Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Carparking Requirements) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 13 November 2019.)

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL (Schubert—Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government, Minister for Planning) (10:33): This bill seeks to amend the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 to require (1) a minimum of one car parking space to be provided with all new dwellings, regardless of dwelling type or location; (2) a minimum of two car parking spaces to be provided with all new dwellings with two or more bedrooms; (3) that where such car parking spaces cannot be provided on the site of the development they be provided on an off-street car parking site within 100 metres of the dwelling; and (4) that where the above requirements cannot be met the development be classified as a restricted development under the PDI Act to ensure public notification and third-party appeal rights.

As members in this place know, the South Australian government is undertaking the most significant reform to its land use planning system in over 20 years. The centrepiece of this planning reform, pursuant to the former government's Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act, is the creation of the Planning and Design Code, which seeks to combine 68 council development plans and four out-of-council areas into one statewide, electronically accessible planning code for all South Australians.

The proposal is to use blunt legislation to require minimum car parking for all dwellings, irrespective of dwelling type or location. This is both inflexible and unnecessary. Planning policies in current council development plans and in the Planning and Design Code already address car parking requirements. In most circumstances, car parking is required at a rate that at least meets the minimum rates proposed in the opposition's bill. In fact, in some instances the code proposes rates that are greater for larger dwellings.

Car parking in the code is proposed for a wide range of land uses, not just dwellings. Flexibility is necessary to provide for a variety of circumstances and to accommodate other broader planning outcomes—for example, transit oriented developments, where denser residential outcomes are proposed on transport corridors. In those instances, less rather than more car parking may be appropriate in order to reduce traffic congestion in communities.

Further, the proposal of a fallback position to provide car parking on other sites within 100 metres of a dwelling is considered to be unworkable. Planning laws cannot control the actions of private property owners in selling or disposing of alternative car parking sites if they are on separate titles. There are significant questions to be asked about the legality or otherwise of possible restrictions placed on land which may be designated as alternative car parking sites in the bill.

In addition, feedback from the development industry suggests the budget estimate for a car park in an apartment can add up to $60,000 to the price of a new dwelling. Given the bill's proposal to mandate two car parks for every two-bedroom dwelling, the question is whether this requirement will add up to $120,000 to the price of every two-bedroom apartment in South Australia, smashing affordability in an already challenged housing market and harming the hip pocket of younger people who want to buy their first home or older people who want to downsize closer to town.

The proposal is both impractical and inflexible and it seeks to legislate, rather than codify via the Planning and Design Code, inflexible car parking requirements that fail to take into account diversity of development outcomes and the unique needs of the land use planning system. Not only is this proposal likely to kill the apartment market in Adelaide's CBD—which is something I know the former government was trying to improve—but it will also be seen as anti public transport, which again is something I thought the former government would want to be seen to support.

At the end of the day, the biggest harm in this proposal is that it seeks to create a very blunt, one-size-fits-all solution to what needs to be a very complex and nuanced land use planning system. The idea that we can mandate one single way of delivering car parks in any new dwelling is absurd, and that is why this bill needs to be opposed. More than that, there are actually some serious questions on the enforceability and legality of the ability to provide offsite car parks within 100 metres of the proposal.

In fact, I am advised there is no way to be able to place a contingent responsibility on a separate parcel of land in the planning system. The enforceability of putting in a planning application on one parcel of land and making it a requirement to place a car park on a second, separately titled parcel of land within 100 metres of that is seriously in question here. I will definitely be asking some questions through the committee stage of this bill.

This bill is contrary to the intent of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act to provide flexible and dynamic land use planning in South Australian and, accordingly, the government does not support the bill. However, I indicate that we will not be opposing the bill at the second reading and will be seeking to ask questions in committee to tease out what the mover of the bill is seeking to achieve.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (10:39): I intend to quickly close the debate. I do not have to say much because most of what the minister has said is actually inaccurate. He has not actually read the bill because a lot of what he talked about was the inflexibility of the bill, but the bill makes it very clear: it is very flexible. There is a third provision in the bill to enable a second process to be undertaken when those commitments cannot be made in its design. The minister talks about flexibility being required in the code. That is the major criticism of the current situation: it is so flexible that it has actually created the current problem.

For those people who do not think we have a problem with road congestion in our suburbs, I would like to hear them because I hear it from everywhere: the east, the west, the north, everywhere. Allotments are being cut from one into two or into three and the streets are clogged up with cars because the flexibility that exists in the system and the flexibility that the minister wants to maintain have not worked.

He also talked about transport corridors, in terms of fewer cars being owned or used in those areas. That has not worked. All the things he said this morning have not worked to date. It is interesting to note that the minister makes a lot of his claims based on the current system working. Well, it has not worked and that is why we are here at the moment.

The bill does what the minister said; however, very importantly, it does provide flexibility. An example would be an apartment building in the city where there are services, public transport, etc. The bill provides for fewer car parks to be required. All it requires is a separate process to make sure that the integrity of the planning system is maintained.

What we have now is a lack of confidence in the planning system. At all the public meetings I have been to, including meetings the minister has arranged and gone to, people have complained about the integrity of our planning system. It does not deliver what it is supposed to, and this is why we have moved this bill: to make sure that it delivers certain outcomes for residents and that our suburbs are designed to maintain streetscapes and a level of amenity because, in the end, a person's home is probably the biggest investment they make and we need to protect it.

Clearly, the minister has also not heard what the development sector has said. The same criticism he made of me this morning the development sector has made of his current draft code. The development sector made the same criticism about what the current code—his code, as he admitted, his reforms—has done in terms of adding to the cost of apartments and houses.

If it is okay for his code to add cost to building to maintain the integrity of a system, I think it should be appropriate for this bill to do the same thing to maintain the integrity of the system and protect our residents. With those comments, I seek support of the bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The CHAIR: Member for Light, I open the committee and indicate that there are seven clauses and a title to be considered in this bill. Are there any questions?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I do not have any questions: it is my bill.

The CHAIR: Yes, member for Light, but if you want to take the opportunity now—

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I move:

That progress be reported.

Motion negatived.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: What methodology will be used to determine whether the commission should have regard to the act or the Planning and Design Code, and is it the member's view that one should have precedence over the other?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: In terms of the provisions the minister is referring to, it is quite clear that the last provision of the bill requires that when the applicant cannot meet the minimum requirements it would go to the commission and the commission would have regard to things such as those the minister has mentioned—where it is near a transport corridor, other matters such as services, and all those things the commission considers now. All it says is that the commission has to be satisfied that, if it is not going to meet those minimum requirements, these are the reasons why.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: What this bill seeks to do is to make anything where these provisions are not able to be complied with a restricted form of development, which comes with a far elongated process which will mean that all those proposals will need to become SCAP assessed. But I think my initial question still remains in that the commission has to have regard to the Planning and Design Code; that is the document that is supposed to provide the direction. But again I ask the question: does the member believe that the commission should give precedence to the act or the Planning and Design Code with regard to these provisions vis-a-vis any other provisions the code might seek to impose upon a dwelling?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I think it is quite clear. The legislative provisions would have precedence over policy decisions. The code is a policy matter. Secondly, as the minister mentioned, it goes to SCAP, and all it does in this case is give people third-party appeal rights and a say in the dealings which do not meet minimum requirements. If the minister is saying that nearby residents and people should not have a right of say, and not be notified and have no rights of appeal, that is his opinion. But that is what this bill intends to do.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 and 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: How did the member come up with the 100-metre limit for offsite parking?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: It was through an engagement process with a whole range of individual people and also organisations as to what is considered a reasonable distance people are prepared to walk or what would be considered to be in reasonable proximity to their home, and that figure was considered to be 100 metres. It could be 100 or 200, etc., but anything over 100 metres was considered to be less likely to be used and that is how we arrived at the figure.

It was done through consultation with the residents of Lightsview, residents from the Community Alliance and a whole range of residential groups in terms of what would be practical. These people think that this would be a good use of the off-location, off-street parking. It is designed to do two things: one, to provide car parking where it cannot be provided on site and therefore it provides flexibility; secondly, and more importantly, in the future, when the usage of cars is reduced, those consolidated car parks can be redeveloped for other users, so it provides for the future.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Has the member undertaken to get any advice on the enforceability of this proposal?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: My understanding is that the enforcement would come through in that the application itself would cover more than one title. Planning applications at the moment can cover one, two, three, four, five titles at the moment. There is nothing unique about that. They do not have to be contiguous. In fact, there is a whole range of policies in the North Adelaide area which cover that provision as well. So, yes, they can be. Also, if required, there are other mechanisms like land management agreements which can be utilised on some occasions.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: How would the member propose to control the car parks issue after approval? I want to paint a scenario. Somebody seeks to put in a planning application for a dwelling and they cannot provide the car parking on site as per this proposal. They then need to find the ability to provide offsite car parking on a different, separately titled piece of land. What mechanism would the member seek to use to force that planning application on that second and subsequent piece of land, and how would the member ensure that that land was not just sold off after that planning approval was given?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I thank the minister for his questions. It is unfortunate that he did not actually listen to the answer to the previous question because I did address that issue. In that case, the title would be part of the original application; it would be part of the original development approval. It would be no different from any other development approval. If it does not comply with the conditions, it would be forced to by a council or any other planning authority. It is no different from somebody getting an approval for one thing and then doing something else. There are enforcement proceedings that could take place. The fact that two titles are not necessarily joined together does not make it fatal.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: In your answer to the first question, member for Light, you said you had consulted with a list of organisations. Could you list the organisations you consulted with?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes, I can do that. I have a regular forum with a range of groups, which includes the Committee for Adelaide, the Planning Institute, the Local Government Association, the Property Council, the UDIA, the Environmental Defenders Office, some planning academics from the University of Adelaide, Community Alliance, SACOSS, Shelter SA and the Community Housing Council. They are some of the groups I have consulted with on a regular basis.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Do they all support the bill?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: No, probably not; not all do. Not all people support your bills either, but you still put them through.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Can you advise who supports the bill?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Certainly Community Alliance, which is an alliance of about 40 different resident associations, support it. A number of resident associations in your area support it, and they have been quite clear in their support for this.

An honourable member: Just one.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: No, it is not one; it is a number of organisations, thank you very much.

Clause passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Can I say that, as this debate is going on, I am receiving information to challenge what the member for Light just said, that he believes all the major stakeholders have been consulted. In fact, a number of stakeholders are saying that this has never been directly raised with them. Actually, one group that we did ask to provide comment, the Urban Development Institute, which represents developers of all different types and persuasions, has provided comment.

They essentially provided me with an estimate that the cost of building a car park for an apartment dwelling inside the CBD would cost up to $60,000 per car park for new developments. Can the member explain what he believes adding the cost of $120,000 to the cost of a two-bedroom apartment in South Australia would do to apartment housing construction inside the CBD?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I thank the minister for his question, but I indicated in earlier answers cases where this bill does not require every development to have that requirement for the car park. It is very clear. There is a specific exemption provision in the bill to enable that, so that in the cases where car parks are not required they will not be provided and it will cost nothing. Where they are required, they will be provided and they will cost what they cost.

In fact, the Urban Development Institute did not agree with the government's property tax bill, but the government still went ahead with it. The Urban Development Institute actually has concerns with the design code at the minute, but the minister is going ahead with it. The fact that one party does not support what I am doing is neither here nor there, but I did consult with them. In fact, I consulted probably more extensively than the minister's department has.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I am not sure that the member understands his own bill, because I am struggling to see here where this exemption is, except for clause 5 in relation to restricted development. Again, I think that the member quite clearly misunderstands the way in which the planning system works.

Under the new system there are three different forms of assessment pathways: one is a deem-to-satisfy pathway where somebody can tick every single box and get a very short and quick assessment pathway. For those people who fall outside of that, they can move to a performance-assessed pathway. This is one that will be undertaken by councils and one that will actually then engage and have consultation with the community.

However, restricted development is a form of development that is extremely hard to get up, and in fact is reserved for a category of development that is not envisaged, where you will have some very specialised or very out-of-the-box proposals that are seeking a pathway to which the planning system may not have an answer. An example is an idea that comes up that is different from what the land use envisages, but it might not necessarily be in conflict; it is just not something that is thought of or proposed in the zone in which the development application is assessed.

What the member is saying is that he thinks that every single apartment block in Adelaide now needs to follow a restricted development pathway. That is absolutely absurd. What it also does is that it extends the time frame needed to assess those applications from something like a few weeks up to a number of months, and also includes third party appeal rights. The way in which the planning system works is that it designates what types of development and what sorts of things would like to be seen within a zone.

What the member is saying is that in Adelaide, where every one would expect apartments to be built, the effect of this bill will be that every apartment block is now not considered an appropriate form of development within the development plan. That is a fundamental cognitive disconnect that the member quite clearly does not understand.

A restricted development pathway is not a viable alternative. It is one that will not only jack up the cost hugely for apartment blocks but also create huge cost and delay in getting apartment buildings off the ground. The former government provided stamp duty exemptions for off-the-plan apartments because they were trying to stimulate residential growth inside the CBD. Now what we see is this opposition now going 180° in the other direction, and the fact is that they now believe that apartment buildings should not be envisaged inside the CBD of Adelaide unless people have to pay an extra $120,000 to live in that house.

I also do not understand what this does to public transport, where inside the CBD you would expect that people would avail themselves of the public transport options that exist, especially considering that our CBD is the hub for public transport to get people out into the suburbs; the fact that there is the ability for people to live a more active lifestyle using e-scooters, or using bikes, or walking or using the free tram service, or any other number of ways to get around instead of owning a car.

However, that is not what the member is seeking to do with this bill. He is in fact attempting to go the other way. I ask the question again: what does the member think adding $120,000 to the cost of a two-bedroom apartment in Adelaide will do to the apartment market in Adelaide?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I thank the minister for his question. The minister is quite obviously concerned about knocking this bill off. He actually wants to knock it off, but he is concerned about the impact of knocking it off, and that is why he is ignoring all the residential areas in this debate, which this bill mainly covers. I am actually quite happy to talk about this bill.

The minister accuses me of not understanding the whole process. Well, I think I do. It is interesting because his commission and his departmental officers made it very clear that, in this iteration of the planning laws, the restricted development is not to be equated with the old noncomplying development. The change of language was quite deliberate in this new act and these new regulations. The minister is now describing what was then referred to as a 'noncomplying development', and the minister is quite right. That was the old act; it was not in this proposal.

The restricted process, as explained to me by both the commission and departmental officers, is designed to establish a separate process. The same issues that the minister has raised are true for the noncomplying provision in the old act, so the minister is trying now to fuse the old act with the new act and somehow construct something that does not actually exist. The reality is that the bill says, 'These are the minimum requirements. If you do not meet these minimum requirements, this is the process you go through to justify your development.' It is as simple as that. He is trying to create a scenario that will not necessarily exist or, if it does exist, developers do it because they choose to trade one thing off against another, and that is a decision they make.

Regarding the nonsense of public transport, this is a government that has done very little about public transport except to sell it off. That is what he has done. In terms of improving transport, he has reduced buses and bus services, a whole range of things, so the minister's commitment to public transport is quite ludicrous. In his time as Minister for Transport all he has done is sell it off. So I am quite comfortable with this bill. The UDIA have put to me what the minister read out, and I understand that. The Property Council are the same. But I can assure you that there are a lot of residential groups, people in our suburban streets, who support this bill, and it has my support.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I note that the member still did not answer the central question of what the increased cost of $120,000 will do to the apartment market in Adelaide, so I will ask a question in a slightly different way. In asking this question, can I say that the Planning and Design Code provides for car parking as part of normal residential development.

Depending on whether it is a detached dwelling, semidetached dwelling, row housing, group housing or residential flat, it has different forms of car parking requirements. There is also a nuance to that where a dwelling is built within a few hundred metres of public transport, and it provides for lower rates of car parking on the understanding that people tend to buy houses near public transport routes so they can utilise that public transport and therefore lessen their reliance on private vehicles.

For large dwellings, the code also mandates increased requirements for car parking over and above what this policy seeks to achieve. Here, in my mind, is the central flaw in this bill; that is, it seeks to create the same car parking requirements for an apartment in the city owned by a young couple who do not want to own a car anymore. It adds cost to the purchase price of an apartment for something they do not want to use, as it does for a large suburban house where this proposal will see less car parking provided than a large suburban house would be required to provide under the code.

The reason we use a code is that we understand that car parking requirements are different. Living in the outer suburbs without good access to public transport is very different from living in the inner city where you do have good access to public transport. The code provides that nuance. So my question to the member is why does he believe that for every single dwelling—regardless of where they are, regardless of proximity to public transport and proximity to where people want to live and work—a one-size-fits-all approach is appropriate and why does it need to be put into legislation?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I am not sure if that was a statement or a question, but in terms—

The CHAIR: Member for Light, it can be either at the committee stage.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: So if it is a statement, I do not have to respond to it. I can choose not to respond to it.

The CHAIR: You can answer the question in whatever way you see fit.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The reason I am seeking it is simple; and I am sure you are listening to your residents.

An honourable member: Didn't you hear him say why?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I just said—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order in the house! The member for Light has the call.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Thank you, Mr Chair. It is quite clear: one just has to look around our suburban streets and the answer exists there—the congestion we have in our streets. It is quite simple. This is an issue that has been brought to my attention. A lot of MPs on my side have heard about this issue as well. If members on that side have not heard this from their residents, so be it, but I can tell you that people on this side have heard this story. It speaks for itself.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I am interested in the driveways for these car parks. One of the big issues certainly in my electorate is that a driveway will go in and remove a car park from the street. So, with your proposal to mandate the number of car parks per dwelling, is there any restriction on the number of car parks that can be removed from the street?

So that is clear, street parking is very important. People like to be able to park in the street because, certainly in older suburbs, there are situations where there are already houses built without car parks—they were built over 100 or 150 years ago—so street parking is very important. What we often see is that a double car park or a double garage may be attached to a new development and, where you were able to park one or two vehicles, you can no longer park vehicles in the street. Does your proposal for the compulsory addition of off-street car parking have any restrictions on the number of street car parks that can be removed in order to provide driveways to access those car parks?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I am trying to understand the question.

The Hon. S.K. Knoll: Wider driveways mean less on-street parking. Have you thought about that?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: No, it does not. A driveway can be a single driveway that actually meets two car parks or two off-street car parks. In fact, part of the answer—

Mr Odenwalder: That's every driveway in Elizabeth.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: That's right. Two car parks on site do not require two driveways. In fact, the minister actually made the point a bit earlier. He said that the commission would have to have regard to the code and that is quite right. The new code says that it would encourage single driveways for more than one car park. The bill covers that.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: There is no protection for street car parking under your proposal. The other question I have is: do the car parks need to be exclusive to the property owner? Can they be shared car parks? For example, could you have a car park that was seven cars in length and would require cars to be moved for cars that might be at the furthest distance from the car park to leave the car park that may belong to different owners on that subdivision? Is there anything in your bill that prevents that from happening?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: And there is no provision in the bill that the moon will not hit the earth in 100 years' time either. The question is quite ludicrous and that is why I am not going to answer it. It is a ludicrous question because all it says, in terms of the actual requirement for car parks, is that if you have two bedrooms you require two car parks—simple as that. It happens every day. There are no restrictions.

The bill would protect on-street car parking, which is not protected at the moment. As you indicated yourself in your earlier question, where all these new driveways are being put into old, established areas, the bill is actually designed to overcome that to make sure there is off-street car parking. You are protecting on-street car parking for the whole community's use and community safety. It would also force people to design their homes in a way that meets the requirements, rather than what the code does.

What the minister did not say is that a lot of the stuff actually in the code is what is called performance required assessment, which means there is flexibility. That flexibility that we have in the current scheme has led to the problems we have today, including in the member for Unley's electorate, and it will continue if nothing is done about it.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: So, in the member's bill there is no restriction on these car parks being shared. The member said it was a ridiculous proposition, but I can tell you now that in Russell Street in Hyde Park and in Clarence Street in Hyde Park, there are a number of homes that share a car park and share a driveway.

This causes all sorts of angst between neighbours in having access to their rear gardens. For example, if it is a rental property that has a difficult tenant, there might be a situation where the tenant decides that they are entitled to use that driveway as a car park and they consequently restrict access to the rear garden for the neighbour who shares that driveway. This situation that evolved over 100 years ago demonstrates how the member for Light has not thought about the bill at all and having this mandated legislation on how to deal with car parking in areas that are being subdivided and developed, particularly in some of the older suburbs in Adelaide.

We have learnt through this interrogation in the committee process that there is no protection for on-street parking. An on-street car park can be replaced with a driveway at the drop of a hat under the member's bill. We have now learnt that there is no requirement for those car parks to be exclusive but that they can in actual fact be shared or common use car parks or they can be a driveway that has room for a car.

There are no specifications for the size of the car parks. Is it for a car park big enough for a small vehicle, or is it a car park for a larger four-wheel drive, for example? None of that detail is in the bill, yet this detail has a very restricted mandate that is not flexible and will not suit the requirements of those who are concerned about the congestion in the streets, the car parking in the streets and the density of development in my electorate. It is for that reason that the bill is flawed.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I will respond to that because what the member said is actually just nonsense and incorrect. Not only that, though, if the member is so concerned about the issues he has raised in the bill, all the bill does is set minimum standards; all the other stuff is covered by the design code. All the issues that were raised are not addressed by the design code, so I would suggest that he has a word to his minister because all these so-called protections he is trying to put in for his residents are not met by the design code.

In fact, only to the extent that it sets minimum standards is where this bill intersects with the design code. All other provisions of the design code would prevail. To that extent, the member for Unley is trying to find a reason not to vote for this, but the reality is that this provision actually provides more protection for his residents than the design code alone. However, he will clearly support the design code by itself, which very clearly provides less protection for residents in his locality.

Clause passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: What is interesting is that this actually does not really help to improve car parking rates in suburban Adelaide. In fact, a lot of those large block heritage homes in the member for Unley's electorate will actually see fewer car parking requirements under the bill, not more. Quite clearly, the member does not understand that what he is trying to do is help suburban Adelaide, which this bill does not.

All this bill does is hurt development inside the CBD of Adelaide and hurt development in and around high transport oriented development corridors in Adelaide. That is all it does. It does not help suburban Adelaide because it does not provide for a materially increased level of parking rates in suburban Adelaide. Logically, what the bill is seeking to do is to actually encourage more cars to be used on our roads. It is designed to encourage people to continue to use private vehicles in a wider range of circumstances.

The question I have is this: has the member undertaken any analysis into what the congestion impacts of this proposal are likely to be? The reason I ask that question is that when you create a nuanced policy, you need to do your homework and you need to do the research. When we design a planning and design code, it is done after broad consultation, not just some sort of regular catch-up meeting, where I understand these issues were not even raised.

You need to undertake some statistical analysis and some data analysis to understand the impacts these changes are going to have. It is why this process has taken as long as it has, and it is why we are undertaking the most comprehensive consultation process in relation to the code that has ever been undertaken. The desire of this change is to see more private vehicle use on our roads, and I would like to know what research or analysis the member has undertaken to understand what the impacts are going to be on our roads.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The intention of this bill is quite clear. What the minister fails to mention to this house and to people in our suburban streets is the fact that this bill does not reduce the level of car parking provided. On the one hand, he argues that it is going to reduce the level of car parking, which actually the code does. On the other hand, he says it is going to increase car ownership. You cannot have it both ways, minister. It either will increase car ownership or it will not, and it will actually have less car parking. You want to on the one hand say it is going to provide fewer car parks, but do more car parks under his code actually lead to fewer cars? That is an interesting argument.

On the one hand, he says that this bill is restrictive and will reduce the level of onsite car parking, but that this bill, which in his view provides less car parking, actually produces more car usage. The logic in that just fails me. It is interesting he says that. Very importantly, all this does is it makes it very clear. It adds clarity to the process to make sure these are the requirements that are under the code. As the minister is aware, there is a requirement that these things are assessed under what they call performance assessment, and that there is discretion by every council.

That discretion, that rounding off, has led to the problems we have today. It is interesting that the member for Unley already acknowledges that a problem exists today, but he is not prepared to address it and deal with it, which would provide these residents with some protection. If this bill only does one thing it provides protection for residents in our suburban streets, to make sure that their streets are not continuously congested by cars that are not parked in the right location. It is as simple as that.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: That is not what this bill does. Again, the fact that the member does not understand this is clearly why this bill needs to be voted down, and it needs to be voted down this morning. If the member sought merely to try to enshrine car parking rates within suburban Adelaide, why is this bill not contained only to those suburban areas of Adelaide? In fact, it does not even provide for a difference anywhere across the state. This is a blunt, one-size-fits-all tool.

If the member was actually seeking to resolve the problem that he believes is not being resolved as part of the code, why not nuance this bill to make it only in relation to suburban areas? It is because he simply does not understand the legislation he is putting in. All this does is punish people who live close to public transport and punish people who want to live within the CBD. That is what it does.

He believes, in some corner of his mind, that it improves car parking opportunities in suburban Adelaide. Materially, it does not. But what is interesting is that it creates a huge conflict in the way that our planning system operates. The reason that it does that is that it creates, essentially, this blunt tool.

The planning system is supposed to operate to provide choice for people to live how they would like to live. Some people want to live on a beautiful rural living block out on the peri-urban fringe in my electorate, or the member for Heysen's electorate, or even the member for Hammond's electorate, and they want a large block to be able to live quietly and enjoy themselves—not in the middle of nowhere, but somewhere where it is quieter. There are people at the other end of the spectrum who want to live a bustling city lifestyle. Those people have a very different way of approaching the way that they live and the way that they move around.

People on the outskirts, in the outer suburbs, in rural living zones or on the peri-urban fringe know that they are going to use a car, because as soon as you are outside of metropolitan Adelaide, the provision of public transport is not really that great. Conversely, if you live in the centre of town, your access to a taxi, a tram, a train, a bus, a bike, a scooter or whatever else is vastly improved.

When people make choices about this, they weigh up the balance of those costs. If you are living in Adelaide, you could say, 'Okay, an apartment is not necessarily that cheap, but I don't need a car park and I don't need to have a car; therefore, I could save on that. I will live on a more expensive piece of land but I will be able to have the lifestyle I want.' Under this bill, those people get punished for no reason other than the member could not think of a more nuanced policy than the blunt bill we have here today.

There are those who choose to live further away. They may think, 'My land is cheaper and the building of my house will be cheaper, but I know that I am going to have a car or a couple of cars, because my young kids are about to get their driver's licence and I don't want to drive them to football training on a weeknight.' They know that they are trading the cost of that land versus needing to provide transport. The planning system needs to be able to account for both of those extremes and everything in between.

In and around Marion, for instance, there have been a lot of two-for-one and three-for-one developments, which I actually think have been of a reasonable quality—certainly, they are a lot better than what has happened at Campbelltown, which is an issue we have sought to fix. Residents around that area could say, 'I'm only 500 metres from the Oaklands train station, so I will have one car, but I go to work in Adelaide every day so I am just going to go to the Oaklands train station and catch the train into town. Therefore, I only need to have one car. I choose to live here, on a slightly smaller block, because it becomes affordable, but I am going to take advantage of the existing public transport options.'

Those people will be punished under this bill for no reason other than the member for Light could not think of a more nuanced bill than the one before us today. This also hurts housing affordability. I thought the member for Light was a champion of working-class people. This bill makes houses more expensive for people who would otherwise not want the expense of needing the land for an extra car park because they have alternative public transport options, which actually helps the rest of us who have to drive, because that means there are fewer cars on the roads. Those people will be punished by this bill.

This bill does not help the people the member for Light believes it is helping because the Planning and Design Code already provides for substantially the same car parking requirements this bill seeks to achieve. It does not actually have an upside; it only has downsides for people who can least afford it. That is why I think this bill is disgusting.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! Before I call the member for Light—and I will call him in a moment—I just remind members that the time for private members' business will expire at 11.30, so if we want this particular bill dealt with we need to do it before then. I will just remind members of that. Member for Light.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Perhaps you need to remind the people on your right, sir. What the minister has just said is interesting because he has actually almost come to a position where he says my bill is not much different from the code. That is very interesting. He started off an hour ago—

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: That is not what I said.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Let me finish. I did not interrupt him; let me finish. His words were that there was 'no material difference' between the code and what I am suggesting in terms of the provision of car parking. Then he says that it has 'no upside' because it does what the code is doing. That is interesting.

My bill, on the one hand, almost delivers what the code does. There are two differences. One is that it is a guaranteed figure. In the code, it is not guaranteed; it is performance assessed and subject to every individual council interpreting the rules as they see them. That has led us to the existing problem in a range of inner city suburbs and some parts of the City of Adelaide.

The second thing is the bill does not punish anybody because it provides a process where the car parking requirement can be reduced quite substantially if the case can be made. In some parts of the City of Adelaide, there are people who say there should be more car parking associated with development. The bill provides protection for those residential parts of the City of Adelaide against those people who complain about their streets and laneways being clogged up with cars today.

The minister talks about this whole big expensive process. Importantly, most of the developments in the City of Adelaide—these multilevel apartment blocks—would go to SCAP anyway because of their value. They would be assessed by SCAP, so there is no difference. All it says is that SCAP has to have regard to these requirements, etc. Any development that is $10 million or above has to go to SCAP.

Mr Brown: Read the bill.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Read the bill—perhaps you should read the bill. Restricted development means it is assessed by SCAP. The commission and departmental officers explained to me that restricted development means that it goes to SCAP. That is what it means. It is not in the same terms or language of noncomplying, which the minister has misleadingly tried to convey in this chamber. The bill actually does what the code does: it adds clarity and certainty for people in our suburbs. I do not have a problem with protecting people in our suburbs but the minister clearly has.

Ms COOK: I want to speak on this. It is interesting that we hear members talking about dignity and improving the lives of people in our community and supporting vulnerable people. The minister started talking about affordable housing like he cares about vulnerable people, such as people who can be—

The CHAIR: Member for Hurtle Vale—

Ms COOK: Yes, I am talking to vulnerability and affordable housing.

The CHAIR: You are talking to clause 6?

Ms COOK: Yes, correct. If we really legitimately care about vulnerable people in our community, in respect to where they live and how they live their lives, then we should really be considering how these people could be confronted by people protesting at termination clinics—abortion clinics. We could have brought this debate on today and we could have really changed the lives of people in our community. Instead, what we saw, again—

The CHAIR: Member for Hurtle Vale, you are now not speaking to clause 6.

Ms COOK: Sorry, I will try to bring it back. The issue of housing affordability was raised and that speaks directly to quality of life. It speaks directly to how we as members—

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Point of order: it is not about speaking to the debate that has been in the chamber; it is actually about speaking to the clause of the bill.

The CHAIR: Just a moment, please, minister. Member for Hurtle Vale, there is a point of order, which means that you need to take your seat while I hear the point of order. Minister.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The member is not speaking to the clause. She is referring to what may have been debate earlier in debating other clauses. I ask you to bring her back to the substance of the debate, which of course is clause 6.

The CHAIR: It is clause 6 of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Carparking Requirements) Amendment Bill. The member for Hurtle Vale is well aware of that. I have asked her already to come back. She has indicated that she would. You now have the call, member for Hurtle Vale, in the dying moments.

Ms COOK: In respect of my electorate and car parks and the number of cars able to park at houses, what we see is regular subdivision happening. We have one property that previously only had one or two vehicles parking at it and suddenly we get three or four or five properties—

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Point of order: the member appears to be speaking about clause 5, which has already been debated.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! I am not going to accept that point of order because—and the member for Light knows this—I have given all members some latitude during this debate. Given that there are only seven clauses, I have given members some latitude. Member for Hurtle Vale and member for Light, you need to work out what you want to do here. We have only a couple of minutes left for private members' business. The member for Hurtle Vale has the call.

Ms COOK: This morning, I visited a property in my electorate that is on a corner block. It is a house that has been in disrepair for almost two decades because of issues with the owner and there have been many discussions about subdividing the property. The land is a quarter-acre block and there could potentially be four or five properties built on it. In terms of putting four or five properties on it, it means a house, where you could have one or two cars, could potentially have up to 10 cars parked on that property.

So that would directly affect the people in the neighbourhood. It would directly provide challenges in terms of its being on a corner as well. It is actually on quite a steep hill where the house is situated. What I could see is a lot of potential for accidents and safety risks for the people living in the suburb of Reynella East. This house has been in disrepair for 20 years. In fact, in the backyard it has a swimming pool that is full of black sludge, so I have been working really hard to try to get that resolved as well. There are levers that we can pull in planning that make a difference. There are levers that we can pull in legislation that make a difference. I was hoping we would pull one today that would make a huge difference to the safety of people.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.