Bills

Statutes Amendment (Planning, Development and Infrastructure) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 21 September 2016.)

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (12:03): I confirm that I will be the lead speaker for the opposition on the legislation, but there are a few other members from the opposition who wish to make a contribution. Can I put on the record from the start that it has always been an understanding of the opposition that subsequent legislation would be introduced on the basis, as it turns out, of turning off some sections of the Development Act 1993 and turning on some components of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016. A very significant debate was held in this and the other place in about November of last year going through to April, I think, before the legislation was eventually carried in the Legislative Council.

It is a very significant piece of legislation that has an impact across many areas of our economy, and it was important that it occur. The debate there put in place some 240-odd pages or thereabouts of legislation, whereas this statutes amendment legislation is about 44 pages. It does amend some 24 different pieces of legislation, much of it being as a consequential amendment in the way that previous references to the Development Act of 1993 have had to be changed and now expressed as the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act of 2016.

The opposition certainly has no debate about the fact that the legislation is necessary and I put on the record from the very start that we do support it. I put on the record, though, that there will be some questions I intend asking the minister in committee because there are some aspects of it that I seek to put on the public record for clarification to assist all those who have to try to use it because that does create some challenges.

The legislation was introduced by the minister on 21 September. It was rather a surprise to me to see it originally tabled for debate on the following Wednesday, which turned out to be code black or 'black Wednesday', and therefore the legislation did not occur because the chamber was closed down. The briefing was only provided to me on the day of the legislative intention for the debate to occur, so it created a bit of a bottleneck about what was going to be said and what the position was going to be.

I did have some preliminary thoughts in mind and I had been in a position to contact some of the industry players, in particular, and get some very preliminary feedback from them, but in the 2½ weeks subsequent to that I have had an opportunity to get a lot more detailed information, for which I am very grateful. That information has come from the Local Government Association, the Urban Development Institute of Australia, the Master Builders Association, and the Housing Industry Association, and the Property Council also gave me feedback. It has been a bit of a cross-section, but that is because those are the players that are involved in it significantly, so that is where the consultation has been.

I note that the first four pages of the legislation were debated at length, as I have mentioned previously, but there are some changes that occurred from it, particularly in reference to a change in philosophy where the minister has to accept responsibility for certain actions to take place instead of the planning commission, which is very different to amendments that were considered in the other place as part of the eventual legislation that came in earlier this year. I can accept that, though, on the basis—and I have used a simple equation for it—that accountability requires responsibility. I indicate that there is an acceptance of that change to occur in this area because it relates to specific areas, so that is appropriate.

It is interesting that pages 8 to 28 of this legislation deal with subsequent amendments to the other 23 pieces of legislation, and that is why the review will take place of some areas that there were concerns about. I will give an example in clause 8 on page 7 of the legislation, which is an amendment to section 73 of the act. A concern put to me by the Local Government Association was that the legal advice provided to them indicated that the bill decreases the consultation requirements for the preparation of the designated instruments, so that will be an area that I will be seeking to clarify with the minister.

There are also references on page 8 to 'designated day', but later on the bill refers to the designated day potentially being 'before or after', so I will seek some clarification from the minister on that. There are also references on page 8 to 'saving of operation', and this is where I think we need some important statements by the minister on the intention of that because the second reading speech was only about a page long and therefore did not contain a lot of detail and it is important to be on the register, too.

There are some further references to change of land use, where it puts in place the ability for current rights to be continued for a two-year period. That was a period that we were aware of, so I support the intent of that, but I just want some details on it. There is a reference that the appointment of the commissioner, who is going to play an absolutely key role in this—and this was also a bit of an emphasis from me in estimates questions of the Minister for Planning—is not likely to occur until the end of March, that is, 12 months or thereabouts after the legislation passes.

The commissioner has to be in place before the planning commissioner is appointed and then the serious work is undertaken, even though some of the background work on some of the documentation required is being undertaken now by planning staff, but, for example, the charter for community consultation stems from that early work of the planning commission, and the legislation includes a requirement for that to be in place within six months, so there are some points that are going to be required on that one, too.

I note the reference to the regions on page 12. My initial thought, as a regional person, was that it refers to regional South Australia, but it does not. It refers to regions within metropolitan areas, and the head nod has been given to that, so thank you for the clarification. That, I understand. Page 13 refers to preserving existing authorisations and rights, and I suppose that relates back to the land use opportunities and, therefore, the equity and the value held in the property, and that is for the two-year period.

There are references to a planning and design code. The interesting part is that it is not required to provide for all matters until 1 July 2020. I know that there is an enormous amount of work—I do not deny that—and effort that has to go into planning and design codes because they will become the drivers of the development vision for the areas, but we are still talking a good four years or thereabouts before that is achieved, so that is a concern we all have. Therefore, the question becomes about the resources and the capacity of staff in dealing not just with what they are doing at the moment but in creating this new documentation.

I also note that there is a reference in one clause, and we will debate it in the committee stage, about how the minister may make amendments in such a manner as the minister thinks fit. I presume that this is intended to work the way a ministerial DPA operates, much as in the current process. Indeed, other members in this chamber would be aware that where that is in place, it is an authorisation for a 12-month period subject to some community consultation before the eventual decision is made on it. 'As the minister thinks fit' is a bit of a worry area. I understand there is a need—and it comes back to how accountability requires responsibility for decisions to be made—but I will seek some clarification on that.

There are some references to local heritage. Everybody in this chamber no doubt would be aware of the discussion paper that has been issued by the minister and his staff, with consultation closing on 7 October, which has created considerable debate across all South Australia. No doubt the department has received many comments on that. As I understand it, it is about the transfer of those properties that are currently listed to go onto the new listing process. I will get some clarification on that.

I also note on page 17 the general transition scheme for the panel. The UDIA has provided me with some comments and a suggestion for an amendment on that. The information I have had, particularly from the Property Council, the UDIA and the Local Government Association, and I believe Master Builders, is that a high-level group is involved in the implementation of this. They have put their concerns to the government and staffers about that. In some cases, there has been an acceptance of it, but in other cases there appears to be a very different position on it. It does not just involve this transition scheme for panels but other areas, too, so it will be likely that we have a discussion about that in committee.

By going into committee and seeking answers from the minister, I want to flag the fact that while the opposition supports the legislation, depending on what sorts of responses we get and depending on my continued discussions with the industry groups that have put these issues to me, there might be some amendments flagged and provided to the minister between the houses for consideration by the Legislative Council as well.

I note on page 19 the reference to existing applications and that clause 19 is about appeals. My question, therefore, is because we are talking about turning off some aspects of old legislation and turning on aspects of new legislation as to how the appeal process will be run, whether this will create some legal concerns about what an appeal might be based upon regarding the provisions under which a decision is actually made. As I understand that in very simple terms, at the time of an application being lodged it is assessed upon the provisions that exist at that time—and I am also getting a head nod about that—and it has to because otherwise it will be bedlam. We will get some clarification on that.

I note some references on classification and occupation of land in clause 27 as to building use and activities, so I will be seeking some comments from the minister on that. At clause 28, there is a reference to swimming pool safety. No doubt the minister and his staff have been contacted, as I certainly have been, by the Swimming Pools Association and a representative of that group, who was concerned particularly about fencing when it comes to safety aspects of swimming pools, and the concerns about ambiguity (my word, not theirs) that exists between different regulations. So, I am not sure if it deals with that—it does not appear to me to do that, but I seek the reason it is in there.

I note also on page 32 a reference to the Environment Protection Act, and it inserts a definition of 'preschool'. I am rather intrigued as to why that is there. I will get some clarification for the record on that also. I can understand the definition, and the fact that it probably needed to be in place somehow, but I am not sure if it was just missed accidentally as part of the initial legislation discussion about that and why it is there.

I note also that on page 43 it refers to amendments to the Roads (Opening and Closing) Act 1991, and that is where there is a change of reference from the Governor being the authorised person to the minister being the authorised person, and I also seek clarification on that. We will not been talking for anywhere near as long as we did on the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill 2015, as originally tabled. This is a consequential piece of legislation that stems from that. It will be an enormous amount of work over the next three to five years, which is the date period commonly quoted about it, but it has to be right.

While there might be some concerns, I know the minister in his discussion with me three weeks ago, when his requirement was for this legislation to be debated then, without an opportunity to consult with the different groups, said that it was nothing, that there was nothing in it, that it was easy to do. I respect that there is an agreed position on most things, and I respect the fact that the government needs to have the capacity to turn off aspects of the Development Act 1993 and to turn on the PDI Act 2016 in areas, but it does highlight the fact that every component of planning and development controls is worthy of discussion.

I am a very firm believer in the fact that questions asked here, explanations provided by the minister and scenarios created around the reason why the questions are asked, allows those who are the implementers of it, and the people who have to work around it, along with potential future legal actions involved in the consideration and inactions against it, to understand the intent of it. It is a good discussion to have.

We do not intend to hold up the house forever on this, but we want to make sure that there is an opportunity for members to put positions and for clarification to be sought. With those very few brief words, in comparison with others, I support the legislation and look forward to its passage through the house.

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (12:17): I acknowledge the contribution of the member for Goyder, which was, as usual, a very constructive contribution to the legislation before the parliament. This bill, which is primarily procedural in nature, allows the government to coordinate the complex task of transitioning to a contemporary and modern planning system under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016, which passed in April of this year. The passing of the act followed an extensive body of work commencing in 2012, with the appointment of the Expert Panel on Planning Reform.

The panel engaged in extensive rounds of consultation, with a view to modernising our planning system. The result is a complex body of legislation, the full implementation of which will take a few years. To say that it is complex may be a bit of an understatement. Some of the key milestones include the appointment of the state planning commission by April 2017. The commission will lead the development of the community engagement charter, which I think is an incredibly important element of the legislation. By mid-2018, following community consultation, we will see the development of the planning and design code.

The current planning system is inadequate. Planning can and should be an economic enabler for communities, something which clearly exercises my mind, given the challenges currently faced in Whyalla, challenges which involve ensuring a productive future for our existing industries allied to the need to diversify and the interplay between the planning system and economic diversification. At times, the system is too slow, with a series of what could be called unnecessary, time-delaying and cumbersome barriers, especially for projects about which there is general consensus.

Of course, the planning system is about more than just being an economic enabler: it is also about decent, liveable and affordable neighbourhoods. It is about aesthetic and design standards leading to quality built environments. It is about a genuine commitment to ensuring the gift from which we all ultimately spring—the natural environment—is protected. Of course, the act will not operate in isolation in that respect. The challenge will be to ensure, with the implementation of the act, that all those elements carry real weight and not just a push for a quick dollar at the expense of the long-term public good.

As a former member of a city council, I have been exposed to a wide range of planning processes and decisions over the years. Criticism is sometimes made of councils about the time-consuming nature of planning decision-making processes. At times, that criticism is justified. It could equally be argued that state agencies are also guilty at times of slow responses. In both cases, there is a variety of reasons including, but not just, adequate resourcing to get the job done, plus elements of the Development Act 1993 which, in fairness, was a creature of its time and, in fairness, did have some positive features as well as some negative features.

I am currently working with a range of companies in my region that want to deliver projects that will have broad community support. The companies are international in nature and have expressed some frustration with the slowness of the planning process while also acknowledging the hope to work through the processes at a local council level. I will just touch upon some other complexities the new act will help to address.

For example, from a planning perspective, under the current system a category of development such as 'residential' is reflected in varying degrees of difference in 68 different council areas; therefore, an amendment to 'residential' that might make economic and social sense can only be given full effect if each of the 68 government plans is amended accordingly by each individual council. For a change to occur in just one council area, this takes significant time—12 months or more—and is a drain on the resources at a state and council level.

The current process broadly involves a council first undertaking necessary research to prepare a statement of intent which, as members know, is a broad high-level statement of what planning amendments are to be explored. This can take up to two months. The second step is for a council then to liaise with the Department of Planning and the minister in order to come to an agreement on the scope of the intent and to make any further investigations and/or amendments. The process altogether can take six months. The third step involves a council undertaking public consultation and further investigations in preparation of a development plan amendment. This takes approximately six months.

Fourthly, the council may then take up to three months to finalise the DPA ready to submit to the minister, through the department, for the minister's consideration and approval. Usually a finalised DPA, ready for the minister's final consideration and approval, may be considered by the minister within a few weeks. In contrast, under the new planning system a statewide planning and design code will replace the 68 development plans. Accordingly, such amendments to 'residential' as per my example could be given effect to all relevant areas across the state zoned as such far more quickly and efficiently.

Under the new planning system, there are significant opportunities to improve the situation and unlock economic potential. In addition to the development of a state planning and design code to reduce duplication and confusion caused by 68 individual council plans, there will also be a real opportunity to replace over 22,000 pages of planning policy in 72 documents. Other opportunities include a new e-planning system that will automate and streamline planning processes, and e-planning will also make planning information more accessible.

The tools to support local government in taking a more strategic regional approach and achieving economies by undertaking planning assessment on a regional basis will also be available. For regional councils, this also presents an opportunity for them to consider how they make better use of existing resources. There will also be streamlined and more certain assessment pathways that are fit for purpose, reducing assessment time frames for simple applications from a median of 66 days to the planned 10 days.

Before concluding, I want to emphasise how important it is to get the community engagement charter right. Community engagement is critical, and it covers a range of approaches that have to be fit for purpose. Without robust and genuine community engagement the act will fall short and will probably fall well short of what we are trying to achieve. I emphasise again that this is an incredibly crucial element of the act. I encourage the timely passage of the bill to enable the planning reforms to begin as soon as possible.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:25): I rise to speak to the Statutes Amendment (Planning, Development and Infrastructure) Bill 2016. It is heading towards a year since we started debating the original bill, which was the repeal of the previous planning legislation from 1993. My concerns at the time were that some of the issues that arose from that debate were when we were well into the committee stage. We had made our second reading contributions, and next thing there were quite a few amendments coming through. In fact, I believe there were something like 300 amendments through the houses, and about 200 of those came from the government.

For big legislation like this—and the government is the one with the resources—it beggars belief why so many amendments had to be drafted for the legislation that was being debated at the time with the many years and months that would have gone into (or what I believe should have gone into) the introduction of the bill, which then became the planning act.

The biggest thing that concerned me at the time was when we were in the committee stage debating clause 50 and we got to the area of environment and food protection. This concerned me because it obviously brings in more red tape: it changes a whole range of things in development across a fair swag—a large area of the state. During the debate, when I was questioning the minister what concerned me even more was that these environment and food protection areas, or the big area, as outlined to me, would be the equivalent of what happened when the legislation went through for the Barossa Valley and McLaren Vale protection areas.

I think it is totally wrong that a major planning change such as this suddenly came in at that stage of the debate, and it did seem to be rushed as we looked to find maps of what it meant. For me, the major concern was that, apart from the major area that was impacted—which is essentially an area just north of Kapunda right through to Goolwa, at the bottom of my electorate, including the full area of the Rural City of Murray Bridge—there was a lack of complete consultation with local government on the issue. So, I contacted my local mayors, with varying responses, and I said, 'You really need to have a look at this, and you need to talk to people to see what this means.'

At the time, the mayor from Murray Bridge came back to me and he said, 'No, I've talked to my planning people, and they don't seem to think it's going to be a huge impost.' I said, 'I think you need to have a look.' It is up to them how hard they look at it. I was only talking to Mayor Brenton Lewis about three or four weeks ago on this matter, and he said, 'Yes, now we are concerned when we realise the implications.'

Some people may question my thoughts on this, as a farmer, that I would like to see protection, but let's be frank: we have to manage planning appropriately. This whole state was once farmland, so if you are going to start excluding areas fully, we have already built on the best land in this state, certainly in the Adelaide Plains area, certainly right here where we stand today, some of the most fertile country in the state.

What I struggle with in this blanket environment and food protection area is the fact that there are many different landforms between Kapunda and Goolwa. There are many different landforms, and the value of your country, especially in production, is in the eye of the beholder. You can be in high-production country, whether it is some of the higher production country around Coonalpyn, some of the red flats, some of the high-production country on Yorke Peninsula. There is high-production country on Eyre Peninsula. When I say high-production country, I am talking about cropping country here, but equally you have station owners in the Far North who believe that their land is valuable country and high-production country.

You only have to look at the debate over the proposed Kidman stations sale to see how that has focused many across the country and overseas on the debate of the value of Australian land. It is certainly in the eye of the beholder, and I think they were the appropriate places to go in the planning legislation. It was disappointing that this was brought to us in the committee stage of the debate. It should have been far better handled, and I hope that with this so-called consultation that is going to happen there is actually some consultation with local government. They do play a big role in planning, and it would be nice to think that they are involved. Frankly, I have seen no evidence of it so far, and it certainly needs to happen.

This bill has been introduced by the minister to provide for the implementation of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 by the amendment of many acts and the enactment of transitional provisions. It certainly amends 24 different acts. This legislation is supported by a commitment of almost $26 million over five years, July 2016 to June 2021, for the implementation of the new planning scheme for the state, and this would include the introduction of the new e-planning system. It was noted that in the 2016-17 state budget it was highlighted that council levy and development application fee increases will provide $3.716 million in revenue from 2017-18 to 2019-20.

This is a transitional bill that will provide the steps to take us from the current Development Act 1993 to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act, allowing the planning and governance frameworks to be introduced in stages down the line. The minister has noted that the bill is procedural and enables the government to commence a 'coordinated, orderly and phased three to five-year implementation program for the new planning system'.

The minister has relayed that he hopes for the new planning commissioner to be appointed by March 2017, and that process of appointing the commissioner will have to get on the boat, because it is expected to take six months for the appointment to be approved through state cabinet. The bill outlines that provisions supporting the establishment of the state planning commission will come into operation on 1 April 2017. The bill also provides for amendments to replace the commissioner with the minister in the area of preparation of state planning policies, and there will certainly be, from what I understand, some questions raised about that during the committee stage.

The minister conveys in his speech that the amendments are practical in the sense that the responsibility for an ownership of state planning policy rests, ultimately, with the Minister for Planning and the government of the day. I quote, 'notwithstanding that their policies will be informed by the commission and its consultations'. There are some amendments in place that reflect an inconsistency of an amendment of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill in the Legislative Council.

These are in areas originally intended to operate by ministerial direction to the commission that were amended during the debate, and it looks like this will be changed, but there will be some clarification through the debate on this current bill. I have also already talked about the establishment of the state planning commission, for which the provisions are in place, so that can commence on 1 April 2017. There will be planning regions, as per the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act. The government, on recommendation of the minister, may divide the state into planning regions, and this also relates to metropolitan areas.

Certainly, part of it is about the fact that the commission is to prepare the community engagement charter on behalf of the minister. The shadow minister, the member for Goyder, was informed at a briefing that the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure is now commencing the tender process relevant to the development of a draft community engagement charter, and that draft will be ready by April and will be put out for formal consultation once the commissioner is established. We should be happy that there is a draft program on how to consult going into place because what we have been used to with this current government is 'announce and defend' policies. It is interesting that the government is now consulting on how it should consult.

A planning and design code is coming in, but it is not required to provide for all the matters in relation to key provisions about the content of the code until 1 July 2020. The planning and design code and new streamlined assessment pathways are anticipated to be implemented by mid to late 2018, and, as such, a development plan under the Development Act will have effect, meaning that assessments will be based on the repealed legislation until the codes are implemented.

It is interesting to note that e-planning is proposed to be operational by 2019, and councils are to be part of the start-up process and contribute to that and to the ongoing management of the system. This bill certainly provides for the transfer of the Development Assessment Commission and other entities' statutory functions to the commission. There will be a transitional scheme involved with the Council Development Assessment Panel, and it gives, through this bill, the minister the right to constitute regional assessment panels.

As per the new act, each assessment panel is required to have an assessment manager, and that would be an accredited professional, or a person of a prescribed class. A person may hold that appointment for more than one assessment panel. I have already talked about my concerns in regard to the environment and food protection areas. This is the minister's quest, to curb urban sprawl, but I think it could have been managed far better than just putting blanket bans on development. I think it will certainly have some major implications into the future.

This transitional arrangement will work over a two-year designated transitional period. I certainly hope that we have the appropriate consultation, with everyone involved, moving ahead. Pilot infrastructure schemes will be put in place for debate, and some people have expressed their concerns with them. Local heritage values will be determined under values in the planning and design code and this is to be dealt with under a separate piece of legislation, potentially to be introduced before the end of this year. That is just waiting on some discussion paper feedback.

Significant trees will be valued under the planning and design code. The bill also outlines the process relevant to existing applications that have not been determined by the designated day, which is the commencement of the new assessment scheme. The bill is designed to support business as usual during the implementation phase until each element of the new system is fully introduced. It does this by making clear that processes commenced and rights secured under the existing Development Act 1993 will be transitioned to the new system.

The Development Act 1993 will continue to apply in relation to an existing proposed development or project that has not yet been the subject of a decision of the Governor. The same applies to an application lodged for Crown and infrastructure development not yet determined before the designated day. In regard to building work, access to land and activities that affect stability of land or premises, depending on development approval and notice served to the owner of the affected site prior to the designated day, the bill enables this clause to come into force.

In regard to land management agreements that are held by councils, they are to be provided to the minister within three months after the designated day. This is in response to issues like rural living agreements and other matters. Advisory committees will be dissolved by force on 30 June 2019, but they will be established initially to provide advice on the local government sector relating to entities involved in undertaking development within the state, community participation and ecological sustainability and livability.

I note that the minister has established a collaborative advisory team, which includes representatives from the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, the Local Government Association, the Urban Development Institute of Australia, the Property Council and Master Builders Australia. The purpose of this team is to provide high-level advice on the development of various aspects of the planning reforms. I note in particular that the Housing Industry Association has not been invited to be part of this team.

In regard to the e-planning part of the legislation, the Local Government Association has provided some advice on proposed fees that councils will be required to pay from 1 July 2017, as advised by the Department of Planning. There will be a two-part council fee comprising a $4,000 flat fee applicable to all councils, plus a second component indexed to development values of the council. The annual value of development by council area council fees are: over $100 million, $32,000; over $50 million but less than $100 million, $24,000; over $10 million but less than $50 million, $12,000; and less than $10 million, $4,000.

I will be interested in the discussion on this bill as it goes through. I will quote from the minister's second reading explanation when he introduced the bill. He said:

To ensure the most efficient and effective introduction of the changes, preparation for the implementation of the new system is already occurring in partnership with Government departments, councils and industry groups. Indeed, many of them have indicated their support and enthusiasm for the initiatives contained in the new planning system.

That may be true, but there are certainly many people I do not believe have been consulted who should be consulted. That consultation should already be happening, especially in regard to the environment and food protection areas, so that councils can put their planning in place, especially into the transitional period in the next couple of years as things transition to the new legislation, so that people know exactly where they stand moving into the future.

As I indicated at the beginning of my contribution, it is disconcerting to find out that initially councils had not been advised on the implications, they had not even been advised they were going to be part of the environment and food protection area. In such an area of planning, and as we saw during the debate, hundreds of amendments come in—at least 200 from the government on their own legislation—so it is a complex matter and it needs to be dealt with appropriately.

People need to be part of the conversation and not dictated to regarding what happens as things unfold, or suddenly get a rude shock in a couple of years' time when certain development proposals come through and they realise that those opportunities have been blocked off because of the planning legislation in place. So I urge the government to consult widely, to work with people and not dictate to organisations, especially councils, in regard to how the new planning legislation will pan out. This does affect every South Australian. I hope it is speedy, because it needs to be; however, it also needs to be appropriate so that we get planning right in this state.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton) (12:45): I rise to speak in support of the Statutes Amendment (Planning, Development and Infrastructure) Bill 2016. This bill is, in a sense, straightforward. It enables the government to coordinate the orderly transition to a new planning system under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016—which finally passed in April this year—from the current planning system that is over 20 years old.

On the other hand, it would be readily appreciated that the transition from a 20-year-old planning system to a modern and effective planning system under the new act will be a complex task. That task, I understand, will follow a three to five-year phased implementation program, and this bill will allow the government to turn aspects of the new planning system on when they are ready, and turn aspects of the old system off when they are no longer required. My contribution today will focus on experiences that my constituents have faced in planning and, therefore, why these new planning reforms cannot come soon enough.

It is in this context I welcome and encourage the swift passage of this bill to allow the planning reforms to commence in earnest. In particular, under the new planning system we will see, for the first time, the introduction of a community engagement charter. The charter will be one of the first tasks to be undertaken by the new state planning commission which this bill will enable, if passed. The charter will provide the community with the opportunity to have genuine engagement on the planning rules and policies that impact upon their community and to have a say in ensuring that the planning rules and policies are set right.

These planning rules and policies will include the statewide planning and design code and design principles. These will eventually replace the varying 68 development plans across 68 local council areas, totalling over 22,000 pages of planning policy, with a readily understandable and accessible statewide planning and design code. Importantly, these new planning policy tools will elevate the importance of design. That cannot come soon enough; the introduction of up-front community engagement on planning rules and policies, and the focus on good design under the new planning system is greatly welcomed.

As I said, I would like to talk about some of my experiences with respect to the current processes that relate to planning in this state, particularly as it relates to my area. In my experience it is safe to say that one of the biggest issues, if not the biggest, that is raised by my constituents is planning issues that relate to redevelopment of residential dwelling land. For those of you who are not familiar with Henley, Henley Beach South, Seaton, Kidman Park, indeed any of the suburbs within my electorate, you will know how they have been transformed in recent years and continue to transform. Most are unrecognisable from how they were 15, 10 or even five years ago, and I expect that is common across Adelaide, not just in my electorate.

The old houses have been bowled over and predominantly replaced by two dwellings of two levels, in many cases occupying all or most of the land. This, of course, has an impact on infrastructure, stormwater for example, and street parking and is, without question, putting pressure on the existing infrastructure that was established to cater for different conditions in a then different environment and a then different preceding era.

This bill may not necessarily address this pressing issue, but it is something that I think will need to be addressed and managed. Perhaps the up-front community engagement and planning rules and policies, and the focus on good design that is established under this bill, may help in this particular matter. While my constituents raise concerns about the adverse impact this is having on public infrastructure, the main concern raised with me by the majority of my constituents without doubt is the impact that urban infill is having on their amenity and the nature and make-up of their community.

I want it understood that I support urban infill as a legitimate and appropriate way by which we plan Adelaide into the future. However, like my constituents, I have some concerns about process, design and the impact it is having on their lives and their amenity. And, Deputy Speaker—I know you are sitting on the edge of your seat—it does not help when the local council (in this case, the City of Charles Sturt), when responding to the concerns and complaints of their ratepayers, simply responds by saying, 'Take it up with your local member of parliament. It is their act that we are forced to work with.' In speaking with my colleagues in this chamber, I understand that the same response is also coming from other councils.

While it is true that it is a state act, and we know that council is the delivering and approving body on these planning matters, council's response I think is a bit rich, especially so when a lot of the complaints relate to setback, frosting, height of windows, overhang and shadowing, amongst other things that council allow to proceed. It seems to me that council cannot wipe its hands of this issue when it comes to their responsibility. Throw in council's stated policies—preserving character through sympathetic design for one—to that character and the character of the neighbourhood in which the development is occurring, and it is clear to me and my constituents that they are failing in those areas where they definitely do have a responsible role to play. I think they are abrogating their responsibility in this regard.

I want to cite an example, of the many that I could, of inappropriate development. It is fortunate that the minister—a very good minister that he is—the Deputy Premier, was able to visit with me at home on Seaview Road on the Monday of community cabinet in my area where a dwelling is being constructed on the northern side of Becky and Marty and Robyn's homes. It is all personal taste, but in my view this development is nothing short of a monstrosity.

This development is a single dwelling taking up almost all of the land. It is of significant height and close to the boundary between the two. For the majority of the year from now on, Becky and Marty's place will be permanently shadowed and, indeed, permanently wet, even in the middle of summer. Probably the only thing that they will be able to grow there will be moss rocks—and you do not grow them, but they will be all that will survive. As I said, moss will likely be the only thing that will grow; in fact, it will thrive. It is disgusting.

Robyn has lived in this property for over 20 years in a small, self-contained area on the north-eastern corner. When we visited, there was no light going into the place, and she had either to have electricity on all the time or light candles, and I was very pleased that that was the area in which we met when the Deputy Premier visited during community cabinet. Robyn's home will be completely in darkness for 12 months of the year because that shadowing will be permanent, to the extent that lights will need to be turned on at all times during daylight hours. She will not see any daylight and that is the point. This to me is a completely inappropriate development for the reasons detailed, but also it is completely out of character and out of kilter with council's stated position on the retention of character. It is an insensitive development.

I do not know if this bill will completely address all the issues that I have raised, but it is an opportunity—the opportunity exists that it could. I know that members of this chamber, despite some of the concerns, will welcome the new planning system that will introduce up-front community engagement on planning rules and policies and focus on good design amongst other things. It is an appropriate opportunity for the members in our community to have some say over what they want their area to look like, how it will be able to retain both character and amenity in the form of sensitive design.

As I said, that is not mutually exclusive to bowling over places and having that that they are building these days, those two-storey properties on a single block. They can be done in a way that is a lot better and more sensitive than they have in the past. The focus has to be on good design, amongst other things, and one that enhances the community in which we live and one that is not to the detriment of the amenity we enjoy within our communities. I do urge a very swift passage of this bill to enable these important planning reforms to occur as soon as possible. I make no apologies for having a crack at the council. I just think they wipe their hands of a lot of the planning issues.

The Hon. G.G. Brock interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: I know that you are a former mayor. I know that the member for Frome is a former mayor, and I am not going to reflect on the Port Pirie council where he was a great mayor, but the simple fact is that this needs—

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: I am praising him; he is not praising himself. I would go a bit further and say that you are an excellent local member of parliament as well, and if you said, 'Yes, I am,' I would not see that as self-praise: I would just say that you are stating a fact—but I am being diverted from my task because of the unruly interjections by the member for Frome.

I think that we need to work with council a little bit more closely than we do, but at the same time council has to understand that it is an important player in this field; it is the interface with our community. I know that the changes that are being proposed by this particular bill, the establishment of a process by which the community can engage in planning processes, can only be a good thing. Council needs to not only recognise that but be a little bit more overt in the way they still manage planning issues under the existing legislation.

As I said earlier, I think that they have done on occasions an appalling job and at best on occasions a reasonable job, but there is lots of room for improvement. Council will of course be the body that will be administering aspects of this. They need to lift their performance, and I hope and trust that they can. In the minute or so I have left, I want to refocus on the point about infrastructure and one of the issues recurring.

It does not matter whether it is here or whether it is in another area, what we are seeing are the blocks that are being redeveloped occupied generally by two houses, where the roof covers the entire area. Where does the water go? It can only go one place: out through the stormwater system. That stormwater system, as I said earlier, has been built to cater for a different type of community that existed previously, and that is having serious impacts on that infrastructure. I think it will continue to have serious impacts on that infrastructure with respect to capacity.

I know that as a government we will turn around and say, 'Well, stormwater is a council responsibility,' and yes, it is, but I think this matter can only be addressed if we work hand in glove with council to make sure that collectively we say that this is a joint responsibility and that we need to do something about it. That might not be welcomed by my colleagues, particularly on this side of the house, but I do not care. They can sack me if they like, but the reality is that we cannot abrogate our responsibilities because we are part of the solution to this particular process as well.

With those words, I conclude my remarks, and I urge a swift passage of this bill through this house and the other place.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. G.G. Brock.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00.