Bills

Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill

Committee Stage

Debate resumed.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have an answer to that amendment No. 12 which was moved, inserts (4a) which says:

Despite a preceding subsection, any amount that is attributable to any money paid under Subdivision 3 must be applied for a purpose that benefits the community where the relevant contribution area or areas are located under a scheme approved by the Treasurer.

Ms CHAPMAN: Leaving the current incumbent alone for the moment, who I do not usually praise in any event, we have had a different assortment of treasurers here and we will probably have a lot more. Frankly, why should they be part of this process of making a determination in any event? Your ministerial role has been in charge of the scheme that collects it and determines what is going to be paid. It has come in by contributors other than the government, but it is local people in the community who have paid for this. Why should they or their representatives, for example the local council, not make the decision about what it is going to be spent on and what they consider to be their interest? Treasurers think of all sorts of lovely ways to spend our money, and I would not trust them as far as I could throw them.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Except for the last proposition, with which of course I cannot agree, the other point about treasurers being able to think of things to do with money, I have observed that to be the case. Were it entirely a matter for my consideration, I would not mind it all staying in the P&D Fund or being done something else with.

Can we just have a conversation between the houses as to whether or not we can resolve this matter. I hear what is being said. Let's work out exactly what benefit the member for Bragg thinks is appropriate. If this is what it takes to get us across the line, I am going to move heaven and earth to make sure it happens.

Clause as amended passed.

Clauses 172 to174 passed.

Clause 175.

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

Amendment No 28 [Planning–1]—

Page 141, after line 39—Insert:

(2a) In addition, in the case of any work or activity to be undertaken on land used for residential purposes, the person exercising a power under subsection (1)—

(a) must take reasonable steps to ensure that a notice in the prescribed form is provided to the owner of the land in accordance with the regulations; and

(b) must make every reasonable effort to comply with any reasonable request of an owner or occupier of the land in connection with the exercise of the power.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 176 to 177 passed.

Clause 178.

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

Amendment No 29 [Planning–1]—

Page 142, lines 31 to 34—Delete subclause (1) and substitute:

(1) In this section—

major infrastructure project means—

(a) a project that constitutes a scheme that has been established under Division 1; or

(b) any other project that is to be carried out (or is being carried out) by, or that involves, a State agency that is brought within the ambit of this section by the Governor by notice in the Gazette;

responsible Minister, in relation to a State agency, means the Minister primarily responsible for the activities of the State agency;

State agency means—

(a) an agency or instrumentality of the Crown (including a Department or administrative unit of the State); or

(b) another person or body acting under the express authority of the Crown.

(1a) The Chief Executive may, with the approval of the Minister and any other responsible Minister for a State agency that has a direct interest in the matter—

(a) take over responsibility for a major infrastructure project;

(b) without limiting paragraph (a), take over or undertake any work required for, or in connection with, a major infrastructure project.

Amendment No 30 [Planning–1]—

Page 142, line 35—Delete 'subsection (1)' and substitute 'subsection (1a)'

Amendment No 31 [Planning–1]—

Page 142, line 37—Delete 'the scheme' and substitute 'a major infrastructure project'

Mr GRIFFITHS: Particularly in relation to amendment No. 29, can the minister outline why this has been included? I am happy with it, but I would like some reasons for it.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that the answer is that if you have one of these coordinated infrastructure schemes and there are many parties playing in the space and they are not necessarily being coordinated, we need a capability for somebody to be able to step in and supervise and oversee the process.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 179 passed.

Clause 180.

Mr SPEIRS: Madam Chair, I draw your attention to the state of the committee.

A quorum having been formed:

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

Amendment No 32 [Planning–1]—

Page 146, line 6—Delete 'subsection (15)' and substitute 'subsection (13)'

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 181.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I have some general questions on this clause. It goes through other provisions also. In reviewing this, minister, are a lot of these areas a carry over from the current—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Correct. I think it is just a repeat. I am told it might have been slightly tweaked, but it is substantially the existing P&D Fund arrangement.

Clause passed.

Clauses 182 and 183 passed.

Clause 184.

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

Amendment No 33 [Planning–1]—

Page 148, after line 24—Insert 'and'

(c) an ability for any relevant authority to act under or in connection with paragraph (a) or (b), including where the relevant authority is not the designated entity that has established the scheme,

Amendment No 34 [Planning–1]—

Page 149, line 7—After 'may be' insert 'varied or'

Amendments carried.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I refer to subclause (3)(a). The Property Council has put to me a request (and I am not sure if the minister has had this put to him yet) to delete the word 'requirement', leaving it to read 'an ability for a person who is proposing to undertake development'; 'requirement' is removed. Has the minister had that request put to him?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We will consider it, but I think our tentative view at the moment is to disagree with that as a proposition. I have agreed with most of their stuff.

Clause as amended passed.

Clauses 185 to 188 passed.

Clause 189.

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

Amendment No 35 [Planning–1]—

Page 155, line 24—Delete 'a person who is authorised to bring proceedings' and substitute 'proceedings that a person is authorised to bring'

Amendment carried.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I need to clarify that this is another example of a carryover from the current legislation.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is a carryover except that we do provide here—I mentioned before when we talked about heritage. The one thing we had changed was the right for a person affected to appeal. That is in here. There is also this business about a restricted development determination by the commission: we are also providing a right of appeal in respect of that. And a desktop review is put in here as well.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 190.

Mr GRIFFITHS: This relates to several areas in subclauses (2) and (3) and is also from the Property Council, so I will put it on the record. They ask that 190(2)(a) be amended to read 'the assessment panel may adopt such procedures as the assessment panel thinks fit, but shall afford procedural fairness to the applicant'. They also ask that subclause (3)(a) be amended to include the words 'furnished to the assessment panel' and the words 'and the applicant'. Ideally, a time frame would be inserted for the review so that this is not open ended. They also ask that subclause (3)(b) be amended such that the assessment manager is required to furnish 'to the panel and the applicant a report on any aspect'.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am happy to have a look at that. Without committing myself, that does not sound outrageous. It is pointed out; it is sort of unnecessary in the sense that the rules of natural justice would apply to these things and that would happen, or should happen in any event. But, anyway, we will look at that but it is not confronting.

Clause passed.

Clause 191.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Another request from the Property Council to put on the record. They ask that 191(1) now read:

…must be made within 2 months after the applicant receives notice of the decision to which the application relates (except for the applications made under section 189(1)(g) which must be made within 10 days of making the decision to which the application relates).

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We will look at it.

Clause passed.

Clauses 192 to 196 passed.

Clause 197.

Ms CHAPMAN: This is part 17—Appointment of authorised officers, and associated powers. I did not find this anywhere in the act. If it is replicated, you can let me know where.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is replicated from—I think it is 19—that is the feeling I have.

Ms CHAPMAN: I will accept that and have a look at it, and also part 18 while you are there. This is all on civil enforcement.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Part 17—there are two additions in there. The first thing was about a binding undertaking, if I remember correctly. So we are clear, part 17 which goes to clause 198, is from the old act, so if we can deal with that, perhaps—so that is all migrated.

Ms CHAPMAN: I have here part 19, which seems much longer actually, with a whole lot of penalties but that might be because enforcement is replicated to some degree as part of part 18.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is also in 198.

Clause passed.

Clause 198.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The Property Council has put to me a question as to why the word 'natural' is used in subclause (8) on the first line, 'If compliance by a natural person', and they have talked about investigations and the distinction between natural and—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The first thing to understand is that this is section 18 from the existing act just repeated; and, secondly, as a matter of law, 'natural person' is a real person because you can have a 'legal person' which is not real, believe it or not.

Ms CHAPMAN: Can I clarify then, if we dealt with those two, under part 18 which is all enforcement—both civil and penalties—is that all exactly replicated as well? That was my earlier question which I was jumping ahead of.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There are some additional provisions in here in relation—let's see—there is a civil penalty.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, that is division 3.

Clause passed.

Clause 199.

Ms CHAPMAN: It starts at 199 but part 18 is the enforcement section. So we have civil enforcement and then we have general offences, and there are obviously penalties there. Then there are civil penalties and then there are other matters. There may be bits of this in other parts of the act, but I do not have any similar part that I can find.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Some of this is novel. I think—

Ms CHAPMAN: Between the houses can you provide a list of what is new and what is not? If it is just replicated in the section—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Okay. I can just say, very quickly, that the adverse publicity order, which is 210 is new; 212, which is the civil penalties, is new; 216 is new; and 217, which I was starting to talk about before, the enforceable undertakings, is new.

Clause passed.

Clause 200 passed.

Clause 201.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Subclause (19) provides, 'Proceedings under this section may be commenced at any time within 3 years'. Has it been the practice to offer an extension to that three years? Indeed, is three years too long in the first place?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think it is an existing provision, but we will check. Three years is a pretty normal time limit in civil matters. It is a normal action in tort; contract is usually six years but in tort it is usually three.

Clause passed.

Clauses 202 to 205 passed.

Clause 206.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The Property Council has requested the position on clause 206(1)(f), so that an authorised officer is not entitled to commence proceedings. It is wondering if that is a carryover provision from the current legislation.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We are looking; I assume so, but we will keep going and I will let you know. Normally in these proceedings you do have the idea that people can be authorised officers. This could be a council building inspector or someone of that nature. That is what we have in mind. Again, we are checking whether this is an existing provision, but I would be absolutely astounded if an authorised officer is not part of the existing provision.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Thank you for the answer but, given that the other people and other groups listed there do have the authority to do that, for an individual authorised officer it seems a rather generous extension of authority.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is a delegation. The authorised officer would probably be an employee or agent of one of these other people. For instance, with the council, who does the council act through? An authorised officer.

Clause passed.

Clause 207 passed.

Clause 208.

Mr GRIFFITHS: In this one, if I can preface my question by saying, for most of the offences of a serious nature, the standard $120,000 is multiplied by five, making a maximum penalty for some of the key offences $600,000 for a company. The question is indeed a query about whether this is an appropriate penalty range, even for a company—whether five times is the appropriate amount.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that, whilst the idea of a multiplier is not necessarily a common feature here, it is the standard feature used in commonwealth penalty setting, as I understand it.

Ms CHAPMAN: One of the earlier provisions, minister, provides for quite a severe penalty for the provision of information under the FOI Act which is to be protected. So, presumably, if an employee provides that, they could be subject to it—or an entity, so let me use the lovely SA Water as an example again. If they were to provide information contrary to those provisions or any of these other offences, one of their authorised officers, are they liable for penalties or are they exempt as a statutory corporation of the crown?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will seek some advice on that. It will be in the Hansard.

Clause passed.

Clause 209 passed.

Clause 210.

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

Amendment No 36 [Planning–1]—

Page 171, line 12—After 'Commission' insert 'or a council (as specified by the court)'

Amendment No 37 [Planning–1]—

Page 171, line 17—After 'Commission' insert 'or a council'

Amendment No 38 [Planning–1]—

Page 171, line 18—After 'Commission' insert 'or council'

Amendment No 39 [Planning–1]—

Page 171, line 19—After 'Commission' insert 'or council'

Amendment No 40 [Planning–1]—

Page 171, line 21—After 'Commission' insert 'or council'

Amendment No 41 [Planning–1]—

Page 171, line 23—After 'Commission' insert 'or council'

Amendment No 42 [Planning–1]—

Page 171, line 25—Delete 'may apply to the court for an order authorising the Commission' and substitute 'or council may apply to the court for an order authorising the Commission or council'

Amendment No 43 [Planning–1]—

Page 171, line 26—After 'Commission' insert 'or council'

Amendment No 44 [Planning–1]—

Page 171, line 27—Delete ', or a person authorised in writing by the Commission' and substitute 'or a council, or a person authorised in writing by the Commission or a council'

Amendment No 45 [Planning–1]—

Page 171, line 29—After 'Commission' insert 'or council'

Amendment No 46 [Planning–1]—

Page 171, line 30—After 'Commission' insert 'or council'

Amendments carried.

Ms CHAPMAN: This I think is a unique new approach which is to require I suppose some rectification in respect of that party. I know it is not completely unique. It has been used in other circumstances, but it is not common. For example, under our Electoral Act, there is provision for the Electoral Commission to direct, if a person publishes misleading and inaccurate information in a material way, that they have to sometimes remove it and then can be ordered to print a retraction, for example, which I suppose indirectly has the effect of publicly identifying that someone has perhaps done the wrong thing.

I am looking forward to the Australian Labor Party's one just recently from a direction, I might mention, from last week. They have taken it off the Twitter account under the direction of the Electoral Commissioner, but I am waiting for the retraction. I am looking forward to it, really; I would like a lovely letter of apology to come with it, but in any event. So, it is not unique, but what has possessed the government to include this in this legislation?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: This was recommended by the panel, but also this provision is basically a consumer protection and information provision. What we are saying is, if you have an offender, and you might be talking here about a serial offender or somebody who is a miscreant of some description, where it is deemed that one of the things that might be helpful is for other members of the public to know that this person should be treated with caution because they represent a risk to people, then this is an option that might be used. It is actually used in some consumer protection areas by the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs.

Ms Chapman: It's usually because they are a fraudster.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Generally, yes. This is just one of a range of things that might be used.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 211.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I note that, where proceedings are undertaken by a council, not just the recovery of a legal cost involved but a fine is also imposed and the fine is intended to go to council. Is that a carryover provision?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Clause passed.

Clause 212.

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

Amendment No 47 [Planning–1]—

Page 172, line 3—Delete 'the Commission' and substitute 'a designated entity'

Amendment No 48 [Planning–1]—

Page 172, line 4—Delete 'Commission' and substitute 'designated entity'

Amendment No 49 [Planning–1]—

Page 172, line 7—Delete 'The Commission' and substitute 'A designated entity'

Amendment No 50 [Planning–1]—

Page 172, line 13—Delete 'The Commission' and substitute 'A designated entity'

Amendment No 51 [Planning–1]—

Page 172, line 15—Delete 'Commission' and substitute 'designated entity'

Amendment No 52 [Planning–1]—

Page 172, line 17—Delete 'Commission' and substitute 'designated entity'

Amendment No 53 [Planning–1]—

Page 172, line 18—Delete 'Commission's' and substitute 'designated entity's'

Amendment No 54 [Planning–1]—

Page 172, line 20—Delete 'Commission' and substitute 'designated entity'

Amendment No 55 [Planning–1]—

Page 172, line 23—Delete 'the Commission' and substitute 'a designated entity'

Amendment No 56 [Planning–1]—

Page 172, line 29—Delete 'the Commission' and substitute 'a designated entity'

Amendment No 57 [Planning–1]—

Page 172, line 31—Delete 'Commission' and substitute 'designated entity'

Amendment No 58 [Planning–1]—

Page 173, line 10—Delete 'by the Commission'

Amendment No 59 [Planning–1]—

Page 173, lines 18 and 19—Delete 'the Commission' and substitute 'a designated entity'

Amendment No 60 [Planning–1]—

Page 173, after line 43—Insert:

(17) In this section—

designated entity means—

(a) the Commission; or

(b) a council acting under an authorisation granted by the Commission; or

(c) the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs acting after consultation with the Commission.

(18) An authorisation granted to a council under subsection (17)—

(a) may be granted on conditions determined by the Commission; and

(b) may, if the Commission so determines, be varied or revoked by the Commission.

Amendments carried.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I think the easiest way to put this is that the industry group that contacted me here want to delete the section entirely.

Clause as amended passed.

Clauses 213 to 215 passed.

Clause 216.

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

Amendment No 61 [Planning–1]—

Page 175, line 30—After 'Commission' insert 'or a council (as the court thinks fit)'

Amendment No 62 [Planning–1]—

Page 175, after line 41—Insert:

(5) An amount paid to a council in accordance with an order under subsection (1) must be applied by the council for the purpose of acquiring or developing land as open space (and may be held by the council in a fund established for the purposes of section 185).

Amendments carried.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Just for clarification, is this a carryover provision also?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, this is a new provision. It is a panel recommendation.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 217.

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

Amendment No 63 [Planning–1]—

Page 176, line 2—Delete 'The Chief Executive' and substitute 'A designated entity'

Amendment No 64 [Planning–1]—

Page 176, line 10—Delete 'the Chief Executive' and substitute 'a designated entity'

Amendment No 65 [Planning–1]—

Page 176, line 11—Delete 'Chief Executive, the Chief Executive' and substitute 'designated entity, the designated entity'

Amendment No 66 [Planning–1]—

Page 176, line 18—Delete 'the Chief Executive' and substitute 'a designated entity'

Amendment No 67 [Planning–1]—

Page 176, line 20—Delete 'Chief Executive' and substitute 'the designated entity'

Amendment No 68 [Planning–1]—

Page 176, line 26—Delete 'Chief Executive' and substitute 'relevant designated entity'

Amendment No 69 [Planning–1]—

Page 176, line 37—Delete 'The Chief Executive' and substitute 'A designated entity'

Amendment No 70 [Planning–1]—

Page 177, line 1—Delete 'the Chief Executive' and substitute 'a designated entity'

Amendment No 71 [Planning–1]—

Page 177, line 2—Delete 'Chief Executive' and substitute 'designated entity'

Amendment No 72 [Planning–1]—

Page 177, line 4—Delete 'Chief Executive' and substitute 'Commission'

Amendment No 73 [Planning–1]—

Page 177, after line 6—Insert:

(14) In this section—

designated entity means—

(a) the Commission; or

(b) a council acting under an authorisation granted by the Commission; or

(c) the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs acting after consultation with the Commission.

(15) An authorisation granted to a council under subsection (14)—

(a) may be granted on conditions determined by the Commission; and

(b) may, if the Commission so determines, be varied or revoked by the Commission.

Amendments carried.

Ms CHAPMAN: Having considered these, some of them are novel and may well assist in better enforcement of planning laws. Has the government ever considered reintroducing costs into the courts on these matters?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I understand the expert panel may have turned their minds to this, but ultimately there was no recommendation. We are doing a number of transitional arrangements. I have explained to people already we have got a transitional bill, we have got a heritage bill and we have got a mining bill coming up. I would be happy to talk to the member for Bragg about this particular issue because it is sometimes the case that cost orders can do some useful work, although I am not necessarily sure this is the right venue for that because it might dissuade ordinary people from exercising their right, so I think we need to balance that up.

That said, however, these enforceable undertakings I think are a novel and useful thing because what happens is you can get people in the room, they can resolve a thing and somebody says, 'I will do this and that. Will that be enough?' At the moment, there is no way of holding them to that, in effect. What this is saying is you get the people around the room, they come to a resolution of their matter and they give then an enforceable undertaking under 217, the breach of which then triggers consequences. It is kind of like costs.

Clause as amended passed.

Clauses 218 to 224 passed.

Clause 225.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Clause 225 defines 'designated entity' as meaning the minister, the commission and the chief executive. It has been put to me that 'designated entity' should be extended to include any relevant authorities.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We cannot go any further because this is a commonwealth copyright law, so all we can do is basically reflect what that law permits. It is a bit convoluted but, because the councillors will have an interaction with the commission and the e-planning system, they will indirectly get the benefit of this.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Will others be able to access the details contained within the application and use it in a different way, or is it exclusive?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is a public service. The commonwealth Copyright Act provides special provisions in respect of entities that are, in fact, the expression of the state, as opposed to other entities that might be acting for commercial private purposes, or whatever the case might be.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I can put on the record the request from the Property Council and they ask:

…include an express provision that asserts that, unless advised to the contrary, any application lodged for the purposes of the act is subject to a licence for the use of the document by all persons performing any function or relying upon any document for the purposes of the administration of the act.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We will look at it but, obviously, copyright is a commonwealth matter.

Clause passed.

Clauses 226 and 227 passed.

Clause 227A.

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

Amendment No 74 [Planning–1]—

Page 181, after line 35—Insert:

227A—Delegation by Minister

(1) The Minister may delegate any of the Minister's functions or powers under this Act.

(2) A delegation—

(a) may be made—

(i) to a particular person or body; or

(ii) to the person for the time being occupying a particular office or position; and

(b) may be made subject to conditions or limitations specified in the instrument of delegation; and

(c) if the instrument of delegation so provides, may be further delegated by the delegate; and

(d) is revocable at will and does not derogate from the power of the Minister to act in any manner.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Where does this one come from, minister?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Section 20 of the current act allows the minister of the day to make delegations and, up until this, there was no power for the minister to make delegations, so this cures that defect. It is restoring the status quo.

New clause inserted.

Clauses 228 and 229 passed.

Clause 230.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, in this area, the Local Government Association has requested instead of the clause requiring consultation with the LGA and any regulations made that have an impact on the role of council or joint planning board.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We are having that discussion, so you can assume that that is something that we are looking at and you will hear more about that shortly.

Clause passed.

Schedules 1 and 2 passed.

Schedule 3.

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

Amendment No 14 [Planning–2]—

Schedule 3, clause 1, page 191, after line 37—Insert:

(da) a code of conduct to be observed by scheme coordinators, or members of committees appointed as scheme coordinators, under Part 13 Division 1; and

Ms CHAPMAN: I had noted this as one of the future illuminating clauses to one of the questions I raised earlier as to what is to occur and what standards will be imposed. I just note that, frankly, this does not tell me anything. It says that there needs to be a code and that it needs to be published, presumably for everyone to read it whenever it happens.

In addition, there needs to be compliance with it and there are certain consequences if you do not, and you can go to the SACAT if you have any problems with it. To be frank, in response to the earlier question, it gives me absolutely no comfort as to what that might be because, as usual, along with the charter, regulations, design code and the like, there is no detail.

Amendment carried; schedule as amended passed.

Schedule 4.

Ms CHAPMAN: This relates to performance targets and monitoring. If this is in any way consistent with the government's current targets in the State Strategic Plan—it is now a webpage which gives an indication from time to time about what might have changed. We no longer have any review of it; we have targets that were never reached. We have amendments to them. We have identified areas which they have no hope of ever reaching, and so they are removed. These are new performance targets in respect of:

(a) any goal, policy or objective under a state planning policy; or

(b) any objectives, priorities or targets included in a planning agreement.

If you were to say, 'There is to be three dwellings on every block in the suburb of Norwood by 2020,' and you fail to reach that, there appears to be no indication about how there is going to be clear and measurable goals or how the measure is going to be able to be specified for the purpose of monitoring its progress.

You can vary it and you can withdraw it. The commissioner has some obligation to publish periodic updates, etc., which I might point out is how the State Strategic Plan started, and that seems now to have morphed into a rather difficult webpage to view, with a whole list of failed targets. I would certainly want to have some understanding about why we even have this in here and whether in fact you have any draft in mind, if it has some merit, and how on earth it is going to operate.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: First of all, this was a recommendation from the panel. Secondly, subclause (2) is actually a reflection of what is in the regulations presently, as I understand it. The third point I would make is that, if you are going to manage anything at all, it helps to be able to measure it and understand what is going on. It is important—

Ms Chapman: It's not the Premier's State Strategic Plan.

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am only answerable for the small things in my space, and this is one of them.

Schedule passed.

Schedule 5.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Time frames, minister; just a simple one. I understand there are 46 different areas where the regulations can be established; they are somewhat of interest to people. When do you intend to have them available?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: They are going to roll out progressively. Some bits will be completed before others. There are some things, as I said before—very early in the piece we would hope to establish the commission, for instance. So if there are any regulations hanging off—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not know; I have not turned my mind to that yet. We do not even have a commission yet. As I said, that sits early in the piece; other things will come down later. We will get to them as quickly as we possibly can.

Schedule passed.

Schedule 6.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Part 7, amendment to the Local Government Act. Have we passed that?

The CHAIR: Part 7 is in schedule 6 but we are prepared to be benevolent at this point. What is your question?

Mr GRIFFITHS: Thank you very much. This is talking about amendments to the Local Government Act 1999 and the request from the Local Government Association to me is for these three areas to be deleted.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

Mr GRIFFITHS: I presume the Minister for Planning has had a briefing with the Minister for Local Government. Has the Minister for Local Government put to him any concerns on behalf of his portfolio area for these?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We are in discussions with local government about these matters and we will hopefully come to some understanding, or not as the case might be. I am advised that this is an extension of existing arrangements with local government but, anyway, we are in chats with them, yes.

Schedule passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform) (23:52): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I would like to thank members of the opposition and, in particular, the member for Goyder and the member for Bragg for their assistance in relation to this matter. I also thank my staff, parliamentary counsel and members of the DPTI planning staff who have done an excellent job on this. It has been a lot of work and will continue to be a lot of work but we are committed to keep working with the people in the industry and so on who are interested in this. We are interested in helping get the really good outcome that we all want.

I am very keen to continue working with the member for Bragg and the member for Goyder about this because I am confident that we can get to the point where, if there are further changes to be made, we can agree them before this matter is dealt with in another place, and when they see it in the other place they will just say, 'My God, this is fantastic. We don't want to touch it; just zip it through.'

An honourable member: Good luck!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think he is having a lend.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (23:54): May I also thank those who have assisted us during the course of the negotiations. I think it is fair to say that, after a long period of consultation in respect of planning reform and the amendment to the act, a rewrite of the planning law in South Australia was overdue to some degree.

I thank Mr Hayes—I think I already have in a previous contribution—for his and the panel's work in this regard. I think he was the author of the first one, the current planning act, so he probably had a pretty good idea of what was deficient by the time he had been through a few court cases on it but, nevertheless, that helped.

I am disappointed that the government has tried to put through infrastructure levy reform, which is a very significant area of dispute, together with effectively an urban growth boundary in a statutory manner. It is almost like holding the industry to ransom after stringing them along for so long to actually have it resolved. Nevertheless, we will work through and navigate as best we can to have some legislation out of this which is workable and which will advance equitable access to planning law in this state.

There is one area that has not been dealt with, and that is: what is the government going to do with the Coordinator-General? I raised it during the course of the debates. I have had no response in relation to that. It may be that the Attorney has not yet spoken to the Premier, who has the Coordinator-General responsible to him. He has the capacity in his discretion to deal with any development over the value of $3 million, which is just absurd. If this reform comes into place to do even half of what the government claims it is going to do, there is absolutely no basis for us having a highly paid public servant to apparently navigate through the difficult processes which have been largely self-inflicted by this government. I think that needs to be remedied and I think we need to have some answer from the government about that role.

I say all this without casting any aspersions in any way on the current incumbent Coordinator-General, but I make the point that we have ended up with this role ostensibly because of the failed management of the government in relation to this area and the overly bureaucratic processes that we all have to face in dealing with this area. I think we should have some answers from the Premier on that issue and we should know about it before the debate concludes in another place.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (23:56): I want to thank the minister's staff for the support provided. When I have sought answers they have provided them, so thank you very much. Can I put on the record my respect for my colleagues who have been involved in the debate on this bill. I think they have done, individually, very well, and I appreciate those who spoke to it.

Importantly, though, can I pay my respects to those who provided me with submissions and who were available at very short notice to give me their considered opinion on various aspects of it. The tightness of the debate opportunity has made it rather difficult, and the amendments that have come through, but it is an effort to try to ensure that we get good outcomes.

I know that from the minister's perspective that is what he wants to be the case, too. There is an enormous amount of work to still be achieved over the next week and a half before there is a final version, and that will still be subject to the numerous amendments that I am sure the Hon. Mr Parnell will be moving in the other place as well. It has been an interesting time that has consumed my life for the last three months.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hammond is going to be very, very quick.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (23:57): I will be very quick. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your forbearance once again in relation to this bill. I must say that the big thing that I am distressed about, essentially, is the proposed environment and food production area which will extend right out to the boundaries of the Rural City of Murray Bridge and take in Alexandrina Council in my electorate as well as other councils. I will be very interested in the debate in the other place in regards to this, because, as the minister said during the debate, this is essentially making these areas character preservation areas equivalent to McLaren Vale and Barossa Valley with little or no consultation. I express my disappointment.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair also acknowledges everyone's efforts tonight and thanks them for their cooperation.

Bill read a third time and passed.

At 23:59 the house adjourned until Wednesday 18 November 2015 at 11:00.