Motions

Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act Regulations

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (11:38): I move:

That regulations made under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016, entitled Planning, Development and Infrastructure (General) (Development Assessment) Variation Regulations 2019 and laid on the table of this house on 2 July 2019, be disallowed.

I rise to move this disallowance motion. In doing so, I want to firstly acknowledge that the development assessment regulations, tabled in this chamber on 2 July, form an important part of the state's transition to our new planning system. In accordance with the provisions in the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016, the development assessment regulations prescribe the processes through which development applications will be assessed under the state's new planning rules. As the Labor opposition has previously indicated, much of the policy intent contained in the regulations is desirable. I have already indicated that setting time limits for development assessment processes is also desirable.

Residents, landlords and businesses should not have relatively simple development applications held up because of inefficient bureaucratic processes. It should be acknowledged that many councils already have exemplary records. One that comes to mind is the Salisbury council, which has a very good record in this area in processing development applications quickly. But there exists an inconsistency across the local government sector, which can be improved through the establishment of maximum assessment time periods.

It should be remembered that the act made provision for deemed planning consent, whereby a development application can be approved once the applicable maximum development assessment time period has been exceeded, but, as with any piece of legislation, the devil is in the detail and, in this case, the regulatory detail. Consultation with councils and planning practitioners has revealed an unease about the inadequacy of some of the time frames set down for performance assessed development applications under the development assessment regulations.

Under the deemed planning consent model, there is concern that some development applications may be refused because inadequate information has been submitted by a proponent prior to the expiration of the relevant assessment time period. In these circumstances, more assessment time could result in the planning authority and proponent reaching a mutually agreeable development application and subsequently achieving development approval. By this I mean that the regulations could actually have the reverse effect: rather than speeding up the process, they could result in councils refusing an application because of lack of time and not allowing it to be deemed refused. I have heard that from local government circles.

In light of this, Labor believes it would be prudent if the development assessment time periods were reviewed in consultation with councils and planning practitioners. Planning practitioners also expressed concerns about the development assessment regulations' extension to accredited professional land surveyors of the authority to provide planning consent for deemed-to-satisfy land divisions.

Many planners have expressed significant doubt about the independence of private certifiers in the planning system. It is feared that a conflict of interest may arise for the land surveyor in this instance, given their service to their client, a development proponent, and their obligations as a planning authority. Concern has particularly arisen amidst evidence of the shortcomings of private certification in the building industry, where private certifiers throughout Australia have approved apartment buildings with dangerous and flammable cladding as well as other features also found to be noncompliant with the Building Code of Australia. I have one such example in my own electorate; it was certified but subsequently found not to comply with the Building Code of Australia.

Ongoing consultation with planners and other interested stakeholders has also revealed further unease about the development assessment regulations, and the Labor opposition will continue to consult to ensure that transition to the state's new planning system avoids any damaging consequences. The Labor opposition is therefore moving this disallowance motion because we believe the Marshall government should also engage in similar consultation with the parliament, councils and planning professionals as well as the development industry so that the development assessment regulations can be improved to facilitate appropriate developments. I commend the motion to the house.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL (Schubert—Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government, Minister for Planning) (11:42): I rise on behalf of the Liberal government to oppose this disallowance motion and to put on the record that we believe this is a reckless and disgusting attempt to thwart good planning processes in South Australia. In fact, I think a lot of the comments that have just been made by the member for Light show that even as the shadow minister for planning he has not taken the opportunity to actually engage in the processes that have led us to the decision we have got ourselves to here today.

The Hon. A. Piccolo: That's wrong. That's not true.

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: This legislation is not legislation that was of the government's making. This was a bipartisan piece of legislation that was passed back in 2016 that outlined and put into place the very things that the shadow minister, the member for Light, is now saying he no longer wants.

What is interesting here is that instead of raising concerns or, for instance, putting amendments to the current Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act legislation to effect the change he seeks, what he does is come into this place and put a disallowance motion on the table that is going to thwart and stop development in the outback areas of South Australia. Right at this moment there are 30 applications that are being assessed by my department which, if this disallowance were to get through, would have to be put on hold.

It is absolutely reckless, especially for regional communities that are crying out for growth; 30 applications on the table would have to be paused while we deal with the mess that the member for Light is seeking to create here. More than that, what he is actually stopping is increased consultation time frames that were embedded as part of the assessment pathways—an increase between 50 per cent and 100 per cent increase in time frames given for consultation by the community on individual development applications. If a 50 per cent and 100 per cent increase are not good enough, then maybe the member should have given us an idea about what he thought would be appropriate.

Again, we have had open consultation on the assessment pathways for something like over 12 months. This has not got to this place without there having been proper consultation. In fact, this has been done in a coordinated step-by-step process, talking with the very councils that the member for Light believes we have not spoken to, getting feedback from the community, actually listening to that feedback and then acting upon it. What these assessment pathways also do is give greater certainty for the first time to people who put in applications that they can get something assessed in a reasonable period of time.

What is interesting here is that the member for Light rails against the deemed consent provision that he believes is going to lead to issues. It was his government that put this thing in place in the first place, but did he bring back a legislative amendment to repeal the deemed consent provision? No. Did he raise any concerns during the consultation process? No. What does he do? He comes into this place and moves a disallowance that rips all this off the table, leaves us with nothing and puts in jeopardy 30 applications that are on the table right at this very moment.

The member for Light also raised concerns in relation to the way that private certification is going to operate in the new system. Again, this is a set of laws that his government put in place. But we are not actually seeking to emulate the issues that we know have existed, especially in New South Wales in regard to their issues around private certification.

We have put in place legislation—again sponsored by the member for Light's government—around an accredited professional scheme that is going to provide one of the toughest and most rigid set of standards that have been put in place anywhere in the country to make sure that people of appropriate skill are actually the ones making this decision. It is essentially a four-step pathway whereby people need to show ever-increasing degrees of experience and competence to be able to move to a higher level to be able to assess more complex applications.

What these increased requirements do is give greater confidence than even what is in place now around making sure that those people who are making decisions on behalf of the planning system in general have the skills and qualities necessary. In fact, this accredited professional scheme is exactly what the Shergold Weir Building Confidence report had in mind when it said that we should develop a system with rigour like this.

Again, this was bipartisan back in 2016, and it reminds me of exactly what the member for Light did when it came to opposing our rate capping legislation; that is, flip through the paper and try to find every individual instance where somebody has had a grievance, put together a grab bag of measures, and then come together and try to put in some sort of reform bill. All he has done there is take everybody who has ever had a negative consequence about any aspect of anything and put them together as a reason to knock out the entire thing, which is reckless, it is dangerous and it shows exactly why they should be sitting on that side of the chamber.

Here on this side of the house, we have undertaken a thorough and comprehensive consultation process. What we have done is put in place a system that not only gives greater certainty to applicants but also gives greater certainty and opportunity for people to undertake consultation with increased time frames.

We on this side of the house want to get South Australia moving. We want to see growth and development in South Australia, but these assessment pathways are not just about saying yes more often: they are just about saying yes or no more quickly. Again, I understand that this is going to put pressure on councils to assess things within a time frame. It is going to put pressure on my department to assess applications within a considered time frame, but what is interesting is that we know that there are councils out there that can do it.

If I think about the City of Charles Sturt, or I think about the City Salisbury, or, in fact, if I head out to the Barossa and Light, these are four councils that have no problem in getting and dealing with assessment pathways within the time frames that this legislation talks about. In fact, the City of Salisbury, off the top of my head, is able to assess complying individual dwelling applications within three days. But what we have are councils at the other end of the spectrum that are taking far too long and putting increased cost upon applicants who have to pay holding costs while the council sits there and makes a decision.

Again, what we have done is listened to those applicants and said, 'We're going to provide a pathway that delivers you certainty that you will get a decision within a reasonable period of time.' What we have also said to those people who want to get involved in the process is, 'You will have increased opportunity to get involved.'

With respect to what we currently call a merit-based application in the new system—performance assessed—we are now putting a requirement as part of this, which the member for Light wants to knock out, to stick a sign on the front of the development that says, 'This is what's happening at this spot.' At the moment, it is only neighbours, people within 60 metres, who are able to make a submission on the planning application. What we have actually said is that anybody who sees the sign, or in fact anybody in South Australia who wants to put a submission into this process, should be allowed to have their say.

This system, and what the member for Light is seeking to knock off today, is precisely what we have put into these development assessment regulations. It is also interesting that, over the course of the last couple of months since the member for Light put his holding motion on the table, we have been seeking to get from the member for Light what his concerns are. Why? Because we actually want to listen to the feedback. We want to understand what the concerns are so that we can either allay them if they are incorrect or deal with them if there is a genuine point there. But that again is not what happened.

What has happened is that the member for Light is seeking to play politics with development applications in the outback by coming into this place and making assertions without actually coming and testing any of those assertions with us, when we have provided ample opportunity and have followed up on a number of occasions to try to seek out and genuinely understand what his concerns are. This shows that today is simply about base politics from a bloke who quite clearly does not understand what is going on and who is being reckless and dangerous with the hard-earned money of people in the outback who want to get on and grow South Australia and grow part of our state that is underutilised. He is putting dollars at risk and putting jobs at risk here in South Australia.

The SPEAKER: I remind the minister to address the member for Light by his electorate name, not as a 'bloke'.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (11:51): Mr Speaker, I listened to the minister and it is clear that he did not listen to a thing I said. It is typical of the minister because he always demonstrates his arrogance and hubris. That is why this motion will probably get up in the other chamber for a whole range of reasons, the main reason being that the minister does not listen, despite what he says. He and his department do not listen to people. They have a whole range of consultation processes and they listen to nobody. In fact, I did have discussions with his department and I did actually discuss these concerns with his department. The fact that the department has not conveyed those concerns to the minister is his problem, not mine.

We have actually met with the departmental officers and his office on a number of occasions to explain why we have certain concerns. To say that this concern is expressed by a few malcontents is the minister again showing his complete disregard for the whole sector, particularly local government, for which he seems to have some disdain. In fact, the concerns raised in this motion of the Labor opposition were actually raised by the Planning Institute of Australia and also by the LGA, amongst other organisations.

The minister comes here in his usual bombastic way and tries to character assassinate me and others, as he normally tries to do, but he actually ignores the key issues. The key issue is this: these regulations are the minister's regulations, not the previous government's. He should perhaps start acting like a government minister and own his regulations. They are his regulations and he should own them. If he thinks they are so good, he should stand by them and defend them, which he did not do today. Also—

The Hon. S.K. Knoll interjecting:

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Mr Speaker, I gave the minister the courtesy of not interrupting him, so perhaps he could do the same for me. In fact, I actually did say in my speech that the regulations have quite a few desirable policy outcomes and that we would support them. I also said that setting time limits is desirable. What we are saying is that we do not agree with the time limits that he has set—not the previous government, but that he has set—in his regulations.

I know that the minister and other ministers have tried to deflect their decisions by blaming the previous government. Well, you cannot on this occasion. These belong to you, minister. They are your regulations. If they get chucked out of parliament, it will be on your head, not the previous government's head, because you do not consult and you do not listen.

In fact, he does not listen on a whole range of development issues. He goes to public meetings that are staged. He actually makes communist China and former communist Russia look really good because of the sort of staged stuff he does, where you have to put your questions in before you go to the meeting and you can only allow certain questions, etc. These are the sorts of meetings, engagements and consultations that the minister involves himself in. I can tell you, out there—

An honourable member: Chairman Knoll.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: That is right, Chairman Knoll. Out there in voter land people do not believe that the minister has engaged. They do not believe that he has actually engaged in a genuine way. What he does at those meetings is what he did this morning: he shows his arrogance and hubris when he talks down to people and does not listen. If he did listen, people would be prepared to negotiate.

Certainly, people were prepared to talk to us about their concerns. We have raised it with the minister, and we have certainly raised it in the other house. This matter has been on the table in the other house for some months, so the minister would be aware of the concerns that we raised. For him to say that I have sprung it on him today is just absolute nonsense. This is the feedback we were getting. Unfortunately, this motion will be defeated on party lines in this chamber; however, the minister does not control the other chamber.

The minister has to start listening to people's concerns and not do what he did here today by acting in such an arrogant manner. I gave the example of Salisbury council in my speech, where these issues of time limits are not an issue. There are probably other councils as well, but Salisbury comes to mind because I am familiar with that one. But as the minister correctly points out, there are other councils who do not meet those requirements and they should meet requirements. Some councils are in regional areas and, because of a lack of resources, they need better time frames.

Regional councils, country councils, have raised concerns with me about time frames. They say that, if they cannot assess it in time, they will refuse it. So the so-called certainty and timely decision-making that the minister is calling for is not going to happen under these proposed regulations. Obviously, my recommendation to this chamber would be that the minister actually listen, rather than pretend to listen—as he has done so far. The regulations might survive the upper house, but at this point in time they are unlikely to.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 20

Noes 25

Majority 5

Motion thus negatived.