Bills

Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 28 October 2015.)

Clause 50.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I have a question about certification and verification of information, and I will just put a question posed by the Master Builders Association, who say:

Given the absolute authority provided to the published versions of planning instruments in section 50, public availability of archived versions to ensure historic depth of information will allow planning participants to assess reasons behind different outcomes over time. Such an approach will also allow participants to be fully transparent about versions relied upon during the planning process.

Is that an option that will be considered, minister?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Could I just have the substance of the question again? Which bit in particular is the question directed to? Sorry, I did not follow it.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Given that the clause talks about information that will be published on the planning portal, I take the question to mean: is it that only the current version of the information is on the portal or is it that previous versions of information dealing with similar areas are also on the portal to give the flow of how things have been reached and what the current situation is?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I would need to check, but my expectation would be that the portal would reflect the position at the point in time at which the portal was interrogated. So, it would be a current record of what the rules are.

Clause passed.

Clause 51.

Mr GRIFFITHS: This question is from the Local Government Association. They ask whether confirmation is required about the extent to which an online system will be automated to make determinations about the category of the development; for example, is it based upon the information submitted by the applicant? If this is the intention, can consideration be given to how to handle the situation if the category attached to it is based upon that information and that comment from the applicant but it is later found that it should have been allocated to a different category of development and how will that be dealt with?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am sorry, but I cannot understand the question.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Let's say that a determination is made about the category of the development at the time of the application being lodged. I presume that much of that is based upon the self-assessment proposed as part of the application being lodged. If it is found that the category attached to that was incorrect, what action would be taken and how would that be treated?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: My expectation would be that that would be a matter which would be clarified in the regulations. That said, I will take that on notice and see whether there is anything further I can advise in that respect. Further to that, I am advised that the analogy that might be helpful is that the taxation department, for example, has a system whereby there is, in effect, automated decision-making based on certain information, and it is envisaged that, over time, this will increasingly deliver that sort of outcome.

Initially, it would be expected that it would be small class of things which were capable of that as the thing is first rolled out but that, as it becomes more sophisticated and more work is done, it would be expected that larger areas could be dealt with in that way. Again, I think that the answer does lie ultimately in the regulations. As I understand it, it is not expected that on day one we are going to have a completely automated decision-making process but that it would commence with a relatively small number of very clear things and that would gradually expand.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I appreciate the comments and I understand that there is a time factor on the implementation of it all. However, some concerns have been put to me about the potential for legal challenges based on the determination that has been given about the category attached to it. I understand every effort has been made to ensure that is not the case, but one of the industry groups has put that concern to me.

The CHAIR: Is that a question or a comment?

Mr GRIFFITHS: That was a comment. I have another question on behalf of the Master Builders Association. They seek confirmation that the online delivery of planning services provided for in clause 51 incorporates planning services related to building approvals, including the lodgement, assessment, issuance and registration of planning applications and approvals. They have a question about the definition of 'development', which is back within clause 3 at the very start. It would appear to indicate that this is the case but, given that the consolidation of planning processes for both development and building would deliver significant benefits in this reform process, they have a preference that the option is not overlooked. They want to make sure that is covered as part of what is being considered.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The particular option they are concerned about is what?

Mr GRIFFITHS: The online planning portal. Because it incorporates so many different areas and because there is a definition of development at the very start of the bill, and they do recognise that it brings about significant benefits, they want to make sure—I must admit, they are not very clear on this, minister, which does not help my cause. I think we might accept clause 51.

Clause passed.

Clause 52.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Notices are published in the Gazette, but the question posed to me is: why isn't this actually done in an electronic format also?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The Gazette is the official government organ for doing these things and it would be done in the normal way. Whether or not at some point the Gazette becomes an electronic product is an issue more about the Gazette than about this, if that makes any sense. Ultimately, I am sure the Gazette for all purposes will become a digital platform, I expect—

The CHAIR: On the interweb.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: On the interweb—but that particular thing will move at the pace that the Gazette itself moves at and has nothing particularly to do with this.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am interested in how this is going to fit within the freedom of information provision, which is—

The CHAIR: We are on clause 52.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, I know. We are onto the section on online delivery of planning services and then we have protected information, which is what we are discussing at the moment. Then it says in clause 53 that the Freedom of Information Act does not apply in relation to documents, etc. In relation to clause 52 first, what is the information protected against?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised this contemplates circumstances where it might be inappropriate for certain information about a proposal to be put up on the portal. For example, you might imagine a building which has a particular part of the building that is there for security purposes, or a bank vault or something of that nature. Would you be putting that up so that anybody who wanted to rob the place could just go on the portal and find out where to go? That is the sort of thing we are talking about.

Ms CHAPMAN: But do you have current provision in the planning laws to give the minister power to restrict access to this information?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: By regulation, I am advised.

Ms CHAPMAN: So why put it in the statute or propose it to be?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Normally I get the other question from the opposition; so, I have just been trying to help you where I can.

The CHAIR: Member for Bragg, you have had your three questions already. What are we going to do here, because we have got 180-odd clauses? If we go carte blanche we are going to be here for ever, and three is normal.

Ms CHAPMAN: I will make it a supplementary to the last answer, if you like—

The CHAIR: Okay; a supplementary.

Ms CHAPMAN: —in relation to the regulation or statute.

The CHAIR: We are prepared to do a supplementary in the interests of trying to be conciliatory, but we just cannot have unlimited numbers of questions on every single clause.

Ms CHAPMAN: I appreciate that, Madam Chair. Given that you are offering it in the statute, why then have we got a provision under subclause (1)(c) which is to provide for regulation, because I am trying to identify the extent upon which your power is going to be in statute for these two—confidentiality for personal information and security (one of which you have given an example, minister)—and now by regulation. So, what else is proposed?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: This is intended to be a piece of legislation which will be functional for a couple of decades and which will serve our needs. We know, and we have identified the one that we discussed a moment ago as something that was very likely to be an issue—

Ms CHAPMAN: Paragraph (b).

The Hon. J.R. RAU: In paragraph (b). This is simply to say: if something has not been thought of presently and it becomes something which should be added to the list, then we have the capacity by regulation to do so.

The CHAIR: Any further questions from you, member for Goyder?

Mr GRIFFITHS: I have a clarification, minister. I note that the bill talks about a maximum penalty in subclause (3) of $20,000. Is that an identical figure that is currently in the regulations?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that the penalties have been increased across the board. What the present one is, we would have to check, but it is in the regulations.

Clause passed.

Clause 53.

Ms CHAPMAN: This clause deals with the Freedom of Information Act not applying, which does appear curious given that this is supposed to be the new, open, transparent process. Can I just identify, first: is it intended that the Freedom of Information Act is not to apply to documents, etc., produced under this section (which is the online delivery of planning services), or is it to be across the board in respect of all documents received, created or held under this division by the commission?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There are a couple of things. First of all, this replaces regulations under the existing provisions of the act, and what we are saying is this: if this information is sitting there in the public domain on the portal that is the place you can get it, and FOI should not be used to have people scurrying around obtaining things that someone can easily find by pressing a button and finding them. That is the reason for it.

What we are saying is: what is on the portal already is already available to anyone who wants to look at it, and therefore there is no need for that to be the subject of FOI searches, nor is there any need for FOI officers to spend their time trawling through the portal in order to satisfy an FOI request when an individual seeking that information is perfectly capable of making that search themselves.

Ms CHAPMAN: So why then, minister, is it even in the act when already under the FOI Act there is provision for that material to not be delivered on the basis that it is available online in the public domain which is already in the FOI Act?

It just seems curious to me that we are adding into this bill a provision which is already in practice and which is used when people, of course, try to get documents under FOI. They have searched the alleged electronic place of pushing a button and finding it, and, of course, it is either shut down, closed, removed for the day, difficult to find, etc., and then it is provided in a letter to say, 'Go and have a look at it on the website' at such and such a place. Why do we need it in this act when it is already under the freedom of information law?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will get some further information on that, but it has been suggested to me that possibly the powers of release under the Freedom of Information Act might contradict, in particular, the protected provisions in section 52. Therefore, it makes it clear that whatever the FOI has to say does not prevail over section 52 determinations.

Ms CHAPMAN: In respect of the FOI exemption, in the event that the material is not available electronically, how is that then to be produced? That is, if it has been on the portal and it has then been removed—so, it has been published electronically and has existed in that form but is then removed—will the document then be able to be produced or, in fact, produced consistent with an FOI application?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Again, my understanding is that the intention is that the material which is on the portal is to be protected in this way, but I will seek advice as to whether or not material which was on the portal and was subsequently removed might be captured.

The CHAIR: This is a supplementary to that last question?

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes. In relation to the FOI generally, in looking at the bill and the new planning commission—and clearly it is not an exempt agency under the FOI Act, otherwise it would be specified somewhere—is every document or record proposed to be held by the commission under this new regime except for this clause which is the online delivery of planning services section, subject to the same rules that apply under FOI as the current planning department?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised it is only this bit where the prevailing rules are disturbed.

Clause passed.

Clause 54.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Of itself, it is obvious that I had a variety of opinions about this one: fees and charges. Local government put some concerns to me, and I have had feedback from the Environmental Defenders Office, Community Alliance SA and the Master Builders Association. At the very start it states that, 'The Chief Executive may…impose fees and charges.' I have to ask the obvious question because these will, potentially, be billed to local government upon a bill that the chief executive delivers to councils: is there any ability for negotiation and discussion about what the makeup of these fees will be?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, there is, and this is a matter that has been raised with my office by the Local Government Association, and we intend to talk to them about that. So, the answer is yes.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Can I just seek some guarantees on some time frames, minister? I did forward through to the LGA some of the amendments in regard to 155 onwards, and they tell me there has not been much discussion in recent times with your department about, particularly, the infrastructure levy area. Is this intended to be part of the discussions between now and the other place sitting when the bill will be debated at further length?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, that is correct. In summary, the LGA have come up with a number of propositions which basically talk about there being avenues for consultation, in effect. And, by and large, those matters are not matters that we are likely to have a great difference about.

That is a very general proposition, and of course I do not mean it to be taken as that everything they have said we agree with necessarily but, inasmuch as the LGA is saying, 'Look, these things will impact on council. We think we should be somebody that you speak to about it', I consider that to be a perfectly reasonable proposition, and that is how we intend to proceed.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Can we seek clarification on the timing of that? Because council set their budgets each June, and that sort of thing, is this intended to be a cost implication from early next year on the basis of the legislation being placed?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No. I think it is important for us to understand that the lead time in the preparation of this thing is going to be not counted in weeks but possibly a year or two. So, assuming the bill passes more or less in this form, there will be a lot of time for everybody to be involved in conversations about this, so councils are not going to be put in a position where they are suddenly hit with unbudgeted costs in the forthcoming year.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I appreciate the confirmation of that by the minister. If we can go to subclause 3(a) where it says that fees, charges or contributions may be set on a differential basis, I am looking for some clarification on that. Particularly, is that on the basis of a metropolitan versus regional area, or is it CBD versus suburban versus regional? How is that considered?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is contemplated, as I understand it, that there may be a differential rate based on, for example, the number or volume of transactions, so if you have a very high volume user it might be that it is reasonable for there to be a differential rate for the high volume user, in other words, perhaps different transactional rates for them. Again, that would be something that would be discussed. Just because the capacity for that is there does not necessarily mean, ultimately, it will be used. It is just to provide the option for that to occur.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Supplementary.

The CHAIR: Well, you are pushing it now.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Sorry, as a follow-up to that.

The CHAIR: A supplementary to the supplementary to the supplementary.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Just to make sure: so a higher volume user, therefore, the more it is used, potentially the lesser fee per transaction.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am just throwing that up as an example of what might be; I am not saying that is what will be. I am just saying that it might be argued that that makes sense. An example that was just brought to my attention is that the difference between, say, Walkerville and Marion is substantial, even though they are both metropolitan.

Ms CHAPMAN: I will come back to the councils in a minute but, as I read this, both the fees and charges that the chief executive will set with your approval will be able to be varied on a differential basis, and also the contribution made by councils as to whatever that is going to be can vary. The way I see the latter is that if the Streaky Bay Council uses it once a year, they will be paying potentially the top dollar. If the Onkaparinga Council uses it 100 times in a week, they will get a cheaper rate.

I understand how that works, but in relation to the fees themselves, what basis is there for a differential rate to be imposed on the implementation of those fees to the world at large, whether I go into the portal and am charged a fee for the provision of information, or whether the UDIA or the Property Council, or some other reputable body on behalf its members goes in, or a large property developer, or the Burnside Residents' Association?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The answer is: I am not saying this is going to occur, and there would be a conversation with the people who would be involved in the thing to try and set a new fee structure. All I am saying is that one possible outcome of that would be a differential fee structure. I'm not saying it will be a differential fee structure: I am saying that is one possible outcome, that is all, and there will be consultation about this. This is not going to pop out of nowhere.

Ms CHAPMAN: At the moment, minister, isn't the situation that for the purposes of the fee being set, it is set, and it applies the same to everybody, and there may be power for a relief of the payment in exceptional circumstances (they are my words) and, obviously, sometimes a submission can be put to suggest that the applicant ought to be relieved of that obligation. Obviously, ministers have power to be able to deal with those extraordinary circumstances. Why is this happening for this?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I emphasise again: we are not saying this will be the outcome. We're saying that—

Ms Chapman: Why is it there at all?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Because it might be a useful way to proceed. Let me give you a hypothetical: if, for instance, the minister is always forgiving a particular group of people but they have to be done on an individual basis, why not actually have a regulation that says these people, who the minister is presently doing one by one and forgiving, are going to be classed as a group of people who are not going to be paying the fee, if that is the case—if that is the case. I do not think we can take this any further. The thing is it is there as an alternative which may or may not be used by the minister of the day after consultation with people using the service.

Ms CHAPMAN: The potential problem, minister, of course, is that you or any subsequent successor to you is in a position to be able to relieve people of the obligation to meet the pay in an inequitable way—mate's rates—and we want to know the basis upon which it is there. Whilst you say you are trying to deal with all future contingency, did Mr Hayes' review recommend it or ask for it? Was there a particular group in the community who said they want to have the option on this other than the usual practice, which is that the fee is set, it is gazetted, everyone knows what it is, and everyone pays unless, as I say, there is an application made in extraordinary circumstances?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think I have answered this question three times.

Mr GRIFFITHS: If I may also—

The CHAIR: You are already up to three and two supplementaries on this clause.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I apologise, Chair, but it is an important thing just for clarification, because I do consider that the minister's comments will guide how things occur in the future.

The CHAIR: Well, I am in the house's hands. I am here as a servant of the house, but if we are going to have unlimited numbers of questions on every clause we could be in here for a long time, so can we apply some discipline to what we are doing?

Mr GRIFFITHS: Sure.

The CHAIR: This is your last question on clause 54. It will be a doozy.

Ms Chapman: It should, if we get an answer, of course.

The CHAIR: Well, I cannot make the minister do what you want, I'm sorry.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, the principle about fee setting, is it based upon a cost of recovery basis or will there be some level of profit attempted to be derived from it? I am not sure how you would even qualify that. Is it only on a return for what the cost of operations is?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: As I understand it, the principle would be certainly no more than cost recovery, and it might be that the fees do not actually recover all of the costs. There are two elements to the cost. The first one is the initial establishment cost, if you like, the big balloon at the beginning. I think government accepts that that balloon is going to be basically a state budget issue, but by the same token the ongoing running of the scheme, once it is settled, should not be that the scheme and its users are subsidised by the broader taxpayer unnecessarily. It depends what you are talking about. That bubble at the beginning, I do not think there is any question about that. That is something that is just an investment that the state is going to have to make to establish this, just like you do with establishing anything.

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. The idea is that it's no more than cost recovery; it cannot be any more than cost recovery.

The CHAIR: You can squeeze in one more.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Thank you for your indulgence. I refer to subclause (4) where the last word is 'debt'. If the council refuses or does not pay a bill that is forwarded, it will be recoverable by the chief executive as a debt. I am not aware of a lot of occasions where the impasse has existed between state and local government, given that the state controls what local government's actions are. Is this put in again as an example of a possibility that may need to be there in case there is an issue that needs to be addressed later?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, and I would envisage and hope this never occurs, but it just makes it clear that these costs, if incurred, are expected to be paid.

Clause passed.

Clause 55.

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

Amendment No 15 [Planning–1]—

Page 49, line 9—After 'requirements' insert '(including requirements that can be met in a variety of ways)'

Amendment carried.

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

Amendment No 16 [Planning–1]—

Page 49, after line 24—Insert 'or'

(c) in any case, so as to negate the need to obtain planning consent for a change in the use of land under the terms of the relevant provisions of the Planning Rules (insofar as may be required under the other provisions of this Act).

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am not necessarily against it, but I just have to question whether the minister can explain the reason for this amendment.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: What we are trying to do here is deal with an issue that has been brought to my attention, which is that in some places councils have been superimposing additional requirements above and beyond the building rules. That particular amendment was to make clear that the building rules did not dispense with the need for planning approval. We are saying that, as part of planning approval, you cannot muck around with the building rules, but just because you are within the building rules does not mean you do not have to bother getting planning approval.

Amendment carried.

Mr GRIFFITHS: This talks about principles, Chair, which I consider quite important, because I am a person who believes that, while there does need to be an overarching set of codes and all that sort of thing and everything that is put in place, there needs to be an opportunity for some form of local vision to be established. So, the comments posed to me are that one of the principles should be to provide scope for local variations that reflect the special and unique local character—that is under clause 1. Because you talk about 'any other principles prescribed by the regulations', is it possible to include those sorts of words?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is provided for in here, because we envisaged that there would be a relatively concise library of policies which would have the capability of—I think the term is overlays or underlays or zones and subzones. There is capacity here for there to be some local nuance added, but not so much as to completely take the basic library code into a completely different place.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I thank the minister for that. If I can just ask a question on subclause (1)(b), which states that 'rules should be based on clear performance outcomes'. My question then becomes: who determines what those outcomes are? Is that the responsibility of the state planning commission?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It will be a code. So the code itself, when it is formulated, would be a code expressed in language of performance rather than prescriptive language saying, 'All windows are going to be green and all woodwork has to be painted blue,' or that sort of thing. It would be in terms of performance criteria and you would encourage the person who is doing the work to put forward proposals to actually meet the performance criteria, as opposed to being given a whole bunch of prescriptive guidelines.

Ms CHAPMAN: Subclause (4) makes provision for the applicability not to deal with state heritage place or local heritage place. Could the minister explain what is the situation with respect to those state heritage places or, indeed, local heritage places? My understanding is that during the negotiations of this matter there was proposed consideration for amendments to this legislation to enable adaptive re-use of our heritage stock, which is an important part of the assets of South Australia which, sadly, are frequently left derelict and certainly, from our side of the house, we are keen to have dealt with. If the principles are not to apply to this when are we going to see some reform in relation to it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I tried to explain this at the beginning of this debate. There are a couple of things to be said to that question. The first thing is that we have deliberately not attempted to make a wholesale change to rules relating to heritage in this bill, and I explained that at the beginning. The reason is because were we to have done that (a) this job would have been much bigger and (b) there is a whole range of issues which are quite particular to heritage which would then have been attracted into this conversation, so we are doing that as a separate body of work. That is point number one. That will come, I hope, midway through next year and then we can have a detailed conversation about heritage in particular. This bill deliberately puts a light touch on heritage because that is a separate piece of work.

The second point I would make is that I do understand the issues about adaptive re-use and we are interested in those. I am looking at some sort of amendment in this bill, not particular to heritage, which would provide a head power for the type of adaptive re-use that I think the deputy leader is talking about to be provided for within the codes in the legislation. The adaptive re-use of not just heritage buildings but all buildings which have passed their optimal use, is a very important matter which I have been very concerned about for some time.

Part of the solution will lie in planning rules; part of the solution is one that I have been attempting to get on the national agenda—and the Premier is taking this up at COAG—and that is the question of disability access where there are very prescriptive rules which have the effect of basically imposing significant capital costs on what might be otherwise relatively minor but very useful developments. That needs to be looked at.

We are looking at the national building rules, because they are another issue, and we are also looking at things relating to fire regulations. There are three or four different areas where work is being done simultaneously but it is my intention to have something in here which can deal with, in a general sense, some sort of scalable proposal to encourage adaptive re-use of older buildings whether they are heritage or not.

Ms CHAPMAN: Are those matters on the COAG agenda for the next meeting and, if so, when is it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. The business that has to be on the COAG agenda is the disability access proposition because that is a federal act, and it is on the COAG agenda. As to exactly when COAG will get around to finally dealing with that I do not know; that is out of my hands. However, I do know that, because I have spoken to state counterparts of mine around the country, the concern I have about that is shared around the country. South Australia, I think, has put that on the COAG agenda. My expectation is there will be general support around the country for some refinement of those rules. As to exactly when that occurs, that is in the hands of COAG, not in my hands.

Can I also say that, if those opposite are interested in this issue, there is one piece of legislation in the parliament presently, in the other place, which, if it were to pass, would be of great assistance, and that is, for the information of members, the Local Government (Building Upgrade Amendments) Amendment Bill, which does actually do some work in that place and would be of great benefit.

Ms CHAPMAN: So, is this a COAG-proposed meeting for you as minister or the Premier?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, COAG does not concern itself with the likes of me. This is for leaders, so this is a matter for others.

Ms CHAPMAN: Just to clarify it then, your understanding is somebody has put it on the Premier's COAG meeting list, and it is yet to be determined about when it might be dealt with.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, as I understand it, the Premier, as the leader of South Australia, has taken a proposition to COAG and asked COAG to think about this matter. It is, as a result of him having brought it to them, on their agenda somewhere as a matter to consider. When they actually get to it and what they do about it is not something over which I have any control. I am simply making the point that, to the extent that South Australia is able to do anything about this, that is the appropriate forum and we have taken it to that forum.

Ms CHAPMAN: Some might say, minister, that that is just delaying, by putting it into the bigger picture issue in relation to disability reform, any kind of practical application here in South Australia. I am not being critical of the Premier putting it on the list, whenever that might be reached, but if it is, as you suggest, being advanced in that forum, and that is the most appropriate or necessary forum in which to do it first, then could you come back to the house with details of when it went on the agenda and an update to the house as to what the progress is as to the consideration of any amendments, draft bill, investigations or the like which are actually happening?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will try to find that out, but can I make something clear to the deputy leader: I am sure she knows it, but this is a federal act of parliament.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 56.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I note this clause provides:

(1) The Minister may prepare state planning policies.

I know that is obviously going to occur, so I know why it is there, but the Local Government Association has put to me that, given it has had forever a very strong involvement in the preparation with communities of state planning policies, does this clause extend to the fact, or can it extend to the fact, that local government will be involved in the development and preparation of state planning policies?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, the intention is to involve local government. Some of the amendments which will probably be dealt with either a bit later today or between the houses will pick up that point with a view to making it clear that local government has to be engaged in this process.

Mr Griffiths: I'm not sure I've seen those.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, they're not—when were they completed?

An honourable member: Amendments to come.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am comforted by subclause (4), minister, which provides:

A state planning policy is not to be taken into account for the purposes of any assessment or decision with respect to an application for a development authorisation under this Act.

I take this to be, but want it confirmed, that nothing that the government publishes in respect of its intention or goals or aspirations in this policy space is to be taken into account for the purposes of assessment. In fact, it specifically excludes, really, a wish list of the government, a policy indication to the public of South Australia, as to what it would like to do rather than actually impose any obligation on either the commissioner or any of the panels and new structures that are about to make the determination of planning authorisation.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Subclause (4) says that.

Ms CHAPMAN: My question, then, is about the new South Australia's Multiple Land Use Framework, which has been published this week and sent to me and, I expect, other members of parliament and other organisations. It has a foreword from the Premier, and a letter from a chief executive, and sets out what appears to be the government's answer to its priorities in multiple land use of, primarily, rural property, it seems, or oceans, given the example used. I am not sure whether land is now to include oceans but it certainly refers to Spencer Gulf and its multiple use with ships and fish and researchers and everyone else.

In any event, it sets out this aspirational target. It has gone out for consultation to be answered in November/December; I got mine this week. I am not quite sure when the time is, but I imagine it is a couple of weeks' time.

Mr Griffiths: 16 December.

Ms CHAPMAN: 16 December—shamefully short. Nevertheless, it is a document which the Premier tells us is consistent with his objectives for future development in the state and what he talks about as being smart and environmentally sustainable, blah, blah, blah. The letter invites 'you and your organisation', and I point out that the people of Bragg or the people of South Australia whom I represent are not an organisation and I think it is insulting, frankly, to be sent a roneoed letter in that form.

Let me get to paragraph 3, which says that the document seeks to outline South Australia's philosophy on land, land access and land use change, minimise land use conflict and provide greater certainty for industry, communities and regulators regarding land use. It goes on to say it also seeks to support better outcomes for communities by increasing transparency and consistency in land use decision-making.

The point I would like to have clarified is: if it is to do all these things (identify clarity, transparency, etc. in the decision-making in respect of land use), why is a policy document qualified by having it not applicable for development authorisation? Is it the case that this is really just a pamphlet that is of no effect whatsoever and which has no imposition on the planning laws that are to apply?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I understand the question and I think the best way to explain it is this. Incidentally, that particular piece of work is something I understand PIRSA is doing.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am just explaining it is a piece of work being done by PIRSA. The point basically is this: this is saying (and I think I have got this) that, if the particular code applying to your property says something, then it is no good pointing to the state planning high policy document as some reason to say that the thing which is actually applying to your property does not.

Ms CHAPMAN: In short, what is the point of having a state policy, other than to have an excuse to put out pamphlets and glossy brochures and talk about all the sustainable development, blah, blah, blah, if it is to have no import or purpose, particularly by putting it in the statute that is proposed, if it is to have no influence or capacity to change that? Why are we having clause 56 at all?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The document that the deputy leader is referring to is not actually the document that clause 56 is talking about.

Ms CHAPMAN: Minister, let me put this to you, and this is the third question

The CHAIR: No, you have had three really long questions.

Ms CHAPMAN: To be fair, it is suggesting that this does not apply.

The CHAIR: No; we need you to be concise, so if the last supplementary could be a precise question.

Ms CHAPMAN: I thought my questions had been fairly short to date.

The CHAIR: No. I am not sure what we are using as the yardstick.

Ms CHAPMAN: Perhaps on this clause they have been a little bit longer.

An honourable member interjecting:

The CHAIR: She is not getting fired up at all. This is the short supplementary to the last question.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is the minister actually saying that this document, because it has been put out by PIRSA, prefaced in relation to the development of land, has not been a matter which has come to your attention as the Minister for Planning? That is, that it is another department. This is a policy document on multiple land use framework for a large part of South Australia, from Woomera to the marine parks—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The answer is: in terms of this legislation it is not a state planning policy, it is something else. It is very important. It has been worked on by PIRSA, but in terms of this section it is not what is referred to as a state planning policy. The other point (a fairly straightforward point) is, if your zoning says, with respect to your property, you can do X, the point of the provision that everyone is referring to is that it is no good arguing to the contrary on the basis of the state planning policy.

Mr PEDERICK: In relation to state planning policies, minister, and I noted in your answer to the member for Goyder that you would be consulting local councils, and if that happens that will be good, but I wonder what consultation has been had with councils in the proposed environment and food production area boundary, which extends, on my understanding of this map, right out to Boundary Road in The Rural City of Murray Bridge boundary, joining the Karoonda East Murray council, and takes in another council in my area, the Alexandrina Council, and certainly others in the member for Finniss's area, like Yankalilla, and there will be councils affected in the member for Kaurna's area—

The Hon. J.R. Rau: They're already affected.

Mr PEDERICK: Okay, they are already affected, that is fine. What I am talking about is other councils, what consultation has been had with those other councils, not just the ones to the east and south but also the ones to the north of Adelaide?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It has been made fairly clear that there was going to be an environment and food production zone around the city. It has been made clear many times, and I have had meetings with the LGA about this on multiple occasions where it has been made clear, what the basic idea was. I explained to them that three-quarters of the map was already clear because we have the McLaren Vale area, which is already set, we have the Hills Face Zone, which is already set, we have Spencer Gulf, which is already set, and we have the Barossa protection zone, which is already set. So, the only question was: where the line went from the Barossa across to the gulf, and a map has been provided that explains that.

If you are asking about what happens behind that, each one of those councils has (within it) townships. Those townships currently have existing boundaries. Those existing boundaries may or may not yet be rezoned for development, but they do have existing boundaries. All that map does is acknowledge where those boundaries are and reflects the reality of where those boundaries are. That is all it does. Assuming that becomes the final position, it has zero impact on activity in the area which is not in the townships, other than to say the township will not expand to consume that area, that is all.

Mr PEDERICK: The nub of the question, minister, was whether you consulted councils, and I would say not with that answer, but you can refute that if you like in a minute. What does this mean, for instance, with the ability to create lifestyle blocks, especially along the River Murray flats, where a lot of them have gone out of production with the River Murray swamps, or in other areas close to places like Murray Bridge?

What will happen to proposed industrial development, such as feed mills or chicken sheds, which is obviously a food production thing? What happens with that sort of development under this zoning? Murray Bridge council has several zones they were hoping to open up, where there are, in the old language, five and 10-acre lifestyle blocks that they want to develop. Also, what happens to areas that already have approval but have not submitted full plans; for example, the Gifford Hill site that has the potential for about 3,000 blocks, which is the new Murray Bridge racecourse site? I have a lot of issues with that but, to me, it is outrageous that we only have this when we are well past clauses 5 and 7, where we could have debated this earlier.

I note that we have had 88 amendments tabled by the government anyway, so it shows how much disarray this bill is in. This, to me—and I do not want to be alarmist—looks like it is going to block virtually every development in a huge area. I do not believe that Boundary Road, which abuts the Karoonda East Murray area, is as vital a food production area as some people think. I will say that they do grow food out there and they are very good constituents, but we are not talking about land with the same value (and the farmers out there will acknowledge this) as land per se at Roseworthy or land that is under this very building that we stand on.

I am extremely concerned, as is the mayor of Murray Bridge—I have only been able to have a brief chat with him regarding this—about what this proposed boundary will do as far as development blocking out all of these kinds of development into the future, with the state government deciding to give us access to this map about a third of the way through the committee stage of this bill.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There are a few things that need to be said in response to that. The first thing is: I do not know whether the member has been following this debate from the beginning, but I have made it clear from the very beginning that it was my intention that once this thing was put to the parliament I was going to use that as an opportunity for all of the interested people—all of them—to look at it and come back and talk to me.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! Minister.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Thank you. And—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Bragg, I have asked for order.

Mr Pederick: You've just submitted 14 more amendments.

The CHAIR: Member for Hammond, goodness me!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: If the member for Hammond can just calm down a bit. I explained to the parliament when this was introduced that the method we would use would be to put the bill in the parliament, talk to everybody who was interested in it—and a lot of people have been talking to us about it—and we would, in this house, move government amendments. I said that on day one. I am not embarrassed about moving amendments; I told everybody I would be moving amendments, and those amendments have been moved in response to people making representations, which we have considered and decided are worthy representations. So much for the disarray.

What is happening is what we said we were going to do from the beginning, which is actually to debate this bill and engage with the relevant people simultaneously and do all the hard work in here so that, when it goes somewhere else, they can just say, 'Well, they've done all the work now' and they can just smile at it. That is the first thing. So much for the disarray.

The second point is the question about industrial uses: no effect whatsoever. As to—you have a euphemism for it, I have a different descriptor—hobby farms, they have already been zoned for residential. From the perspective of agriculture, and probably horticulture as well, they have been rendered useless by the existing divisions that exist. They are not large enough, in other words, to be a viable anything in the sense of being a commercial, productive piece of land.

My point is that they are already rezoned so they are already within township zones or surrounding township zones. They are acknowledged. We are not retrospectively unzoning those things to something which they previously were. If anybody is coming around to you saying they are zoned for—I think the euphemism is—rural living, you can say, 'If you were rural living, you still are. You are not going back to being a paddock.' Rural living is not what is being protected. What is being protected is agricultural land which is not basically disposed for housing which does not include rural living because that is disposed for housing. What you need to do is look carefully at what the current township boundaries are, including so-called rural living, and I think you will find they are preserved.

Mr PEDERICK: You still have not answered the question on whether you have had any consultation with the local governments in my area, and from you not answering it, I would say no. We only came across this document last week. You say it is not in disarray, but how do people know whether they are going to be involved or not? My local mayor only found out when I contacted him today about these potentials. I still have not had any clarity in regard to Gifford Hill and I am assuming with your industrial answer that that means whether there are industrial developments on land that is presently farming land, but I also note—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, I am not saying that at all and I will just be clear about that. I am saying that nothing we are doing is going to change one way or the other whether any particular bit of land out in that protection area is going to be used for industrial purpose or not. We are not changing anything.

Mr PEDERICK: But you have called this a proposed environment and food production area. The question I am raising is: if someone comes in regard to this particular thing or if someone wants to build, say, 20 chicken sheds, which is quite a viable opportunity in my area—

The Hon. J.R. Rau: No problem.

Mr PEDERICK: —or if there is maybe another development, such as a feed mill proposal or it might even be an industrial park. There is a lot of light industry in Murray Bridge. The thing that concerns me when we talk about the infill of, let's say, Murray Bridge is that:

This boundary sets only to constrain the division of land and requires that no new allotments can be created for residential purposes and no new allotments can be created for any other purpose without concurrence of the planning commission.

So I assume that if our five acre or 10-acre blocks (or two hectare or four hectare for the newbies) get cut up, they will not have the ability to be developed without the authority of the planning commission. I still want an answer on whether any of these local governments have been advised about this boundary.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The boundary that is here was the subject of extensive consultation with local government in the lead-up to the publication of the 30-year plan some five years ago.

Mr Pederick: That is the 30-year plan. It has nothing to do with it.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It has a great deal to do with this.

The CHAIR: Member for Hammond. I am calling you to order.

Ms Chapman: You're joking.

The CHAIR: I am not joking. I am calling him to order. I am asking the house to observe standing orders and to listen to debate in silence.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Secondly, can I make it clear again that the Local Government Association has been involved in this. They are the peak body and I am entitled to assume that they have discussions with their constituent members about these matters. I say again, before the member for Hammond and other people become agitated about this matter, that this is not changing existing township boundaries. It is not changing—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The CHAIR: The member for Bragg is called to order.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The CHAIR: The member for Finniss is called to order.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The fact is that—

Mr Pengilly: Get him back on track.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I make this—

Mr Pengilly: Answer the question.

The CHAIR: Order, member for Finniss. I can follow the debate, so you must be able to, too.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The member for Finniss should know this. He would be aware that if land is presently zoned for rural living, if you want to do something other than rural living you have to change the zone.

Mr Pederick: Yes, that's right. That's correct.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Correct. And there is a process to change the zone.

Mr Pederick: But this is ruling out that process.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, it is not.

Mr Pederick: This document is ruling it out.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is not.

The CHAIR: Member for Hammond.

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

The CHAIR: If the member for Goyder has a question, he should stand up and ask it.

An honourable member interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! The member for Goyder has a question. Let's hear it.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I answer the question?

The CHAIR: No.

An honourable member: I think he should be able to finish his answer.

The CHAIR: Well, this might help us.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Does it prevent subdivisions from occurring? I understand from the principle that zoning is in place and existing rights are preserved. You have talked about chicken farms and that sort of stuff and you said, 'Yes, that's okay.' That is what I believe you said. What if it involves a subdivision of land to create an allotment for that activity to take place, though?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not know if this has been captured on the record. I was asked about chicken farms; I was asked about feed lots. I could be asked about piggeries; I could be asked about any number of things. The answer to that question is: provided the zoning permits that now, nothing I am doing is going to change that at all. That does not mean I am actually enabling that to happen now if it could not happen now, just so that you are really clear on that. If the zoning now for rural land near Murray Bridge is that you can grow crops or you can grow vegetables or you can have a piggery—

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: Or subdivision.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Or subdivision, yes, but let's stick with the industrial bit first. If that is what it says now, nothing is going to change. They can still do all that stuff. The only thing that is restricted is the cutting up of rurally zoned land and turning it into residential subdivisions; that is all.

Ms Chapman: Or new allotments.

The CHAIR: Order! Member for Bragg.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: New allotments, with the permission of the planning commission.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! The member for Bragg is going to really push me hard. Before you go any further, does that answer your question, member for Goyder?

Mr GRIFFITHS: Well, no.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! I do not need your help.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The reason I asked the question is that, using the Gifford Hill example provided by the member for Hammond, with 10,000 new people going into the area, there have to be employment opportunities created as part of that residential opportunity that is going to be there also. It is important for me to be able to relay to the people who talk to me that the regulations or the laws that will be enacted as part of this debate will ensure that opportunity exists for job creation and for job opportunities to be developed on land that is not currently zoned for that purpose, for a more broadacre area.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The answer to that is yes. We are not trying to restrict employment related development, provided that the zoning permits it. I will give you an example. If you have land adjacent to a township, it might be that the current policy says you cannot put an abattoir there, for instance—for good reason. We are not disturbing that, but it might also say that you can put a feed lot there, you can put a mill there, you can do any number of things. We are not disturbing that either.

In fact, we are not trying to discourage any form of employment related development; quite the contrary. The only impact here is in relation to what amounts to the chopping up of greenfield areas and converting what is presently land which is set aside for either industrial or, more particularly, agriculture or horticulture or whatever, into residential subdivisions. That is the only thing that is being touched by this.

The CHAIR: Okay. That is everyone's questions exhausted.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am just seeking clarification. I pose this question on the basis that the area to the northern boundary includes part of the Goyder electorate, so I do have some vested interest in getting some clarification. As a person who has lived in the regions all my life, I am desperate for an environment to exist that allows regional communities to grow in physical number. Therefore, by association, I understand the impacts upon the size of development in most cases because of the traditional development styles that are used. However with this legislation that is to be put in place, unless it is currently zoned for residential purposes there is no scope for a regional community to grow that is within this environment—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is not quite right; unless the current township boundary, which it may or may not at the moment, corresponds with all of the available land to be rezoned. To give an example, Two Wells has a township boundary, and I do not know whether every single bit of land within that township boundary has yet been rezoned. It is earmarked to ultimately be rezoned, and the map reflects that there is room within that township boundary for land which is not yet rezoned to be rezoned.

The protected area, if you like, which wraps around the metropolitan city area, does not extend as far as Ardrossan or anything like that, so none of this that we are talking about here is extending a long way around the state. What it is intending to do is to offer some protection to those townships which are within sufficient proximity to the metropolitan area that they might be adversely impacted by planning decisions inside that metropolitan area. If you go to the Barossa, for instance, there are areas around the townships there which are able to rezoned; in fact, every time any of those are rezoned I hear about it because someone is complaining about grapevines being pulled out.

The point is that there is still quite a bit of area around existing townships which is earmarked for future growth, and that area may or may not yet be rezoned. So there is room for future growth for all those townships that are in that buffer zone. Beyond that buffer zone—Ardrossan, for example—this has no impact whatsoever, and whether Ardrossan is going to move is a matter to be dealt with by that township in due course. We are talking here, in the North in particular, about places like Two Wells, Virginia, Mallala—

Mr Griffiths: Kapunda.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Kapunda is in, I think; yes. That is what we are talking about, in that northern area.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, you have talked about development as envisaged, but is there an outer window on that? I am a believer in decentralisation; as you said, I would love to see regional communities grow even more. Is there an opportunity within this for a review to take place in five or 10 years—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Absolutely. There is a five-year review built into the legislation and that five-year review would be able to review all those things. So, yes; there is a requirement of a five-year review.

The CHAIR: Member for Hammond, if you have one burning supplementary to something I will allow it.

Mr PEDERICK: I just seek some clarity on a couple of things, Chair, and I thank you for your forbearance. I am interested in the Murray Bridge racecourse site for obvious reasons, but I want a definite answer as to whether Gifford Hill is protected under its development application status. Also, are rural living blocks involved in the minister's thoughts as far as anything that is zoned rural (and I mean those small two-hectare or five-acre blocks, or maybe four-hectare or 10-acre blocks)?

I would like to make the comment that 45 years ago, or around that time, as I have mentioned in this house before, the former member for Norward, the then premier the Hon. Don Dunstan, was going to build a new city at Monarto.

Ms Chapman: Monarto is dead.

The CHAIR: Order—

Mr PEDERICK: That was possibly a reasonable idea, although some say that perhaps the government should have looked at just expanding Murray Bridge. In the grand scheme of things it was probably a good idea, but a range of people would not move out there so that was the end of that, and it caused a lot of unrest and a lot of movement of farmers off their land. That was the early seventies, about 1972 that happened, with the take up, the compulsory acquisition, of that land. I am just wondering also whether local government and other interested parties can negotiate if their mood is that this food protection boundary should be moved.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised as follows: Gifford Hill has already been done, so that is not a problem. I am also advised that the rural living zones, as they are euphemistically described, are inside the township boundaries, so they also could be rezoned to become higher density—

Mr Pederick: The document says they can't.

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am putting on the Hansard what I am told here, and that is what I am told.

Clause passed.

Clause 57.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I should have asked this question on clause 56, but it leads on to the commitment the minister gave about amendments that have come in about local government involvement in the development of these policies. Can I accept that there is a similar position from the minister when it comes to clause 57—Design quality policy, 58—Integrated planning policy, and 59—Special legislative schemes? Is it intended for discussion to occur there also about those?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, the amendment package will basically insert local government into the charter and by reason of being involved in that their concerns about input will be picked up.

Clause passed.

Clause 58.

Ms CHAPMAN: Integrated planning policy is one that the minister must do, as is the design matter, which my colleague has just asked you about in 57. These two do not have the qualifying feature of not being taken into account for the purposes of development authorisation under the act. I take it that they will be binding on the authorising party, which may be a panel, the commissioner or whomever. I seek clarification on that once these two mandatory policies are in place.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: They are caught because they are forms of state planning policy.

Ms CHAPMAN: Why do we have a separate provision that says you have to do these two, but you have the option to do others?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The view about these two is that they were regarded as being essential, whereas the others are optional. In relation to these two things, let us talk about what 58 is. People have probably seen ITLUP (Integrated Transport and Land Use Plan). What is contemplated is that ITLUP (or an iteration of that type of document, which lays out a future set of objectives and whatever for transport and infrastructure development), would form such a document, and then that document would be one of the high-level policy documents that would sit above the planning system. The point you are asking is: why are these two left out of the impact of 56. The answer is that they are not left out; for the purposes of clause 56 they are state planning policy.

Ms CHAPMAN: So we have two high-level policy documents that you have to prepare and, as you say, in one form or other to some degree we have both of those already (and they may well be after consultation further developed, and so on in relation to its new format). I look forward to that, because the ITLUP at present is really a $35 billion wish list, with no obligation, other than some indications of some of the infrastructure to do between five and 15 years. That does not give me a lot of comfort. If they are in the category then of not being binding on the development authorisation process for individual applications, are they just binding on your cabinet, your government, your department or the commission? Who is going to take notice of these two high-level documents and any other optional ones you might produce and put into a glossy booklet?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: This is the same question we had before, really. What we are saying is that when the lower-level policy documents are being prepared they must be prepared having regard to and being consistent with the high-level policy documents. For example, if the high-level policy document says we are to—

Ms Chapman: Have urban infill.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —have urban infill, yes—then, when you start looking at the lower-level policies, the formulation of those policies is to be informed by that higher policy.

Ms Chapman: They are binding at most.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Binding in the sense that they must have regard to them. They are a guiding principle. I would take that as meaning they cannot ignore them, but it would also mean that there may be particular circumstances in which, for very good reason, a particular allotment or precinct does not have to have exactly the same treatment as the allotment or precinct next to it. That is the point.

In Bragg, for example, there is a difference between the Fullarton Road frontage and the Greenhill Road frontage and areas a few kilometres to the east of that which are exclusively residential and are inside of major boundaries set up by main roads. Just because the principle says we should have regard to infill, and just because that is within five kilometres of the CBD, it does not mean that the planning policy for that area must require infill.

Ms CHAPMAN: But who determines any inconsistencies that are alleged to occur between your high-level design or infrastructure policy documents and the lower-level policy documents when they are being prepared? It is one thing to say, 'Look, these are to be a guideline. These are to be a principle; we've got those in statute.'

Once these are consulted on and you have dressed them up, you have expanded them and you have published them, they are going to be binding for the purposes of taking into account the development of the lower-level policies. I understand that to this extent. There is going be disputes about that. Who makes the decision about any inconsistency to determine whether the lower-level policy, as you are describing it, is to be ignored?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We have not come to this part of the legislation yet, and this conversation might better occur then. But, just to explain, these policies go through a process of formulation. I think, if I remember correctly, the minister has some role, the ERD Committee of the parliament has a role and, I would expect—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —and the commission, yes, indeed. So, we have the commission, the minister and the ERD Committee of the parliament.

What my expectation would be is that one or all of those three levels of oversight would look at the legislation and have regard to sections 56, 57 and 58 and, when they are examining the policies that are being put forward to them, they would ask themselves the question: do these policies—and I am talking lower-level zoning, in the current language—do these zoning requirements meet the statutory considerations required of them by sections 56, 57 and 58?

It is basically three levels of vetting—and the charter. So, that is the way the process goes. What it does not end up being is that I as a particular landholder can challenge something that is going on next door because I do not think that meets with this high-level principle.

Ms CHAPMAN: Minister, apart from ERD—

The CHAIR: Is this your supplementary to your supplementary and your last supplementary?

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, my supplementary; I am still trying to get there. 'I as a landholder,' he is not 'I as the landholder': he is the minister.

The CHAIR: He is using an example, I am sure.

Ms CHAPMAN: Well, he may be, but apart from the ERD Committee which can put recommendations to the parliament about inconsistency—and we have read all those about Mount Barker et al, and we are now looking at other parties—the minister is ultimately the arbiter of whether those policies are inconsistent and in which case he will therefore not approve for the purposes of being published and enforced. Isn't that the situation?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: All I can say is that the member might usefully have a look at 66 through to 70 and that would explain what I have been trying to explain.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I refer to clauses 56, 57 and 58 because I consider the issues to be rather important, and I know the minister does also. What is the time frame in place for some level of draft to be available for review? I know we have implementation issues with all of this, but is this one of the initial focus areas?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: This is an implementation matter, but the best guesstimate I can give is that we are talking probably a couple of years. We have to get the commission established and it has to be functional, so there are a lot of steps to occur.

Clause passed.

Clause 59.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, in your previous response to the member for Bragg, you referred to the three levels of oversight that are involved and to the Environment, Resources and Development Committee, so I am particularly interested in why clause 59(4)(c) reads 'does not need to be referred to the ERD Committee' in relation to special legislative schemes. Can you please outline that?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: This is a reference back to clause 11, which in turn deals with existing schemes. What we are saying is that subclause (4) makes it clear that those existing schemes do not now have to go back into a process that involves the ERD Committee: they are left alone.

Clause passed.

Clause 60.

Mr GRIFFITHS: In a previous response about the environment and food production areas, the minister referred to a review, I believe, every five or 10 years. I am not sure what the time frame is, and he might just want to clarify that, but regarding regional plans, what is the time frame in place for review of the regional plans that have to be prepared?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: As I read it, there is no specific automated review. It would occur on a needs basis. If you think about this and if you look under subclause (3), the regional plan is intended to encompass a 15 to 30-year vision. Logically, that would not be something that would be required to be revisited frequently.

In some parts of the state, you might have regional growth rates that are so small that what was envisaged as a 15 to 30-year vision is a 50-year vision; conversely, you might have an area where some activity is generated and the 30 or 15-year vision is inadequate. In those circumstances, I would expect that community to say, 'Look, the vision is getting a bit cramping,' and we would look at it. That is the way that is set out.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Can I just seek clarification? Some are indeed experiencing a very slow rate, but an opportunity may present itself within a township where changing a zoning level that is in place to allow another use might create an opportunity for some development to occur. Does the opportunity still exist in between the not regulated periods for some—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. If you go to clause 69, you will see that a local planning board, the minister or the commission can initiate one of those processes.

Mr PEDERICK: In relation to regional plans, I ask what sort of consultation will take place in putting those regional plans in place? In regard to what is, according to the Department of Planning, an indicative boundary of the proposed environment and food protection area, I ask whether that boundary can be discussed and negotiated with local government and potentially be moved?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: In answer to the first question, if you look at clause 60 in relation to regional plans, you will see that it states in subclause (2) that the plans are to be considered by the joint planning board which in and of itself contains the relevant local government entities. So, yes, they are in.

The second bit of your question, if I am not mistaken, was harkening back to an earlier conversation. If the member for Hammond has something in particular he wants to put to me on behalf of some of his constituents, I am happy to listen to him in due course. We are basically talking about lines on a map, so this is not a particularly conducive forum for sitting down and having that conversation. I would be happy to sit around the table with him and have a chat.

Mr PEDERICK: I disagree, sir. This map has obviously been put together, and I would suggest that PIRSA has probably had some involvement. I know that when I was on the committee dealing with sustainable farming, they were talking about food production areas, but they had only mapped areas very close to the city. Certainly, I think that that mapping process is quite a good process if it is reflected across the state so that people can see the priority areas right across the state. I do disagree. I think that this is very significant because the outcomes, I believe, will be significant to local governments that become ensconced under the umbrella of this legislation. I am a keen supporter of the free market, and I think that the free market should decide whether or not development happens.

When I look at Murray Bridge, for example, I see that it is the fastest growing city in this state and, no matter what you say here today, essentially you will be confining it within its boundaries. I take solace in the fact that the racecourse project, Gifford Hill, is fine, from what I am being told today.

Also, as part of my question, in light of this, because I think that we do need to discuss boundaries here, does this mean that the activities within these boundaries match the limitations of the character preservation areas around McLaren Vale and the Barossa?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Let's make sure that we are not at cross-purposes. What this scheme is contemplating is basically an area which I will call metro Adelaide, for want of a better term. Then metro Adelaide ends (this is not the language of the bill but I am trying to put it in lay terms) there is a buffer around metro Adelaide. That buffer extends from the coast all the way around the city to the coast. Most of that buffer is already protected from residential development which is unregulated. There is a small bit to the immediate north of the current City of Adelaide which is a gap in that. That map seeks to fix that.

It does not take away from any township, anything the township has got, either in terms of existing rezoned land or land which has already been earmarked for rezoning for that town but has not yet been rezoned. It does not take that away. If in the fullness of time a town has an accelerated growth to the point where it needs to consume some of the farmland adjacent to its existing footprint, every five years this thing is reviewed by the Planning Commission. Every five years that can be considered, every five years, or as requested at any other time, I guess, by the minister or the commission, so there is no issue about that.

I do want to challenge one thing—the suggestion that being a free marketeer means that there should be no planning rules and that anybody can do anything anywhere they like. I challenge that because, if you want to have sensible use of land, sensible transport and sensible agriculture, you cannot just let people do what suits them. You have to actually have planning and you have to have zoning, and that goes to the size of townships and the boundary of townships every bit as much as it goes to where we put light poles, where we put roads and where we put drains. There has to be orderly planning—there has to be.

Mr PEDERICK: I did not say there should not be orderly planning, minister.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: You said the free market.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, I did, absolutely. What this map says to me is that someone who lives in the Karoonda East Murray council will have an easier time, if there is a major development to go in there of any kind, than someone in the future living in the Rural City of Murray Bridge council, and that is just a fact. No matter what happens, people hate extra bureaucracy. It is extra red tape to deal with.

I have some real concerns because obviously this message has not been relayed down to the local councils, and it may have been relayed to the Local Government Association. From what I understand (and I have had correspondence with you, minister, so you will be well aware of this), for people who are in close proximity to towns in my electorate, whether they be in the Alexandrina Council area or in the Rural City of Murray Bridge, who have put up proposals, and obviously they do not have the right zoning—and I appreciate you have to have planning—someone who might have 10 or 15 hectares or more, such as a small farm or even an allotment of up to 40 hectares, this proposal would rule out any chance of them having any sort of residential development on that property.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The existing rules already rule that out. I have said this before and I will say it again; that is, the planning system, the Minister for Planning and the planning commission, there are two things they cannot be and must not be: No. 1 is an insurer of last resort for land speculators; No. 2 is the uncle with the chequebook who can be relied upon to turn up and solve my personal problems, however significant and however tragic they might be, because I personally have a difficult circumstance. I am not meaning to in any way denigrate some of the hardship that some people might experience presently all around the place for a range of reasons.

Some people, like the people the member for Hammond is talking about, may see that the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow could be delivered by the minister just signing a little form to rezone their paddock into housing. That is not the minister's job and it is not the planning commissioner's job. The planning commissioner's job is orderly development and it is development according to principles. It is not development according to what individuals say is their personal need because, I can assure you, member for Hammond, every single individual has their own need and they will all tell you, 'I am more needy than the next one'—every single one of them.

I will not name names, because that is not appropriate, but I have had visits from people who have land in McLaren Vale where they want to do a development they know damn well they should not be doing. They bought the land in order to be able to do that development which they knew the zoning did not permit, and they are very unhappy that the rules do not allow them to do something they knew they were not allowed to do ever, and they decided to buy the land anyway. That is their problem.

The CHAIR: Because I am being really generous, there is another supplementary to your last supplementary.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you, Madam Chair. Your forbearance is appreciated. You may have explained this earlier but, for our benefit, I assume that any noncomplying benefit will not have an opportunity under this law. You can point me to the process if that can happen. It may not be the uncle with the chequebook or someone trying to cut up a small farm. Also, I just want some more clarity around whether this new food protection boundary matches the legislative requirements of the character preservation zones.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Basically, it does. If you want to take the practical effect of it, it is—at least from the perspective of the metropolitan part of Adelaide—to basically finish off a line between Gawler and the coast. The rest of it is already aligned by the Barossa Protection Zone, Hills Face Zone or the McLaren Vale Protection Zone. It just brings it into one continuous line.

Then it says 'in respect of the townships'. The townships in the McLaren Vale area are already managed in the way that we are talking about here—McLaren Vale itself and whatever. If you go into the Barossa Protection Zone, Nuriootpa, Tanunda, etc., are all managed in exactly the same way now. All we are doing is filling in the bit between those two bits, basically.

Mr PEDERICK: And the process of noncomplying applications?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Well, 'noncomplying' is a concept which relates to the existing legislation and which will disappear under the new one. The easiest way I can explain it is this: if you are within the township boundary of any town which is in that area, you can continue to do whatever you could have done before in terms of development and you can continue to seek rezoning within that perimeter as you always could—no problem. If you are outside the township boundary, then you can do anything you can do now except seek to subdivide that land for residential purposes according to whatever the zoning is.

To put it another way, the zoning outside of that township boundary can enable anything you like, anything the community wants, except subdivision for residential purposes, and if it wants to do that there is a process which involves going to the commission as a first step to establish that it is necessary in terms of there being a requirement, a demand, for that product, namely, residential allotments in proximity to that township.

Mr GRIFFITHS: When we talk about noncomplying, minister, I am aware of a situation with respect to a 900-acre broadacre farming property and a request for it to be considered as a noncomplying development application to enable a farmhouse to be built on it because there is no other house on that farm, and it is noncomplying. So, that is bizarre to me. Indeed, I am aware that, apparently, the rules changed in 2012 for that to occur.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Whereabouts?

Mr GRIFFITHS: The Yorke Peninsula council area.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am not sure.

Mr GRIFFITHS: It is just intriguing to me. I have written to the minister about that seeking some support. Can I just have some clarification in relation to clause 60. I take it that the regional plans are developed on the basis of what the current development plans stipulate for areas. They are used. However, it is the responsibility of the minister to ensure that they are prepared. Is that something that will be delegated to the planning commission to physically undertake?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is what is intended, yes.

Mr GRIFFITHS: If I can just have some clarification, minister, on subclause (3)(e), which talks about 'a framework for the public realm'. I must be sadly lacking in my education because I am not sure what that means. Can you just clarify that for me?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The 'public realm' is generally meant to mean areas which are, if you like, communal, shared areas. In a township, it might be the central square of the town, or it might be the gardens in the town, or it might be the streetscape, footpaths, those sorts of thing.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I have one more question. With respect to subclause (6), I am confused about the words here:

A regional plan is not to be taken into account for the purposes of any assessment or decision with respect to an application for a development authorisation under this Act.

I am not sure why it says 'not'.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: This is the same point we were talking about before in clauses 56, 57 and 58. It is a repetition of the same point.

Clause passed.

Clause 61.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Do any examples of planning design codes exist in other states?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There are variations on that theme around the place. For example, in New South Wales it is a thing called SEPP 65, and Victoria has a version of this as well so, yes, they are not unknown things. The notion of the planning and design code is not intended to be a highly prescriptive thing. What it is meant to speak to is fundamental principles of design. Some of these statements are almost motherhood statements, but it would be something like: 'A development should have regard to the adjoining properties or the environment in which it is built.' Things like that which you would think are common sense, but if you look around the place perhaps they are not.

Clause passed.

Clause 62.

The CHAIR: Minister, you have amendment No. 17 in your name which you would like to move to clause 62, is that correct?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, I do not want to.

The CHAIR: You do not want to move amendment No. 17?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, I have been talked out of it.

The CHAIR: You are rescinding it. Is that allowed?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have been talked out of it by extensive consultation.

The CHAIR: Are we going to be happy with clause 62, member for Goyder?

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, you have been very generous in ensuring that there will be consultation with local government on recent clauses, so can I assume then that for the planning and design code there will be a similar level of discussion?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, local government will, of course, be involved in this.

The CHAIR: Member for Goyder, any further questions?

Mr GRIFFITHS: I do not believe so. I was wrong when I just said, 'I do not believe so'. I do have one question. With the indulgence of the minister, if I can just ask a question.

The CHAIR: Is it not me you have to satisfy?

Mr GRIFFITHS: Sorry, Chair. Minister, I do have a question on clause 62, so I apologise for that. I was unsure of the term under subclause (4)(a), 'the variation of a technical or numeric requirement'. Is that just to tidy things up if changes have occurred and there is a need to renumber things? It is on page 53, subclause (4)(a).

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It gives councils an ability to micro finetune things at a local level. It is not intended to move major policy settings; it is very minor.

Clause passed.

Clause 63.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am grateful for the commitments that the minister has given to the Leader of the Opposition when he adapted reuse issues when we are talking about heritage and that sort of thing to be undertaken, but my question relates to subclause (3). I understand there is a community engagement charter to ensure that consultation will take place—I appreciate that—but where it is suggested that a property be listed, will there still be a process available for an owner to object or to appeal against that?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, it is; it appears in the appeals provisions later in the bill.

Mr PEDERICK: In regard to local heritage, heritage can be in the eye of the beholder, especially with local heritage sometimes. If there is a decision to develop something or an attempt to develop something that is local heritage listed, is there a process to do that?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Except for the appeal provision that I just spoke about to the member for Goyder, we are not disturbing any of the existing rules about local heritage because that is going to be a separate piece of work. This does not disturb the existing arrangements. The existing arrangements in the broad are that when local heritage listing is contemplated, people who might be affected are given notice. They are given an opportunity to be heard in respect of that.

Up until this bill they have not had a right of appeal but they have had the right to be heard. Ultimately, heritage is determined by the minister on the recommendation of either the heritage advisory council and/or the local government authority concerned. I can assure the member for Hammond, the whole question of local heritage is going to be the subject of another piece of work. The only disturbance in that whole area at the moment is the provision of an appeal for a person who is unhappy with the outcome of a local heritage listing.

Ms REDMOND: Just on that issue of heritage, minister, when you say people who are affected or interested have currently the right to be heard, I had occasion in the last few months to deal with a matter where a building which was not subject to any heritage listing, local or state, and indeed had been considered at length as to whether it should be listed and was not, was nevertheless required to jump over all sorts of hurdles in order to be redeveloped on the basis of its heritage status.

I just wonder whether there will be any more appropriate approach on the question of heritage, whether in this bill or in your anticipated legislation, for adaptable re-use of heritage buildings, because there have been numerous occasions around both this city and in our regional areas of buildings which have some sort of heritage status which cannot be redeveloped logically because you have requirements to put in disability access but the disability access cannot go at the side because that would be unfortunate for the people with a disability who might need to use it, but they cannot go at the front because of the heritage status.

Are those issues going to be addressed, because unless and until they are, and we come to some reasonable position with how we can adapt for reasonable re-use heritage-listed buildings, my sincere fear is that we will find in this state that we have heritage buildings falling into utter disrepair because we cannot compel people to maintain them.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: In short I totally agree with the member for Heysen's comments. That is why we are doing a piece of work on heritage as a stand-alone issue. I mentioned earlier that we are doing what we can at a national level through COAG fora to deal with the disability access issue and get some movement around that, and we are looking at other things that we can do in respect of national building rules.

The problem is a very real one, but it is such a big issue and so potentially contentious that it was considered better to do that as a stand-alone proposition rather than conflate all of those conversations with this, which is why we have not made any basic disturbance of the current rules, but I make it very clear that we intend to look into them and to put proposals to the parliament next year to make changes.

Clause passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00.