Statutes Amendment (Intensity of Development) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 2 November 2017.)

Mr PISONI (Unley) (10:56): The Liberal Party will be supporting this bill this morning and, in doing so, would like to use the opportunity to point out some of the flaws that have been happening, throughout metropolitan Adelaide in particular, through the so-called transition period or the changes to the Planning Act that have been managed by the member for Enfield, the Deputy Premier. I think this government has a lack of understanding about the need for proper planning of changes to density in our suburbs in particular.

We see that in the inner suburbs in electorates like mine in the seat of Unley, and in electorates like the Leader of the Opposition's seat of Norwood. I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on the stance he took on the Life Care proposal. It was a ludicrous situation. Two years after the minister's office signed off on a community-consulted, council-consulted DPA for the City of Norwood Payneham and St Peters—they need to get around to shortening the name of that council one day; they have been amalgamated for quite a number of years—

An honourable member: Since 1997.

Mr PISONI: Since 1997, I have been informed. Perhaps they should change it for their 21^st anniversary. We had the situation where there was a full consultation process, and I congratulate the council on their input in that consultation process and I congratulate the residents. We saw the same thing happen in Unley, one of the first councils off the block to work with the government's plans for the 30-year plan in South Australia.

Just two years after the minister signed off on a three-storey development in Joslin, he proclaimed the ministerial DPA to allow developments of retirement villages and any related infrastructure, which could be restaurants, gyms, other apartments, to be approved outside the DPA in record time. Boy, did that set off some community backlash, and that community backlash was well justified. Nobody is opposed to development, nobody is opposed Adelaide growing and Adelaide providing facilities needed for different sectors of the community—in this case, the senior sector of the community.

Nobody is opposed to those types of developments, but people want considered and balanced development. They want the ability to have input. If we go back to the whole intention of the changes to the Development Act, the new Development Act, that were moved in this place by the Deputy Premier, it was all about having up-front consultation about height limits and other particular characteristics of neighbourhoods and having that consultation at that end so that it would give certainty not only to the residents but also to the development community.

That has not happened, so we have a situation where people can make significant investments in the family home in an area that has been signed off by the minister as an area that is of character, a character zone; in other words, it is recognised as having character. Yet the minister can, with the stroke of a pen, ignore that consultation process, ignore that very provision that he signed off on just a few years earlier and allow a situation where anything goes.

Remember that the three-storey development that is there now does not have frosted windows looking out onto people's homes. It is an extraordinary situation. Try doing that in your own development or extension at home. I know that, when we put one up at the family home a number of years ago, we could not even have an opening window lower than 1.5 metres from the floor level, and the window had to be frosted; yet, if you go to that development now, to the three-storey stage 1 of that development, you will see clear windows and balconies looking into people's backyards.

It does have an impact on the very thing that South Australians—community leaders in South Australia, everyday South Australians—talk about as one of the valued things about South Australia, that is, our standard of living. This poor planning process led to the situation we saw with the Life Care development that forced the member for Newland to react to the discontent about the Deputy Premier's planning rules in his own electorate—and we concur. Dr Richard Harvey has picked up the same issues: the poor management of development planning in Adelaide and the lack of consideration for managing things such as traffic.

It is all very well to have an ambition to reduce the use of cars in the metropolitan area, but the facts are—and we see this with families as the children get older—that you can start off as a one or two-car family but, by the time your kids are in their late teens and their early and sometimes late 20s and still living at home, there could be four or five cars for that one house. I note that in his bill the member for Newland referred to the impact of traffic on subdivisions. The fact that a government backbencher has brought this bill to the parliament is more evidence of the shortcomings of the planning overhaul that the Deputy Premier brought to the parliament and the people of South Australia. Of course, the member for Newland supported those changes.

I am also very cynical about the late timing of this bill coming to the parliament. We have one more sitting week and it has to go through two chambers, and there could be amendments proposed in the other chamber. We know that it is very ambitious for a private member's bill to get through within a six-month period, let alone a two-week period. I would be shocked. I am sure that the constituents of Newland would be disappointed if they learnt that the member for Newland was aware of this issue only in the last few weeks. It would be neglect. He could have put it in government time if they were serious about getting this bill through in record time.

That is a challenge for the government: how serious are they about this? Is this just another cynical exercise by the Labor government creating an illusion of action after 16 years—like all the government advertising we are seeing on television is attempting to do at the moment—an illusion that things are actually happening and that this government is working for its constituents? I remind the constituents of Newland that the government has failed them. The member for Newland has failed them, and this is just one example of how he has failed to deliver for his constituents in Newland.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON (Newland) (11:06): I thank the member for Unley for his kind words. It is unfortunate that irony or sarcasm cannot be written into Hansard. Be that as it may, I certainly thank the members of the opposition for their support for the bill. It is a bill that has come about simply because no bill—even one that underwent such thorough review and consultation as the planning act changes did—is going to be able anticipate every effect that can possibly occur. The very rare situation that has occurred in my electorate is that there are two particularly large blocks in an otherwise small suburban cul-de-sac. That has brought this about and, of course, has brought this bill to the parliament. Again, I thank the opposition for their support. I look forward to its speedy passage through the upper house and through this house.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. T.R. KENYON (Newland) (11:07): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Again, I thank the house for its indulgence, and I look forward to its support in the upper house.

Bill read a third time and passed.