ensure that more of these primary production priority areas are declared, because I see linkages between that and what you are proposing here?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Predominantly, that is a matter for PIRSA, but I do not see any inconsistency between that proposition and what we are trying to do here. As a matter of interest, I noticed the other day that in The Age, I think it was, there was an article talking about how Melbourne is basically sprawling to such an extent that it is destroying all the decent food production area adjacent to that city and that in due course Melbourne is going to be facing all sorts of problems about how it actually feeds itself in terms of local produce. These are not fanciful, crazy things; I think there is a serious interest in this.

I have some additional information here that the food industry is an important driver for jobs in South Australia and one in five people, I understand, are involved in that industry and there was $15 billion worth of revenue in 2013-14. South Australia's regional areas account for 18 per cent of international tourism expenditure and underlines the importance of the city agricultural region as a future economic growth driver.

I think we need to look at these lands not just as something that is locked up; we need to look at these as, if you like, the agricultural factory opportunities or agricultural employment lands or agricultural income generation opportunities of the future.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 8.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I note that subclause (2)(a) states 'that a specified provision of this Act does not apply'. It talks about a regulation that may be provided which seemingly overrides what the act does, which I thought was the genesis of where it all came from. I am interested in the explanation for that.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that is a provision that is lifted from the existing act. However, you having asked the question, I would be disappointed if that was capable by regulation of subverting the clear intention of clause 7, for example, and we will have a look at it.

Clause passed.

Clause 9.

The CHAIR: I am just a bit worried that it has only three lines and there is a problem in it. What is wrong with clause 9?

Ms REDMOND: I just want to seek assurance from the minister that the intention and effect of this provision is that the Crown will indeed be a model citizen and will not behave in ways that it does not allow other citizens of this state to behave.

One of the concerns that we see up in the Hills constantly, for instance, is the management of SA Water properties, where they are simply not managed appropriately and they create a hazard for other members of the community, national parks, all those sorts of things. I seek an assurance from the minister that the application of clause 9 will be that the Crown will be, indeed, a model citizen.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is certainly my intention to the extent that it is up to me. That is exactly what they will be doing.

Clause passed.

Clause 10 passed.

Clause 11.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I note this refers to 'Recognition of special legislative schemes' and lists several acts of parliament. The question posed to me was whether it would be appropriate for the Adelaide Park Lands Act 2005 to be included here.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No.

The CHAIR: That is pretty straightforward.

Mr GRIFFITHS: That was a very quick response, minister. You have either considered this or had it put to you by another group. I am interested in a more fulsome explanation as to why it would not be appropriate.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: All of these pieces of legislation have present interactions with the current planning and development act, which requires them to be considered specially. I do not believe the Adelaide Park Lands Act is in the same position.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I have to ask: given that the DPA for the Adelaide Park Lands includes changes to make infrastructure to be complying instead of noncomplying development opportunities and actually changes the process for consideration, to me that does create a linkage. I am rather intrigued by your response, as I think would most of the people listed in the 160 submissions that were lodged by the end of July in regard to the Adelaide Park Lands DPA.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am told that there is a particular interaction between the particular matters mentioned in clause 11(b) and clause 56.

Clause passed.

Clause 12.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The first question I have to ask on behalf of several groups that contacted me is on the objects, which are very important, and there is no doubt about that. I was intrigued to be told that there is no mention of the environment or of history or character within this area. I am just wondering why not.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Sorry, just to go back to the last question, it is clause 59, not clause 56, and we will come to that in due course. Sorry, you were asking why—

Mr GRIFFITHS: The environment and history and character areas are not mentioned as part of the objects and planning principles.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I thought we had done something quite novel and innovative with environment in terms of clause 7, which we were looking at a little while ago. In terms of history and whatnot, that is largely a matter for heritage which, as I explained before, is something that we are seeing as a different piece of work. We are going to get onto that, but it will be dealt with as a discrete piece of work because it was my judgement that, if we tried to deal with heritage plus all these things at the same time, it would be completely beyond anyone's capability to manage the whole lot. So, that history and whatever aspect is going to be picked up there.

I can say that there are any number of people who would like to stick some of their favourite things in here. I guess the simple proposition I have is something like this: to use the objects of an act as something akin to a Facebook page is not good drafting and it does not help when interpreting the legislation later. So, the fewer objects you have, the clearer the direction is because, if you put in two objects, everybody looking at this can say, 'There are two clear objectives here.' If you make it four, it is half as clear; if you make it eight, that is half as clear again; and by the time you get to some of them—

Ms Redmond: It might be multiplying the clarity.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is not my experience. You get to the point where you have so many objects in here, and I can give you some examples, actually. Have a look at the sentencing act and see what that tells a court they have to take into account when sentencing somebody. After you have had a look at that, you tell me if it makes any sense to you because it—

Ms Redmond: Yes, it does.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It means whatever you want it to mean, basically. What we have sought to do here is to say this: there are certain primary objectives here. We have divided it between primary objectives and then further matters that we think are important. The primary objectives are two things: objective No. 1 is we want the planning system to be an enabler of development and the provision of public spaces and facilities consistent with sound planning principles; objective No. 2 is a scheme for community participation in relation to the initiation and development of planning policies and strategies. We want to say to everybody that those two things are the primary considerations. Everything else might be important, but those are the absolute keystones of this.

Then, if you go into the next thing, it talks about how it should look. It should be simple, easy to understand, etc., and then, if you go into the principles of planning, you do start getting into some of the finer grain that you are alluding to. That talks about things like sustainability and it talks about those other things. Do not just look at clause 12 by itself. Look at 12 in conjunction with 14 because 12 is the headline proposition and 14 is a series of, I guess, expositions of aspects of that.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I do appreciate that and I can consider it because the words provided to me as a suggestion for inclusion in 12, but are likely to be in the 14 that we are talking about, are 'creates attractive, resilient and sustainable communities', so it is part of the 14 vision on what it is, so I can accept that. I do have a question though. Under (2)(f), on the first line, where it talks about value-capture schemes, towards the bottom of page 26. Can the minister give an outline of what value-capture schemes are?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Value-capture is basically a proposition that if you make a change in the planning regime for somewhere and you, in effect, create a windfall for people by reason of that, some of that windfall is returned to support the infrastructure necessary for that scheme to be delivered, essentially.

The CHAIR: That made sense to me. Member for Heysen.

Ms REDMOND: I just wanted to explore a bit of the objects and planning principles. I note the use of the term 'enhance the State's prosperity' at the beginning. I assume what you are talking about there is financial prosperity and not other sorts of prosperity. I know that some other countries, like Bhutan and so on, actually measure happiness and things like that these days, but I assume we are talking about financial prosperity. More particularly, I wanted to ask about the idea in subclause (2)(a) of, 'practices that are designed to be simple and easily understood'. It seems to me that by the time you have got this far in the draft bill it is hardly simple or easily understood, as the nature of our questions might indicate, and we are relatively well versed in these matters. So, I would suggest, minister, that there might be a difficulty with that.

I wonder, in terms of practice and referring, as you say, to not just this but going further into the act to, say, clause 97, which states, 'Accepted development does not require planning consent,' and that is one of the three categories of development in division 2, is it the intention of these objects and planning principles that if you purchase a block of land which is appropriately designed for putting a house for a family to live in on you should be able to expect, within a very short space of time, to get your planning approval for the development of a house on such a block?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, that is exactly what we are trying to achieve. At the moment, something like 90-something per cent of planning applications wind up being merit assessed. In some other states of Australia it is under 10 per cent that are merit assessed, so they have a far more streamlined system. It means, in practical terms, exactly what the member for Heysen said: because the rules are clear and because everyone knows what the rules are it is basically a tick, it is a formality. That means, holding costs for people are less—investment, ideally, would be easier to make because people would know, 'If I go off and seek approval I will get it in a short order of time, I won't be mucked around for months or years and I can get on with it.'

Ms REDMOND: Further down in that same subclause is the reference to promoting safe and efficient construction through cost effective technical requirements that form part of a national scheme of construction rules and product accreditation. My recollection is that when those new national rules came in, they created considerable cost disincentives, inasmuch as you suddenly had to have fencing around a construction site which otherwise would not have been required. From memory, I think it was something like $26,000 they estimated was added to the cost of an average single-storey dwelling and $35,000 was added to the cost of a two-storey house. I wonder, minister, whether you could explain what sort of safe and efficient construction through cost effective technical requirements this bill envisages?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There are a couple of things there; first of all, the National Building Code. This is something that is under review, and it needs to be under review, because there are things about it that must get better but that is an active process that is going on nationally. One of the things that we are trying to convey through this is it is bad enough to have a national code which some people might regard as overly complicated and potentially adding cost, but where it gets much worse is some individual councils then add their own bells and whistles to the national code as part and parcel of an approval.

You could get to the point where if you cross the road from council A to council B, one side is going to require you to comply with the National Building Code, the other side is going to say National Building Code, plus, plus, plus. What we are saying is that is not okay. It is not the business of councils to be adding extra layers of red tape and cost to development applications above and beyond which is considered to be a reasonable national standard.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I will ask a question, if I may, and it is a question put to me by one of the community groups that contacted me. I understand that community participation is highlighted at clause 12(1)(b). It was put to me that as part of the principles for good planning that community consultation should be one of the emphases there also, but it does not appear to be listed, minister, not that I have noticed anyway.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is where the charter comes in. Clause 12(1)(b) is the portent of the charter and what it is basically saying is, 'Here it is. There are two really important things about this bill. It has a lot of detail but just keep these two things fixed in your head.' We have elevated community engagement from something which you think about at the end; that is one of the two primary drivers of this bill. That really takes the next stop in that particular story when you start getting to the charter and all the other provisions in the bill which refer to the place the charter plays in the conversation which leads up to the determination of zoning for particular areas.

Ms REDMOND: I have one other question on clause 12 and that relates to that same one I referred to earlier about the simple and easily understood practices but also in that particular subclause there is a reference to providing consistency in interpretation and application, and the minister already alluded earlier to the problem with the Hills Face Zone. I think there is something like nine councils along that Hills Face Zone and each one of them interprets the Hills Face Zone requirements in a different way. I wonder if the minister could give any indication as to how soon after the introduction of this legislation it would be likely that there would be consistency in the interpretation, not just for that area but in particular the Hills Face Zone.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is going to happen in phases. The ultimate end of this is where we have the new planning library which digests 22,000 pages of incomprehensible stuff into something like 40-odd basic planning tools. That will take consultation and it will take time and that will not be done any time very quickly. However, if you go to 42 and 43, we should be in a position where those things which are practice directions and practice guidelines can be got out reasonably quickly. So, it is going to be a two-step process.

If this goes through, the people in the department, I expect, will get cracking on those fairly early. They are intended to bring some conformity during the transitional phase when we are basically dealing with the existing planning system held as a default position but we are trying to impose some consistency of behaviour. They should do some of that work for us, and then the next phase is when we have the new planning library ready to go, and at that point in time there will be a much greater degree of uniform application and uniform concepts being used across the state.

Clause passed.

Clause 13 passed.

Clause 14.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Clause 14(b) appears to me to be policy, I believe, because it talks about urban renewal principles. The suggestion put to me is that that should be part of the state planning policy document and not necessarily entrenched within the legislation. Urban renewal is a focus in quite a few areas of the act, though, but do you accept, minister, that it is a policy direction, and should it be in the legislation?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think it is such an important element in the vision we have for the future of, particularly the Adelaide metropolitan area, that it is appropriate for that to be in that section. It sits alongside long-term thinking which is a fundamentally sound principle. It sits alongside high-quality design, which is again another important principle. One of the things that we have had as feedback from communities who have some degree of anxiety about the way in which infill might unfold in their neighbourhood, is that most of them are not really that concerned about the idea of there being a nice-looking building, four or five storeys, somewhere near them. That is not their concern.

What they are worried about is some ugly thing which does not respond to their environment, and does not have any sense of place that relates to their community. So that is why I have elevated design as well, because these are meant to be the principles that people have to have a good think about. People are far more tolerant of thoughtful, designed buildings than they are of ugly, horrible buildings. It is not just the building; it is the way the building interacts with the street, it is the way the building interacts with the neighbours, it is the way the building interacts with the environment. We are attempting to elevate those things and say, 'These things are really important. Please think about them.'

Ms REDMOND: I have a couple of questions on clause 14. The first is in paragraph (a), 'long-term focus principles', and I have to say that placitum (ii) of that strikes me as the greatest bit of bureaucratic lingo I have ever come across and we should be able to play bureaucrat bingo just with that wording of:

…policy frameworks should be responsive to emerging challenges, changing trends and cumulative impacts identified by monitoring, benchmarking and evaluation programs;

Bingo, if you have ever played bureaucrat bingo! Can the minister tell me what on earth that paragraph means?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I can say that I thought I had gotten rid of that one and they have snuck it back in! I do not like that sort of language but, if you can find a way of translating that into English, I would be happy to consider amending it accordingly.

Ms REDMOND: More importantly, and that was really just more by way of comment, the paragraph above, though, talks about things being 'ecologically sound' and this is where I think there potentially is a problem, because as I said before, listening to Professor Chris Daniels, the idea of the urban ecology is being diminished significantly because of urban infill. People no longer have backyards for kids to play in; it is all sort of designed courtyards and very little nature. I would like to find out from the minister what it is that he thinks is going to be 'ecologically sound' about the degree of urban infill that is being envisaged in this legislation?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It gets back to the point that the member for Heysen made before. I think it is important that, if we are going to do infill, we do infill which provides space for kids to kick a football, or to run around or whatever the case might be—that is very important. Rather than just not say anything about it, we put it in here, because we do want to make potential project developers think about these issues and have regard to them, and also to think about things like this intergenerational equity too. This is not an insignificant proposition either. So, we are trying to say there needs to be a bit of thought going into these things.

I totally agree with the member for Heysen. If we are going to be having our cities transformed into places where more people live, part of the social dividend for these developers being given permission to use this greater density is that they must deliver in this space.

Ms REDMOND: Onto paragraph (c), the 'high-quality design principles'. As I read it, minister, what that would mean is that if, in a given area, most people build the Georgian-type McMansion that became popular a few years ago, and you come along and want to build a log cabin, you are not going to be allowed to because everyone else has built a McMansion, of whatever nature.

Speaking personally, I particularly have a hatred of all the houses in modern developments that have, as their front, double carports or double garages. I think they look appalling, but that is the modern way of building. High-quality design principles seem to me to have an inherent difficulty in that there is a subjective judgment about what is high quality.

The other problem, it seems to me, is that no matter what you design into the system and therefore get as your preferred design, it is the maintenance, upkeep and the surrounds of a property—the gardening or whatever—that actually keep the amenity of an area. If someone decides that they are going to move in and just let their gutter be full of weeds, with no garden, and terribly unkempt, then you do not achieve what you are trying to achieve here anyway. I guess my question is: to what extent will these high-quality design principles prohibit people who may want to build something that is terrifically sustainable but does not look like the other houses in the area?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Again, good question. The story with the design principles as set out in here is not meant to be a set of prescriptive rules. It is not meant to be a bunch of things like, 'You will have a podium of no more than three metres and you will have a setback of no more than five, and all your windows will be green,' and all that sort of stuff; that is not what it is about. What it is about is actually finding some sort of inescapable, fundamentally acknowledged truths about good design principles, and—

Ms Redmond: 'These truths we hold to be self-evident.'

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Self-evident truths—exactly—about design which are not, of their nature, prescriptive; they are, of their nature, discursive and directional. Those principles are then enunciated and people are supposed to have regard to them. I can say, in connection with this, I had a meeting the other day with the Design Review Panel in Adelaide. I observed them doing one of their design review processes, and it was actually fascinating. I invite the member for Goyder and the member for Heysen, if she is interested, to go and observe it at some stage; it is really interesting.

I actually said to them, 'I would like you people, who are all experts in this thing, to go away and bring me back some high-level principles—there might only be five of them—which are understandable but point people in the direction of the questions they have to ask about each project in order to get a good design outcome, without being prescriptive about what colour people were going to paint things and all that sort of thing.'

The CHAIR: Member for Goyder, do you have a question? You have had three questions, member for Heysen. At some point, we have to try and keep to three questions. I have asked you, member for Goyder, if you have a question.

Mr Griffiths: No, I don't.

The CHAIR: That being the case—last question, member for Heysen.

Ms REDMOND: I have several more questions, but I will just ask one. The next little part in paragraph (d), the 'activation and liveability principles'—which again sound a bit like weasel words to me—talks about 'high-quality housing options with an emphasis on living affordability' and catering for 'a diverse range of cultural and social activities', and so on.

Again, it seems to me that there is an attempt in this bill to do some level of social engineering and, in my experience, it is unlikely that you will ever have a situation where you have 'affordable housing' mixed with high-level, high-quality, high-cost housing because the two groups just do not mix. The reality is that no-one who is going to live in the upmarket suburbs of Adelaide is going to continue to live there if you start putting in 'affordable housing'. I wonder if the minister could comment on whether that is the intention of that particular section.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is just intended to mean that there are a range of housing choices available and if you start accepting that some people will be living in a two-bedroom apartment and other people will be living in a three-bedroom conventional home, the point is you can have affordable housing. It is affordable not on the basis of comparing one three-bedroom home to another, but affordable in the sense of 'Can I afford to live in that area?' If you have a diversity of housing options there, you make more flexible the opportunity for people to have affordable housing in different areas. That is not intended to be some sort of social engineering exercise. As for (d)(iii), I think that is another one that got past me.

Clause passed.

Clause 15.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Chair, 15(2)(d) and 15(3) both refer to service benchmarks. I am interested because local government will be involved in this as a partial administrator for development systems. Is there an opportunity for the Local Government Association, on their behalf, to be involved in the development of the service benchmarks?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not see any reason why they should not be involved, but can I take that one on notice and have a look at it.

Ms REDMOND: I have a question in relation to subclause (1) of clause 15. What it provides is that a person making an application, amongst other things, or dealing with the act generally, but a person coming to get an authorisation for planning development, so presumably someone just wanting to build their house, has an obligation to:

(d) act in a cooperative and constructive way; and

(e) be honest and open in interacting with other entities…[and]

(f) be prepared to find reasonable solutions…

I wonder if the minister could indicate how that is going to work in practice because it is a positive obligation. How is it expected that a person will do these things when they experience the level of frustration which is likely to come about from any interaction with the development system?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will make two points. First of all, hopefully when this goes through, those interactions will be far less necessary. Secondly, this was directed as much to council employees as it would be to their customers. Thirdly, we do acknowledge in subclause (4) that, in practical terms, this is unenforceable. We do not expect to have a raft of litigation about 'You were rude to me on the phone' or something of that nature, but we are trying to convey an attitudinal aspiration there for how people should conduct themselves.

Ms REDMOND: Apart from my disquiet at the idea that we are ever going to be able to legislate for that particular aspect, my next question was on subclause (4) and its impact. The section starts out talking about these provisions applying to 'any person or body' so just an ordinary person coming along to apply to build a house. Whilst part (a) of subclause (4) says that does not 'give rise to any substantive rights or liabilities' it goes on to say:

…may lead to action being taken on account of a breach of a code of conduct or professional standard that applies in relation to the relevant person or body.

I wonder to what extent that provision is going to potentially apply to the ordinary Joe Blow who is coming to make an application to build a house on their block of land?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not think it might apply to them but there are two things. Subclause (4)(a) says that no substantive right or liability is generated by way of clause 15. Subclause (4)(b) says: but a council employee, for example, who is bound by a code of conduct, who breaches that code of conduct, is still in breach of the code of conduct and whatever would happen for a breach of the code of conduct should continue to happen. In other words, (4)(a) does not obliterate the effect of a code of conduct, if that makes sense.

Clause passed.

Clause 16.

Mr GRIFFITHS: This is the responsibility to coordinate activities between the state and local governments. The Local Government Association has asked me how councils will demonstrate compliance with the clause, and would this be cause for an administrative law challenge?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Quite frankly, now the question has been asked, it has to be said that, in practical terms, this is not enforceable. Subclauses (1) and (2) need to be read together, and the sanction, if that is what it is, is that a report goes to the minister. But it is not intended that it is a trigger for litigation of some description.

Mr GRIFFITHS: On the basis that you get a report, in your current role, what happens to the report then?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is about cultural change. It would depend what the report said, obviously; but, if the report said that there had been some breach of the law, or something of that nature, obviously, the minister would have to behave accordingly. If the report simply said there were people behaving badly, the minister might perhaps call them in and say, 'What about you lot being a bit more civil?' or something. It depends on what the nature of the report might be.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Is there any consideration given to a third party for reference of an issue to the commission, or should it go through to the minister first? If a person or a group believes they have been poorly treated, can they make a reference on that?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: They go to the commission first. The commission is the buffer between these people and the minister. The minister does not need to be drawn into it unless there is a matter that the commission considers is serious enough to warrant it.

Clause passed.

Clause 17.

Ms REDMOND: I wanted to get on the record a statement which I hope will be forthcoming from the minister in relation to subclauses (4) and (5), and the reason for doing this comes about from previous experience with the Director of Public Prosecutions legislation in this state which, of course, says that the DPP is independent of the minister and only subject to general direction, yet this government actually directed the Director of Public Prosecutions to lodge an appeal.

I just want to get very clearly on the record from the minister a statement that the clear intention of these provisions is that the minister, whilst having general administrative direction for the commission, will not, indeed, be enabled to interfere in any way with the actual functions of the commission and it exercising its powers and responsibilities.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: My understanding is that is correct, what was just said.

Clause passed.

Clause 18.

Mr GRIFFITHS: There has been a suggestion made to me by the Local Government Association that in 18(1)(a) 'appointed by the minister' be replaced by 'appointed by the Governor'. Does the minister see any support for that?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that increasingly the process has been for a ministerial appointment rather than the Governor and councils. It is a procedural matter, it is not a substantive matter. However, most of that board and committee reform resulted in changes to 'appointment by minister', so we are just following the current convention in that respect. The only difference between the two in practice is red tape.

Ms REDMOND: First, minister, I congratulate you; I think this is the second time we have had legislation where a board is appointed and there is no requirement to have a female member of the board, we are just choosing people on merit. So we have reached the 21^st century at last, and I think that is excellent.

I did want to question whether the provisions of clauses 2 and 3 actually mean that that will, so far as practicable, be the range of expertise or whether there is still capacity for a minister to appoint someone to the board who has none of the expertise that is listed there. Of course, there was an attempt here to appoint someone to, I think, the EPA who had none of the qualifications that were set out as the requirements for people to be appointed to the Environment Protection Authority, yet the government attempted to appoint a person without those things. I just want to be clear that the minister, and ministers subsequently, will only be able to appoint someone who fits into one of the (a) to (f) categories.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think the answer to that lies in subclause (2). The minister ultimately does have the discretion to determine what qualifications and suchlike are relevant; however, the minister is given fairly strong guidance by subclause (3). One of the things I have come to be very wary of, and have come to try to avoid as best I can, is the notion of the so-called representative board or highly prescriptive board. What you then have is one butcher, one baker, one candlestick maker, etc. From my observation that almost invariably produces a problem.

I have tried to find a compromise between this highly prescriptive thing where you wander around chasing up one candlestick maker you cannot find, and you put any old person in who knows something about candles, or you have some give and take. As minister I would regard subclause (3) as being highly directive of me and I would expect, if I departed from subclause (3), that the obvious question would be asked of me, as a minister, 'Why have you gone outside these things?' However, I am reluctant to change that too much because if we do we wind up with that highly prescriptive model.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, as you would expect the Local Government Association has sought opportunities for a direct appointment to go on, and it is between four and seven. The minister is shaking his head, but I do note that (f) mentions local government as being one of the skill sets—but it is what it is? Okay.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I get back to the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker. If I put a thing here that says, 'and the LGA can nominate any old person they want to go on this thing,' as soon as I say yes I will get a knock on the door, 'Hello, we're UDIA,' or 'Hello, I'm HIA,' etc. Then we will wind up exactly where I do not want to be. That is the reason for it. However, I do not intend to disregard them.

Clause passed.

Clause 19.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I note that the commission may appoint one or two persons to act as additional members. Can the minister outline what those additional members will do and what length of term their appointment is likely to be?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We thought that it might be a circumstance in which some particular expertise or background was especially relevant for the purpose of some job that the commission was doing. I do not know what that job might be, but we thought there might be some utility in having a co-opting capability there for that purpose.

Mr GRIFFITHS: A final one: because more people are able to be appointed, was there an expectation that this is an area where we put the level of expertise requirements also? Or do you just want to leave that as open, so that there is a variety you can choose from?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I would leave it open, because I think what we are looking at here—or at least what I had in mind—is that we have our usual complement of people who are doing this and that. Something bobs up which is a particular job, and we do not think we necessarily have the right skill set. I cannot foresee what that gap in skill might be.

The CHAIR: Yet.

Clause passed.

Clause 20.

Ms REDMOND: Just a quick question, I hope. I have no difficulty with these conditions of membership as they are, but I have a question about the provision of requirements for declaring conflicts of interest and so on for the members. It does not appear in the act. I assume that there is going to be some sort of provision elsewhere within an appointment of people to accommodate conflict of interest areas.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Schedule 1 apparently deals with that.

Clause passed.

Clause 21.

Mr GRIFFITHS: A quick one: this clause talks about the appointed members of the commission being entitled to fees, allowances and expenses determined by the minister. Are they the guidelines that operate for the Development Assessment Commission currently?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We have to determine it, and I have not really turned my mind to that properly yet. This is a body which is at least as responsible as the DAC, so you would expect that that is some guide as to what we are talking about, but we have not really worked it out.

Clause passed.

Clause 22.

Ms REDMOND: I just have one quick question on this area and that is, in subclause 4 there is a provision that if an inquiry is conducted by the commission under (1)(e) the commission may call for and receive submissions and representations and request any person to provide information and materials. The subsequent clauses, 5 and 6 and so on, go on to talk about the Crown having an obligation to comply, but there does not appear to be within the wording of that—the way that it says 'may request any person to provide' things—any compellability about getting evidence for the commission if they are conducting their own inquiry. Is that intentional, and if so, why?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think it is. I think we got to the view, do we really want to be giving this commission the sorts of powers that enable them to compel private citizens to produce material. That is getting in the space of warrants and various other things, so we thought it was safer just to leave it at that level.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The Local Government Association has put to me that they seek to have an expansion of the provisions of clause 22(1) to include things such as 'approval of regional plans unless a joint planning board has been appointed, the development of an approval of amendments to the planning and design code, and working with local government to develop the engagement charter'. Is there any opportunity for that? Is that one of the things that as part of your feedback you are considering?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is about those things; happy to think about them. On the face of it they do not sound crazy, but we have to take some advice on it. My main worry is red tape. It is not the principle of having anything to do with the LGA; it is how much red tape we are creating.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I have a one more question. The Environmental Defenders Office SA Inc. put to me the question that there do not appear to be any limits on the functions that can be assigned to the planning commission by the minister. They believe that specific functions should actually be in the act. Is it open ended at the moment as to what you can refer, or the functions of what the commission are, deliberately?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It was intended to be flexible.

Clause passed.

Clause 23.

Mr GRIFFITHS: This demonstrates my lack of legal training, but in the first line of this clause it says, 'The Commission has all the powers of a natural person…'. Could the minister explain that?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is just a formulation. It says that the commission can do the same things as a human person could do. So, the commission can make a contract, the commission can execute documents, the commission can do stuff like that. It means that they have the capacity of acting in a corporate sense.

Clause passed.

Clause 24.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I refer to paragraph (b), where it says:

(b) if a matter arises that in the Commission's opinion may prevent, or adversely affect, the performance of any function…

It talks about promptly informing the minister. My interest is: what does the minister do with the information?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That would depend on what it was. The purpose for that is to actually say that the accountable minister is going to be responsible to the parliament and to the public for the conduct of this commission. In order for the minister to discharge that function properly, if the commission comes to the conclusion that it has a problem, it should not be able to sit back and not tell the minister—it should have to share that with the minister. It is intended to be an open relationship between the commission and the minister: if they have a problem they should tell the minister; the minister would have to determine, in light of whatever that problem was, what would be the appropriate response.

Clause passed.

Clause 25.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I refer to subclause (3), where it says:

…the minister is not entitled to obtain under this section information that the Commission considers should be treated for any reason as confidential…

I am interested in that; it appears that in some areas there will not be an information flow. I am interested as to why this bit is in the bill.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is very difficult to foresee every potential circumstance that might arise, but there may be a circumstance in which, for reasons of confidentiality or some other reason, it is not appropriate for the minister to be advised in detail about a matter at a particular point in time. What we are saying here is that, if you do have confidential stuff that you should not be sharing with the minister, do not do it unless to fail to do it will mean that you are basically setting up the minister.

Ms REDMOND: I just wanted to clarify that aspect, because the clause says that the commission is allowed to hold back the information that they consider confidential, unless not giving it to the minister adversely affects the minister in the proper performance of ministerial functions or duties. Who makes the decision as to what will adversely affect the minister in the proper performance of his ministerial functions or duties?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Maybe. I will give you a hypothetical: let's say that there is some information, and they consider it to be confidential. The minister is asked a question in parliament about that matter. The minister says, 'I will make an inquiry of the agency.' The minister then says to the agency, 'I have been asked this question. What am I going to tell the parliament?' In that particular circumstance to not provide appropriate information might conceivably compromise the minister, and that would not be okay—that is the sort of context—but ultimately it is their call, because if I know the information, I already know the information, so I cannot be the person who is choosing—

Ms REDMOND: The way this clause reads, the minister is ultimately going to be allowed to say to the commission, 'Notwithstanding that I asked for the information and you said, "I can't give it to you because it's confidential. It has been provided to us on a commercial-in-confidence basis."' I say that I need that information, and you must supply it to me. Is that not the reading of that clause?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Not the way I read it. I read it that the minister would not know, so the minister could not say that. So, I read it the other way around.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Are there similarities between the Ken MacPherson report on the Burnside council and providing that to the then minister, the Hon. Mr Wortley, and that he was not game to read it so that he knew what it said.

Ms Redmond: He wasn't game to read it, he might blurt it out.

Mr GRIFFITHS: That's right. I am interested in the connection there.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The member for Goyder is referring to what is now known as the Wortley doctrine—and yes, that is what we are talking about: if you do not know it, you do not know it. All we are saying here—

Ms Redmond: Known unknown.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Unknown unknowns.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I think that is called plausible deniability or something like that.

Clause passed.

Clause 26 passed.

Clause 27.

Ms REDMOND: I want to ask about these provisions for members having a direct or indirect personal or pecuniary interest. I want an explanation as to how broad that is, particularly given that later on it says that an interest also includes a person associated with the member. Can the minister provide the broadest scope for what is incorporated within a member of the commission or an associate of a member of the commission having a direct or indirect financial or personal interest in a matter? Can the minister give an example of how broad that might be?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The first thing is that it is all a question of fact and degree, to some extent. The second thing is that I am told that this is a relatively common formulation in legislation to deal with the questions of conflict of interest, and I am told that it carries over from the current act as well. For example, if there was a matter before the commission and a member of the commission's spouse, child or parent had a direct interest in the matter before the commission, that would be captured, I would imagine, by that type of provision. But if it was some person that you had some vague knowledge of, or you had met once or something of that nature, clearly you would be on the other side of that.

Ms REDMOND: I would be interested in whether the other question also means that it is still the same as in the current act, and that is the provision for having not only to disclose the nature and the extent of the interest as soon as they become aware of it but immediately not take part and, indeed, physically withdraw from the vicinity of the discussion. Can the minister confirm that that is exactly the same as currently appears?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Mr GRIFFITHS: In clause 27(3), it talks about a casting vote for the presiding member. Because there are only between four and six members and it talks about quorums, is it possible for a proxy vote to be provided? If an absence is known but the report had been reviewed, a recommendation considered and a position determined by a member, are they able to indicate, without their attendance, what the position is?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: They can attend via telephone or some other method. I am not comfortable with proxies; they can be abused and, in my experience, have been abused. So I am not comfortable with proxies but they can get on Skype or whatever.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I note in subclause (5) it talks about concurrence in writing or electronic communication. What if they emailed to the secretary that this is what their position is?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Clause passed.

Clause 28 passed.

Clause 29.

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

Amendment No 10 [Planning–1]—

Page 35, after line 27—Insert:

(aa) must establish 1 or more committees in connection with its functions and powers as a relevant authority under this Act (to be known as Commission assessment panels); and

Amendment No 11 [Planning–1]—

Page 35, line 28—After 'establish such' insert 'other'

Amendment No 12 [Planning–1]—

Page 35, line 32—After 'to assist the Commission' insert 'or to act on behalf of the Commission'

Ms REDMOND: I have a couple of questions on clause 29. I am curious as to why in subclause (1) with the provision that the commission may establish other committees, given that there are a couple of committees that are talked about above that, why the approval of the minister would be necessary for establishing other committees. That would seem to me to be adding an unnecessary level of red tape, and the minister was telling us how he wants to get rid of it. Why would there be any need for the minister to approve the setting up of any committee by the commission should the commission choose to set up a committee?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will think about this one but my recollection is that it occurred to me that there might be some circumstances in which a subcommittee of the committee was a necessary element. For example, if the committee was both potentially the assessing agency—we will address that somewhere else. In that case I was thinking of another element where we would deal with this later on. I think the position is that it is just reasonable for the minister to be involved in the process.

Ms REDMOND: I am still a bit puzzled because immediately above that provision you have already said that the commission must establish committees if the regulations require it or if the minister requires it. You have already covered what the minister definitely wants. It just seems to me that if they want to establish a committee to organise their Christmas party, or whatever it might be, it adds unnecessarily a burden that just should not be there.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will have a look at it. Those words may not be adding any value. We will have a look at it.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 30.

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

Amendment No 13 [Planning–1]—

Page 36, after line 15—Insert:

(3) In addition, the Commission must delegate its functions and powers as a relevant authority with respect to determining whether or not to grant planning consent under this Act to—

(a) a Commission assessment panel established under section 29(1)(aa); or

(b) an assessment panel appointed or constituted under section 76; or

(c) a person for the time being occupying a particular office or position.

(4) The Commission may, in connection with the operation of subsection (3)—

(a) make a series of delegations according to classes of development; and

(b) vary any delegation from time to time.

(5) A function or power delegated under subsection (3) may be further delegated (and any such further delegation may be made subject to conditions or limitations, is revocable at will, and does not derogate from the power of the delegator under this subsection to act in any matter).

Mr GRIFFITHS: I may just ask the minister—because it is a reasonably large amendment—if he can give us some background information on that.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: This is the provision I was thinking of a little while ago when I started off on this track. It was brought to my attention that, as things were presently drafted, there is no capacity for a separation of the policy-making function and the assessment function, and they are conceptually different. The idea of this was to facilitate that sort of structural separation so that you would have separate manifestations, if you like, of the commission doing those separate roles rather than having the commission as one entity having these joint and arguably difficult cohabiting functions. That is the intention of it.

Amendment carried.

The CHAIR: We are now looking at amended clause 30.

Ms REDMOND: This clause seems extraordinarily broad in the scope of what it says on its face, that 'The commission may delegate any of its functions', given that in a previous clause, there was a provision that says that a committee, for instance, may, but need not, consist of or include members of the commission. So, you can set up a committee that does not even have any of the people who have been appointed to the commission on that committee and then you can delegate in their entirety the functions of the commission to that body on a strict reading of this piece of drafting.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: First of all, we are trying to have some degree of flexibility here and we might well have, for example, regional planning boards which are established cooperatively under this scheme. It might be entirely appropriate for the commission to delegate a function to one of those regional planning boards, for instance. I think we also have to assume that the commission will act in a responsible and proper fashion and would not do obviously crazy things, and it can only delegate to a relevant authority.

Ms REDMOND: No, it just says it may delegate any of its functions.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am told it is section 20(1) of the current act as well.

Ms REDMOND: It just seems to me that it would be more appropriate, for instance, to put the words 'with the approval of the minister' into that clause. It would then say, 'The commission may, with the approval of the minister, delegate any of its functions or powers' and it would make it abundantly clear that the intention of the section is not that a commission that took it into its mind to do so can continue to receive whatever pay the government is going to give them for being on the commission and completely delegate their powers away. But that is as the bill reads at the moment.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is an existing provision. I will think about what the member said, but it is an existing provision.

Mr GRIFFITHS: It extends even further, because I assume that in this case if the commission does not delegate the responsibilities that the minister wants it to, it says in paragraph (b), which is unusual for planning rules where it is normally 'may' or 'should', but this one says 'must' where they have to agree where you require the delegation to occur. Is that a carryover from the current act?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am told that it is based on section 20(2)(b) of the current act.

Mr GRIFFITHS: You said you would look at it.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, and I will look at it.

Clause as amended passed.

Clauses 31 and 32 passed.

Clause 33.

Ms REDMOND: I have a question in relation to the wording of the functions for the chief executive. In particular, it says that the chief executive's functions include the following '(a) to work with the Commission'. That seems to me to be a fundamental departure from the way most organisations, boards and so on work. Normally, government boards and so on operate on the basis that there is ministerial oversight, there is a board appointed and the function of the chief executive is actually to carry out the directions of the board, yet this is worded 'to work with the Commission' rather than to carry out the decisions of the commission.

I just wonder why it has that particular wording. It seems to give a lot more scope for the chief executive to not necessarily do what the board directs. Conceptually, boards set the direction and chief executives carry out the decisions of a board, once the board has made its decisions.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: In my view, it is clear that the chief executive, under this clause, is required to work with the commission in the performance of its functions and so on, so they would need to be doing that. As to the exact wording of this, this is an attempt to try to articulate, as I have had it explained, the relationship between the commission and the department, the two not being the same thing but some services to the commission obviously being provided for by the department.

Clause passed.

Clause 34.

Mr GRIFFITHS: This clause talks about delegations from the CEO. Can a delegation be made to a local government body or officer?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Clause passed.

Clause 35.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The Local Government Association has put to me a suggestion for an amendment to 35(1) to clarify that a planning agreement must be between the minister and at least one council. Other parties may be added but only upon the agreement of the minister and the councils. Is that something the minister is prepared to consider?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am happy to consider it, but I would need to reflect on it and get some advice.

Clause passed.

Clauses 36 to 40 passed.

Clause 41.

Mr GRIFFITHS: On the appointment of administrator, there is a suggestion from the Local Government Association that 41(4) be amended to include consultation with other parties when it comes to remuneration of the administrator because there are other parties involved in funding the cost, or is this something that is solely borne by the commission?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am happy to think about it.

Ms REDMOND: Following on from that, subclause (5) states that members of the joint planning board are suspended from office while an administrator takes office. Are they suspended with their allowance for being members of that planning board continuing, or are they suspended without pay?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I rather suspect that would be a matter to be determined by the reason for the suspension, and that might be something that cannot be ascertained immediately. So, rather than us be prescriptive in here, I think we would need to leave some flexibility to deal with the circumstances.

Mr GRIFFITHS: On the basis that there are costs associated with the appointment of an administrator, where does the funding for that position come from? Is it the Planning and Development Fund, or the fund for the operation of the commission?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It comes out of the joint planning board fund.

Clause passed.

Clause 42.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am interested in an outline of what practice directions are.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: This came up a while ago and I think the member for Heysen asked a couple of questions about: how do we know people are going to start behaving in the right way sooner rather than later? The practice directions are a guideline, I guess, or a procedural reference work for people who are involved. It is to help people saying, 'When you are confronting this, how do you approach it?' The practice directions and practice guidelines, which is the next section, are providing that additional guidance or support for decision-making.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Is there intended to be consultation on the development of the practice guidelines, or are they determined and put in place without any opportunity of review?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: These are not required but if we go down the track of doing this then, obviously, we will talk to the people who have to manage the system about what is in, what is out and how it is framed. These practice directions and guidelines, by the way, are required in other bits of the act. I will give you a quick overview: clause 60(3), clause 60(5), clause 69(7), clause 69(11), clause 79(2), clause 100(3), clause 100(9), clause 102(1), clause 104(2)(d), clause 105 and so on. So, there are various bits within the act where there is supposed to be some sort of guideline to help people.

Ms REDMOND: Just on those practice directions, I take it that the intention of subclause (5) is that if whoever draws them up gets them wrong and the advice, therefore, based on those, is wrong, that the person who suffers financial detriment because of that does not have a right to come back and say, 'Well, I'm several thousand dollars out of pocket.' I will give you an example, minister. Obviously, these things are not in place yet, but I had an example recently in my electorate where some people received certain advice on a planning matter and proceeded, for several thousand dollars, down a particular path, only to be told when they got to the very end of it that, oops, the planning officer had made a mistake way back when and they had spent (and they were an elderly couple) a considerable amount of money.

I take it that the intention of subclause (5) is that if that was done in reliance on a practice direction, even though the advice was wrong, and people did something which was financially to their detriment, they would not have an entitlement to seek redress for it.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, I guess that is right. I can think of an analogy for this: there are areas in building, occupational health and safety and various other things, where they have what they call guidelines or codes which are not, in and of themselves, the law but they are intended to help people. It does not mean that the person is absolved from complying with the law, but it means that if the person wants help to understand what the law means or how the law should be done, this is of help to them. That is why we are making the point that, these are not the law as such, these are just things that are there, handy driving hints, basically. Obviously, we want to make sure they are correct.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Again, subclause (5). I note that the practice directions will be determined by the commission but local government will be responsible to act within those guidelines. Subclause (5) talks about the fact—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Within the law as informed by the guidelines.

Mr GRIFFITHS: True, minister, thank you—that the practice direction does not give rise to any liability or any other claim against the commission. The commission, I understand a structure to be in place there, but as there are other bodies such as local government that are bound by those guidelines to act in that way—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, they are not; this is the point. The guidelines are not the law. The commission is bound to observe the law but sometimes you get in a situation where people say, 'Look, this is the law, but how do we do this? How do we do that?'

This is an opportunity to have what amounts to a practice direction which says that in practice the best way to apply this law is to do A, B and C. It is not the law itself. This appears in all sorts of schemes where you have complex laws but you have these sets of guidelines that are sitting in front of them to help people negotiate their way through what might otherwise be a baffling legal system. The two are not interchangeable. These things a more like a compass, if you like, but they are not the actual law. They are a compass that helps you find your way around the law.

The CHAIR: Do you want to use GPS in there?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is a GPS.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I think I appreciate that but I suppose my question was going to be that, if it says that any liability of or other claim against the commission, should it include the words 'any other relevant authority'?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not believe so because the relevant authorities are still bound by the law. I will look at it.

Ms REDMOND: I have a question on clause 42, and clause 43 to some extent. I am trying to clarify what is encompassed by a practice direction and what is encompassed by a practice guideline. I went back to the definitions clause and what the definitions clause said was that practice direction means practice direction issued by the commission under or in accordance with clause 42 and practice guideline means issued by the commission under or in accordance with clause 43. It seemed a bit circular. I gather that what we are talking about with a practice direction is the procedural steps.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Correct. Clause 42 is about procedure. Clause 43 is about interpretation. The key words are in clause 42(2) being 'procedural requirements' in the second line. Clause 43(1) has the key words 'guidelines with respect to the interpretation'. That is what the notional difference is.

Clause passed.

Clause 43 passed.

Sitting extended beyond 22:00 on motion of Hon. J.R. Rau.

Clause 44.

Ms REDMOND: I want to find out to what extent this community engagement charter will be like what local councils do at the moment because they have to have an annual community engagement; that is the first part of the question. The second part is about where you talk about members of the community having reasonable, meaningful and ongoing opportunities to participate. I wonder if the minister could tell me over what time period you anticipate people who have those ongoing opportunities and how reasonable they would be.

For instance, I have had several occasions where Adelaide Hills Council and others I suppose, have held community engagement consultations on a Thursday evening which means that the people who are running the businesses in the local area have their businesses open and cannot attend the community engagement, and often the things being discussed are the very things about which those people are most concerned. So I wonder to what extent it will be the same as what we have got going, and to what extent there will be ongoing opportunities?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: As to the first thing, current community engagement regimes, whether they are under the Planning Act or anything else, tend to be highly formulaic and highly prescriptive; for example, you send a letter, you wait 28 days, you have seven days to read the letter, and then you have to send another letter within two weeks after that, and then whatever comes back you put in the rubbish tin and all that sort of stuff.

That is what I am trying to get away from. What we are trying to have here is more of a performance or outcome-based charter, so instead of saying that you just send the letter and who cares whether they read it, and when the responses come back who cares whether you read them, you just have to comply with the days and you have ticked all the boxes, this is intended to actually be an outcome or performance-orientated charter. That is the first point.

The second point is the charter would invariably, because it is performance-based, encourage local government, which I see doing most of this as part of their engagement with their community, to be highly mindful of the community they are trying to engage with. So, for example, if you are engaging with the community in a rural town, it might be perfectly fine to have a town hall meeting or a number of town hall meetings in the reasonable expectation that a number of interested citizens will hear about it and turn up; and that might be a perfectly satisfactory mode of engagement—perhaps not the only mode, but a significant mode.

If you tried to do the same thing in metropolitan Adelaide, you might find that your reach was seriously diminished compared with that earlier example, and therefore the method to reach as many people as possible in Adelaide may be different. You might use social media or you might use some other form of communication—

Ms Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Like the interweb, exactly! That is what we are trying to do. We are trying to get away from prescriptive, formulaic, do this then do that and then you have ticked all the boxes, and it does not matter whether people heard you or you heard them, you can do what you like. We are trying to move it into a different sort of zone. As to the ongoing nature of the communication, that would depend very much on what was before that particular community.

If they had an issue of existing regions or zones or subzones or whatever they might be, that might require ongoing communication for some considerable period of time until that particular matter was settled. We do not want people consulting endlessly for no purpose, but if there is something to talk about they need to be consulting in a meaningful way until such time as that consultation has arrived at an outcome and that outcome has been implemented.

Ms REDMOND: Moving on to paragraph (b), I would like a bit of clarification about how in practice this is going to work; that you are going to have weighted engagement at an early stage, and scaled back when dealing with a settled or advanced stage. I think theoretically I know what that means, but I am not sure that in practice I comprehend how you are going to actually manage that.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We wanted to convey to people, 'Look, get in early, engage early, speak to communities early, and do not leave it until the last minute.' That is basically the proposition that we are trying to capture there. Bear in mind that, if we go back to the objects of this act, this sits in the primary objects of the act in that very special area, community engagement, No. 2, so this charter is going to be a very important document and we will be consulting with everybody about the nature of the charter. This is a piece of work of considerable importance and it will take some time, but this legislation absolutely commits to this charter document being a centrepiece to the way in which the system is going to operate in the future.

The CHAIR: The member for Heysen has another question?

Ms REDMOND: One more, yes; my third question, Madam Chair. If I can move down to subclause (4), you are talking about 'public participation with respect to the preparation or amendment of any statutory instrument.' So, I assume if you have what we currently call a DPA, that is where you want the public to be most engaged: when you are talking about where your zoning areas are going to be, and so on.

Minister, I know there are none in my electorate, but I am sure there are others that you may have heard of who are nimbys, notes and bananas. Are you familiar with them? The member for Light is looking puzzled. Nimbys are 'Not in my backyard', notes are 'Not over there either', and bananas are 'Build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything'. They are not in my electorate, obviously, but I wonder how this is going to work in practice, inasmuch as there are areas where, no matter what you are putting up, it is going to be fraught with huge public outcry, no matter how reasonable it might be.

In Stirling, we had people marching in the streets because someone wanted to build a supermarket on already zoned commercial land. We had people protesting outside the new Subway, which was in the middle of the shopping centre in two existing shops. So, there are occasions when, no matter what consultation you do, there is going to be massive public outcry about it. I just wonder how this public participation obligation is going to sit with the likely noisy wheel that is squeaking.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is a perfectly good point. There are some people who you can never make happy, and we will continue not to make them happy, under our new arrangements, because nothing can make them happy, and I accept that. But, as a general proposition, if a person feels that they have had an opportunity to have a bit of time to think about something, they have been treated with some degree of respect in being engaged about a proposition, and they are listened to in respect of their views about a proposition, even if they ultimately do not consider the proposition as their optimum outcome, most people say, 'Look at least I had a go, I was given an opportunity to be involved.'

Where the present system manifestly fails is that most people have no idea what the zoning requirements are for where they live, and the first time they find out is when somebody wants to put something next door to them that they really, really hate, and they say, 'And by the way, why didn't somebody tell me that thing was coming?' What I am trying to do is to move that conversation right up to the beginning of it so that communities actually have a chat at the very beginning about what is going to be okay in our community—'What is our community going to look like in five, 10 or 15 years? What are we comfortable with, and what are we not comfortable with?'

They need to have that conversation so they are not taken by surprise when a development, which is completely consistent with a policy which they have been involved in formulating, occurs. That takes all the heat out of this assessment point, which is where the rubber hits the road at the moment, because everyone is completely in the dark until somebody wants to put something next door to them and they say, 'My God, how can they do that?'

What I am saying is that that conversation should be occurring in a community context very early on where they are settling the policy, so at least people say, 'Look, I don't really like this policy, but at least they did ask me about it; I did have a chance to have a conversation about it,' or 'Actually, I am not surprised that thing is going next door, because I know that they are allowed to do that.' That is what we are trying to get to.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, this one is a significant change of tack on how things are done. It is fair to say that the development lobby like it—there is no doubt about that; they appreciate this. The community groups that have contacted me are vehemently opposed to it—

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Because they don't understand it.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Well, no; they see it as a diminution of the rights that are currently provided to them.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Because they're morons.

Mr GRIFFITHS: No; this is what their concerns are about. I have some practical questions on this. I understand completely and appreciate the fact that you want to involve people. It is a great intention to have. I have spent my life working in areas where there has been a level of community engagement, and only on very rare occasions have I seen a big turnout on things, which occurs only when something actually galvanises a community. They are hard to achieve, and they are normally emotive. Planning is not one of those, unless there is some obvious impact upon an individual. In developing this policy of how to proceed, are there examples that you have either been briefed about or seen around the world where it can be used and has done well?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Thank you for that question. I said earlier that the reason people feel like they are being disenfranchised is that they do not understand what is going on. That is true, because they are not involved at the beginning. They are involved right at the end where they are like some person who is having a lovely dream and all of a sudden is woken up with a cold bucket of water thrown over them and, of course, they are startled and unhappy. But what we are trying to do is move that forward. You asked a very good question. The member for Goyder met Jennifer Keesmaat in Toronto.

Mr Griffiths: A most impressive lady.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: A very impressive lady. The member for Goyder knows all of this, but Toronto is basically one very large entity in terms of planning policy, and it has a very powerful dynamically-led planning agency, and they are doing lots of very complex urban infill where you have these old industrial sites. The member for Goyder and I have been to a couple of these old timber yards and old railyards where completely different types of developments are occurring.

I have been told by her—and I think the member for Goyder might have heard it—that there is enormous community buy-in to these things, even though they are quite challenging compared with what has been there in the past in terms of a completely different use and density. Their strong message to me was: speak to the people and engage with the people early so they know what is coming and they have a chance to shape it.

The one example I know that the member for Goyder and I visited was a multistorey building in the inner part of Toronto where the community engagement early on before even a sod was turned got this strong message back that, 'The one thing we don't have around here is a place for working parents to leave their kids in child care. We really need childcare facilities here in this community.' The developer was smart enough—and was probably encouraged enough—to provide a whole floor in this building at basically no rent to a childcare provider in order to provide that sort of level of amenity back to the community that they were going into. That changed the way that community felt about that development.

Mr Griffiths: I think it was in Vancouver, not Toronto.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Was it Vancouver? Both nice places, anyway. That is the point. That is an example that is real. I am not underestimating the challenge here. I am not saying this is going to be easy, but I am going to say it is worth trying to do it. It is worth trying very hard to do it very well because, if we do it well, we are going to have a far more informed public conversation about the way we want our neighbourhoods to look and we will not have that 'bucket of cold water over the fast asleep person' effect that we have at the moment with a system where people have no idea what is coming.

Mr GRIFFITHS: It is interesting that you use the Canadian example. My recollection is that in Toronto, one way in which they engaged with the community was the fact that in development proposals, 1 per cent of the value of that was required for public art. I am not saying that you introduce that as a requirement, but people can actually see a tangible outcome from a requirement that they presumably have been involved in developing and that is required for all buildings that are created.

Ms Redmond: That happened in Perth.

Mr GRIFFITHS: True. There were certainly some very impressive demonstrations of that that we witnessed, and it was enforced upon me the willingness of the developers to be involved in that because of the benefits that came from it. You are obviously passionate about this and about efforts and wanting to engage the community, and I commend you on that but, starting from the relatively low base that we have, with the frustration of not enough people involved in public policy development, and this is one of their absolute key ones, do you have any form of template that can be rolled out?

I note that is a responsibility of yours to do this. I must admit I thought that it was the commission's responsibility to do it, but it is the minister's responsibility to do so. Are there any draft words or suggestions? Are there any financial commitments to it? At the moment you have said that local government will do it. Are there going to be negotiations to ensure that the resources are there, physically and financially, to get the outcomes?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is a very good point. I have to say at the moment we are a little way away from this because we do not have the bill through. But, if we did, what I would be wanting to do would be to seek the views of business and local government. I would look at examples in other cities around Australia and even see if Toronto was prepared to share some of their documentation. Do you remember the harbour authority in Toronto and we spoke to John—I cannot think of his name now. He consults in New South Wales from time to time. They are the sorts of people I would like to bring on board for this process.

Clause passed.

Clause 45.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I have a note on clause 45(1) where it talks about a proposal to prepare or amend the charter may be initiated by the minister or the commission acting on behalf of the minister. As it is your responsibility to do so, is it your direction for this to be undertaken, or will the commission instigate this?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think I have the option. What would matter is what I think is the best way of getting it moving. If I thought I had time to do it and I had some really good ideas that were worth pursuing as a starter, maybe I would do it. More than likely, it would be something I would charge the commission with doing.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Can I confirm that, because of the heavy involvement that local government will have in this, they will be part of the discussion about the development of the charter?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Absolutely.

Ms REDMOND: I am afraid that has prompted a question from me because, as I read subclause (1) of clause 45, it is only going to be initiated by the minister, because it is either the minister or the commission acting on behalf of the minister at the direction or with the approval of the minister. So it is only going to be the minister who really initiates that procedure.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The commission does the legwork. The minister is just pressing the go button, and this means that the minister has to do this because we must have a charter. There is no way around that.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I note that in subclause (2) it talks about consult with any other entity prescribed in other regulations so, presumably, local government could be included as one of those regulation areas.

Clause passed.

New clause 45A.

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

Amendment No 14 [Planning–1]—

Page 45, after line 27—Insert:

45A—Parliamentary scrutiny

(1) The Minister must, within 28 days after adopting the charter or an amendment to the charter, refer the charter or the amendment (as the case may be) to the ERD Committee.

(2) An instrument referred to the ERD Committee under this section must be accompanied by a report prepared by the Minister that sets out—

(a) in the case of an amendment—the reasons for the amendment; and

(b) information about the consultation that was undertaken in the preparation of the charter or the amendment (as the case may be); and

(c) any other material considered relevant by the Minister; and

(d) any other information or material prescribed by the regulations.

(3) The ERD Committee must, after receiving an instrument under subsection (1)—

(a) in the case of the charter—resolve to suggest amendments to the charter; and

(b) in the case of an amendment to the charter—

(i) resolve that it does not object to the amendment; or

(ii) resolve to suggest amendments to the amendment; or

(iii) resolve to object to the amendment.

(4) Subject to subsection (6), if, at the expiration of 28 days from the day on which the charter or an amendment was referred to the ERD Committee, the ERD Committee has not made a resolution under subsection (3), it will be conclusively presumed that the ERD Committee does not object to the charter or the amendment (as the case may be) and does not propose to suggest any amendments.

(5) Subject to subsection (6), if the period of 28 days referred to in subsection (4) would, but for this subsection, expire in a particular case between 15 December in 1 year and 15 January in the next year (both days inclusive), the period applying for the purposes of subsection (4) will be extended on the basis that any days falling on or between those 2 dates will not be taken into account for the purposes of calculating the period that applies under subsection (4).

(6) If the period applying under subsection (4), including by virtue of subsection (5), would, but for this subsection, expire in a particular case sometime between the day on which the House of Assembly is dissolved for the purposes of a general election and the day on which the ERD Committee is reconstituted at the beginning of the first session of the new Parliament after that election (both days inclusive), the period will be extended by force of this subsection so as to expire 28 days from the day on which the ERD Committee is so reconstituted.

(7) If an amendment is suggested under subsection (3)—

(a) the Minister may proceed to make such an amendment; or

(b) the Minister may report back to the ERD Committee that the Minister is unwilling to make the amendment suggested by the ERD Committee and, in such a case, the ERD Committee may—

(i) in the case that applies under subsection (3)(a)—resolve that it does not object to the charter as originally made, or resolve to object to the charter; and

(ii) in the case that applies under subsection (3)(b)—resolve that it does not object to the amendment as originally made, or resolve to object to the amendment.

(8) If the ERD Committee resolves to object to the charter or an amendment, copies of the charter or the amendment (as the case may be) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

(9) If either House of Parliament passes a resolution disallowing the charter or an amendment laid before it under subsection (8), then the charter or the amendment (as the case may be) will cease to have effect (and, in the case of an amendment, the charter will, from that time, apply as if it had not been amended by that amendment).

(10) A resolution is not effective for the purposes of subsection (9) unless passed in pursuance of a notice of motion given within 14 sitting days (which need not fall within the same session of Parliament) after the day on which the relevant instrument was laid before the House.

(11) The preceding subsections do not apply in a particular case if—

(a) the Minister has consulted with the ERD Committee before the charter, or an amendment to the charter, has been finalised; and

(b) the ERD Committee has resolved, on account of that consultation, that the charter or the amendment (as the case may be) need not be referred to the ERD Committee if or when it has been approved by the Minister.

Contrary to some of the naysayers, this is an example of where we are actually engaging with the parliament as well. We are saying, 'Look, parliament, you should have a look at this as well because we want everyone to be involved in this.'

Mr GRIFFITHS: I will seek clarification on the amendment, then. As I understand it, in the committee structure there is the ability for a minority report, because it does talk about requirements for the ERD to suggest amendments.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We are not giving it to the ERD Committee. We are just giving it an opportunity to be involved in this process, so everything that stands on that committee now in terms of—

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Subclause 7(b), the first line says 'the Minister may report back to the ERD Committee', not 'must', and 'must' is used in other places. Is there any opportunity for any occurrence if the minister decides not to report back to the committee?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think normally these things are put in permissive terms rather than mandatory terms. It is drafting style. These people have a style manual which they use.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

Mr GRIFFITHS: I have a question on (9). It states: 'If either House of Parliament passes a resolution disallowing the charter or an amendment laid before it…' Therefore, can I assume that the charter has a similar effect to a regulation and a disallowance motion on that? If that occurs, does the minister then have the authority to actually reintroduce it the next day?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: A bit like any other regulation, I guess. You go through the same process again, you have to start again.

New clause inserted.

Clause 46.

Ms REDMOND: There is a tiny little thing with the portal, and it is defined, 'The Chief Executive is to establish and maintain a website,' which is going to be called 'the portal.' I wonder how a website is able to maintain anything; I would have thought that was something a person responsible for the portal has to do under subclause (3). But that is just a technical, drafting thing.

My actual question is: what provision is made to accommodate those members of our community who are not familiar with the internet, as the minister is? Those members of the community may be reducing in number but they still exist, and I have an ongoing concern that I regularly have people come into my office who find that they are stopped from participating as full citizens in various aspects of our community because everything is now done online, and if they are not online—or even if they choose not to be—they are denied normal citizens' rights. What arrangements are made to accommodate those who may not be computer literate, for want of a better term?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will take that on notice and see what I can find out. I assume it is a matter of sheer practicality in terms of having multiple hardcopy and digital systems operating. This section, in fact, is evidence of the degree to which I have tried to be involved in this personally because originally this was called 'the planning portal', but I said, 'I don't know what that means.' That is why it is now called 'the planning website', and it defines 'portal'. So there you are.

Mr GRIFFITHS: If the name has changed from the SA planning portal, why does subclause (2) say the 'SA planning portal'? Should it not say 'the planning website'?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It's number 1.

Mr GRIFFITHS: So it is; I apologise. I do have some questions. I totally agree with this idea; I think the provision of information is a key one, but it will come at a cost. In previous answers you have talked about the fact that there are no finances available at the moment, and any implementation costs as they come through for the remainder of this year are part of a Mid-Year Budget Review request between you and the Treasurer to do things. Presumably local government will be heavily involved in this as well, so will there be a cost on the local government sector?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Again, we will have to work that out. However, further to the member for Heysen's last question, 49 does provide for making other forms information available. So the commission might determine to do a bunch of things to help the visually impaired or other people get hold of information, just to mention that.

I think it is a matter that will have to be worked out. I assume that if the councils are consumers of this service then, like any other consumer, they would be paying some sort of fee for service. However, that is a matter for conversation, I think.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I think 54—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, 54 talks about fees and charges, but there are considerable benefits and efficiencies for councils as well out of this. It is not like it is all one way.

Mr GRIFFITHS: There are some examples within the government's own electronic rollout of systems; indeed, they have been rather expensive.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Indeed.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Absolutely. In this case, is there an off-the-shelf version that the government is able to ensure exists or do you have to actually go out and enter into a contract to design a system?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We are getting into technical stuff, but I am hearing messages to the effect that this is more a matter of allowing existing systems to communicate with each other, as opposed to going out and buying a brand-new something. Technical stuff is not really my long suit, and if we can find any more information for you about that we will do so between the houses.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I know of examples within government departments where $400 million has been spent on technology and that is just it. That is just ridiculous to quote, but it is an example of where things can actually blow out. While we want the information to be available, we also want to ensure that there is some level of equity. You talk about fees and charges later on at clause 54. Is there the potential that on the basis of the costs associated with the implementation there is likely to be an increase in the fees applicable to building applications, for example, to attempt to recover these things, or is the cost of it going to be absorbed from Treasury funds?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is too early in the piece to be able to talk in detail about cost, but in general terms it is something like this: there is an establishment cost associated with getting this whole thing up and running. I think the way that is being viewed by all of us at the moment is that that is going to be a one-off initial capital investment by the state in establishing the scheme. Thereafter, there will be ongoing costs to keep the hamsters running around in the wheels, and that will be something that in general terms should be recovered through the provision of the service to individuals, and it would be on a cost recovery basis. But that is early days.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I do respect that it is not an immediate cost either; because of the implementation time lines on this, it is likely to be from the next budget period at best anyway, I presume.

Clause passed.

Clause 47.

Ms REDMOND: I just want to clarify. I think I know what it means, but it is another one of those wonderful wordings, that is, essentially:

…the SA planning database that produces…textual and spatial information that identifies the planning policies, rules and information that apply to specific places within the State under this Act.

I take it, minister, that what that means is that the intention is to create, through this portal system, an ability for anyone to go into the information online and locate any particular piece of land in the state and be able to identify where it is spatially within the state and what the planning regime is, in detail, that applies to that piece of land. Is that the intention?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Correct.

Clause passed.

Clause 48 passed.

Clause 49.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I know that I have had questions about the words 'may' or 'must' in the past, but the first line of this clause states that the commission 'may prepare and publish standards'. Why is it 'may'? I would have thought that with standards and the expectation they have they would want to actually publicise that.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised it is facilitating. It is the style that is picked up. Once upon a time we had to study this thing called Julius v Lord Bishop of Oxford, which said something about 'may means must' or 'must means may'.

Ms Redmond: No, it doesn't.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Well, it was something like that, 'Can means must', or—

Ms Redmond: No, 'shall'.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: 'Shall means will.' Anyway, it was something like that; I have not read it for a while, but that is what is happening here.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Subclause (6) states, 'The State Records Act 1997 does not apply to or in relation'. What does that mean? Why does the State Records Act not apply?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that it is something to do with the fact that these records need to be kept longer than would necessarily be the case if they were just treated as—

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It depends on the class of the record, that is the thing. If that is not the full answer about that, we will get back to you between the houses, but that is what I am told.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The requirements for this legislation are in excess of what State Records requirements are?

Clause passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There not being a quorum present, ring the bells.

A quorum having been formed: