Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Commencement of Code) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:36): I want to continue my remarks in regard to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Commencement of Code) Amendment Bill 2019. I was going through some of the things that the bill will facilitate. The bill will also facilitate more time for testing and potentially more enhancements to be made to the ePlanning system should they be required. It is also likely that the implementation of the phase 2 code, which is the rural or regional code, will be delayed by three months to July 2020, while the phase 3 code, which is the urban code, will be delayed three months until September 2020.

This is truly a generational reform of the planning system. The Marshall Liberal government is listening to stakeholders to ensure we get it right and deliver for all South Australians. Phase 3 has remained on consultation until the end of February. The planning reform program, including development of the code, is governed by a comprehensive project schedule. The passing of the bill will allow additional time to test the quality of the code and provide additional time for training and preparation of activities for use of the ePlanning platform that supports the delivery of the code.

The bill therefore assists in mitigating the risk that the code will not be of sufficient quality and/or that end users will not be ready to engage with the code once it is operational. The State Planning Commission is responsible for the code development process and is supported by the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure. The department is responsible for delivery of other aspects of the reform, including the ePlanning platform.

As I indicated, I had a bit of experience of this in my time on the Environment, Resources and Development Committee. I commend Michael Lennon, the commissioner, for the work he has done in getting this code on track. I commend his work in getting out to communities across the state. This generational change is a huge thing. It all started back in 2016 when we passed a whole new planning bill in this house.

What was interesting about that was that once this bill was introduced, the government of the day, which was the former Labor government under the auspices of the former member for Enfield, had 300 of their own amendments to their own legislation, which made it very confusing. I have already commended the former member for Goyder Steven Griffiths. He is a very good man who worked tirelessly to keep his fellow Liberal colleagues informed and updated about what was happening to keep ahead of all the changes that we happening over time.

One of the things that really irked me in the conversation, the discussion and the debate around the bill was that we were 50 clauses into the committee stage when the minister of the day, the former member for Enfield, came up with this idea of environment and food protection areas. I mentioned it and took the debate up to him during the question and answer time in the committee process. We were a bit limited because you obviously get three questions for every clause. It did seem unhelpful, to say the least, that this happened while we were in the committee stage and that it had not been augmented as part of the original bill. Mind you, when you see 300 of the former Labor government's amendments coming through, you do not wonder that much.

Some people may think that as a farmer I would be concerned about or in support of these environment and food protection areas. The issue for me, and I have said it in this place before, is that it creates real inequality across the board. Apart from also encompassing the Barossa protection zone and the McLaren Vale protection zone, this environment and food protection area has essentially incorporated land from Kapunda, in the Minister for Energy and Mining's electorate, through to Goolwa, in the member for Finniss' electorate, right through the Barossa, in the electorate of the Minister for Planning (member for Schubert) and right through to the coast. That is a vast swathe of country where different development rules were endorsed for open country.

Where you see this really play out is in my electorate of Hammond, where the Rural City of Murray Bridge council is covered by this environment and food protection area but the Coorong District Council is not. I am not saying Coorong should be involved (it is my home council), but it does impose other restrictions on development. Yes, we absolutely do have to have balanced development, and that is why we are working hard to make sure that we get this codification process right and giving it more time, and I think the minister is doing exactly the right thing in giving this more time.

It is pretty interesting when one side of the river in my electorate is impacted by this environment and food protection area, and there are very strict controls on whether people can put a second house on a farm, for example—it is not even straightforward under the other legislative processes anyway—and there are different rules for the other side of the river in Coorong District Council. So there are two different sets of rules in Wellington East and Wellington because they are on opposite sides of the River Murray. I am really concerned about what has happened here because we already have development controls in place for people putting in developments.

There are already controls in place in local government. Generally, the rule is that if you want to subdivide a farmhouse—this is pretty well across the state and rural areas—you have to subdivide 40 hectares, or 100 acres in the old language, unless you go through a negotiation process. You can go through that negotiation process in quite a few council areas and have less land to be subdivided off the farmhouse. The simple fact is that the way agriculture is in this state and in this nation, as I said before, if you do not get big you have to get out.

People end up with farmhouses they do not need, and there is an opportunity to subdivide them off and bring other people, other families, into the district. What has happened over time is that districts have been gutted because of the way it is with economies of scale, with people having to expand just to make operations work. It takes people out of communities, and it is very tough to try to turn it around. If I had the full answer on how to turn it around, I probably would not even be here. We need to be far more sensible about these things.

I remember I asked the former member for Enfield, the former minister, at the time, what he was doing with this environment and food protection area. It took a few goes—and I am more than happy for someone to check the Hansard—but I finally got him to admit that this was equivalent to the protections involved in the Barossa protection area and the McLaren Vale protection area that are enhanced under other legislation. You would think it almost nullified that legislation.

It is a real concern for me when we go over the top. During my time on the Environment, Resources and Development Committee we had an issue where we wanted a second home on horticulture blocks in, I think, the Adelaide Plains Council area. We managed to get a win for the reality of these small blocks that need the option of more people. Horticulture is more intense and you need more people on the property to assist with sowing, tending and harvesting of the crops. Yes, I absolutely agree that you do not want to have a blatant excuse for a semi-subdivision, but you do need to deal with reality, and I think we could have done it without this Environment and Food Protection Area.

Another issue I had with the former member for Enfield was his hatred—and I will say it: his genuine hatred—of lifestyle blocks. They are useful for a range of reasons. In regard to lifestyle blocks, I had an issue in Hammond where the owner of Swanport Harvest did his own development plan amendment, spent thousands and thousands of dollars and was just blocked out. Thankfully, when we got in we fixed it, and I thank the Minister for Planning (member for Schubert) for that. When we got in, we could see what had to be done because the simple fact was that you could not have houses abutting the South Eastern Freeway. I begged and pleaded with the former member for Enfield. He was never going to go there, but we have had success and those first blocks are up for sale.

The Hon. A. Piccolo interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Absolutely. It is a great outcome, and it is a great outcome for reality. That is what we need to see in any planning system as we move forward. Yes, it will have its challenges, but we will get there in the end.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL (Schubert—Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government, Minister for Planning) (16:49): I would like to thank all members for their contribution to this matter, and I look forward to a lively committee stage. I would like to say a few things at this juncture, if I am able. First off, I want to use this opportunity to thank everyone who has been involved in this process more generally. This is a mammoth task. The complete reimagining of any sort of bureaucratic structure is difficult at the best of times, and when we are talking about planning it is never going to be easy. I think the dedication with which departmental staff have undertaken this task has been impressive, to say the least. Executive director, Sally Smith; Anita Allen and everyone else have done a phenomenal job.

What I like is the fact that the planning department's attitude when issues are presented is to look at ways to solve them. Such a progressive and proactive attitude to try to deal with issues is fantastic. I have a number of community groups that say they are very pro-development and I have development groups that say that they are not. At the end of the day, I think that they do a fantastic job taking and creating a structure and then trying to apply it in a systematic, consistent and objective fashion. I want to put on the record my most sincere thanks.

I also want to thank almost every council in South Australia for their involvement with this process. Many have come on board and it is a mammoth task for them as well. Essentially, a lot of council planners have had to let go of development plans they have lovingly tended to over decades and accept that we are moving to a statewide system, but it is something that is fundamental to helping us progress forward with a system that is going to reduce red tape. It is not about saying yes more often; it is about saying yes more quickly or no more quickly, and I think that is what this system will achieve.

It has been a difficult couple of months, as we move through what has been five months worth of consultation. It has been an extremely long and comprehensive consultation process. I know that there are people—and I am receiving letters now—saying, 'Well, I didn't know about it.' We use every available means to us to try to engage people and we have certainly worked with councils to try to do the same, but I think five months worth of consultation is a long period of time and one which reasonable observers would suggest is a long period of time.

In regard to planning, the old saying that a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth can get its pants on in the morning I think is very apt. The number of mistruths that I have heard and been presented with, as I have done forums myself around various electorates, has been quite staggering. In fact, in this chamber today there were statements that were made that just have no basis in fact. But it is always going to happen in planning. I accept that it is always going to happen in planning because it is a contentious issue.

At the end of the day, what a planning system is seeking to do is to take the very many and varied desires and wishes of disparate community members and different parts of the development industry or conservation industry and create a framework in which they can all exist. It is, at its heart, about creating a balance whereby we can have a planning system that delivers what the community wants. But there is no homogenous view about what the community wants.

In fact, ask 100 people what they think is good development and good planning and you will get 100 different answers. It is what makes creating a planning system all the more challenging, but that is precisely what we are trying to do: create some greater clarity about where we need to conserve, but create greater clarity also about where we need to develop. That fundamental tension—conservation versus development—is at the heart of why planning systems need to work objectively and have consistent and repeatable results.

Something that I think has been lost in this debate more generally has been housing affordability. What I have found quite frustrating is that in one breath members of the community would say, 'I don't like the development at the end of my street,' but then in the next breath lament the young people who have been leaving our state in droves.

If we want to keep young people here, we have to provide affordable options, options that they consider to be of value in places that they want to live. We have an enviable lifestyle here—a cost of living that compares extremely favourably versus other states—but if parents of grown-up children do not want to see them leave and pursue opportunities elsewhere, we need to make sure that we are providing them with options to exist in their local communities, to have stratified opportunities within areas so that we can see more affordable housing opportunities sit amongst more established and more expensive allotments.

That key is lost. In a debate where councils, for instance, at the moment are suggesting that our improvements to the design standards do not go far enough versus conservation groups who would like to see development opportunities reduced, housing affordability loses in all those options. Very key to what we are trying to achieve here is to help first-home buyers, young families, young couples and individuals get into the housing market. They want housing choice.

They do not want to live at the fringes of our state; in fact, consumers are demanding greater opportunities for infill. That is why the planning system needs to respond to the desires of the people it seeks to serve. If we do not provide those opportunities, we will lose those people, and I think that is an outcome that the planning system can ill afford. In the end, what this code is trying to do is to respond to what customers want. It may seem quite basic, but there are huge changes that are happening in the way people want to live.

We see an ageing demographic. We see more single-person households. We see a huge shift away from people wanting greenfields fringe development to infill development. We see people wanting to have smaller block sizes because they would like to tend a little cottage garden as opposed to having to mow a couple of acres in the backyard. The planning system needs to provide those opportunities. At the end of the day, we are also dealing with the tension between established residents and potential new residents, and that tension will always exist.

Again, that is precisely why the planning system seeks to make the decisions that it does, but it has to account for all those different choices that consumers want to make. I do not want a planning system that says to a specific cohort within our community—the people who have lesser means, young people trying to get into the market or people who genuinely just want to live on a smaller, easier to maintain block—that they should not have a place within our planning system. They definitely should because they live here, they exist here, they are citizens of this state and they have every right to be able to have the housing choices that they want.

At the end of the day, if a builder is building a type of development that a consumer does not want to buy, they will not sell too many blocks. In fact, to my mind, a lot of what developers are doing is responding to the consumer demands around them. Through these tensions between trying to improve design quality, whilst also maintaining affordability, whilst also maintaining character and ambience, whilst also maintaining access to public transport, shops and all those services that are required to exist within a community, I think we have put together a code that seeks to deliver on all those different and competing outcomes.

So I beg, I ask, for tolerance and understanding as we go through the next stages of this process. A lot of the time, I see instances where people think that there is sinister intent. In my time as planning minister, I have seen no examples of people with any sinister intent, merely businesses trying to get on and grow jobs in our state; bureaucrats, council and state government planners who are seeking to interpret otherwise subjective and complex rule sets; and community groups and organisations who genuinely and passionately want to protect the best of what is our state. Everybody needs to coexist in that environment.

Turning to this bill specifically, all we are seeking to do here is to allow time to get this right. In fact, whether it be community organisations, whether it be heritage organisations, whether it be councils, whether it be the development sector themselves or whether it actually be the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, everybody was saying that we needed to have a delay to the rollout of the code. I am a little bit stubborn from time to time and it took me a little while to come around to this realisation, but we are here and I think that the code will be all the better for it.

Really, what we are seeking to do with this delay is not to extend first-stage consultation, because I think that we cannot begin to make some of the decisions and changes that the consultation has asked us to until the consultation is closed. Having us continue to have public consultation open merely slows us from resolving those issues that the community would like us to resolve.

Providing the time between gazettal and when the system goes live I think is important for us to be able to allow councils time to get ready for implementation with the ePlanning system, allow time for builders to be able to modify their designs to ensure they are compliant with the new code, to ensure that community groups can go through and understand and engage with the ePlanning solutions so that they, too, can understand in a live environment what the system is going to look like.

The other thing that I would say just to wrap up is that when the code goes live, it is not the end of the story. In fact, I am certain that the first code amendment starts the day after the code goes live. This is a living document that is going to continue to evolve. It always has and always will, and so the opportunity for us to continue to make the code more perfect exists on an ongoing, continuous improvement basis. With those thoughts, I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (17:01): I move:

That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House on the bill that it have power to consider amendments that relate to the form, content and procedures for making, amending and revoking statutory instruments, including consultation upon and parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance of statutory instruments, and to establish new statutory instruments and repeal or replace existing statutory instruments and make any other related amendments to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL (Schubert—Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government, Minister for Planning) (17:02): I rise to oppose the contingent motion on the basis that, if we seek to make this small amendment bill that seeks to deal with a discrete issue into a broad rewrite of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act, then it means that the only course of action that I will have, knowing how long it will take to get a broad bill through both houses of parliament, is to actually go back to the original time frame that is stipulated in the act.

There would be any number of people who would like to relitigate the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act, of that I have no doubt, but we are now over 3½ years through that act having been legislated, and we are close to seeing what was at that time the parliament's wish to be implemented. If we go down this path, the only choice that I will have is to go back to the original time frames in the code, which would mean that there is very little time between gazettal and go live for people to be able to understand.

It will create a suboptimal outcome. More than that, after all the calls from members in this chamber and in the community to see more time given to the code, that opportunity will be taken away. While I accept that people would like the opportunity to relitigate and to change things about how the PDI Act works, this cannot be that opportunity without fundamentally stopping the reason that this bill has been restored to the Notice Paper in the first place.

Ms BEDFORD: Point of order: I am not sure, was I was able to speak to the motion when I made it or do I speak—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We can come to that now, member for Florey.

Ms BEDFORD: I thought it was being put.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Take your seat, please. You have moved the motion. We need to have that seconded. Is it seconded?

Honourable members: Yes.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Member for Florey, you did have the opportunity to speak before. If there are any other members who wish to speak, the member for Florey can then close the debate.

Ms BEDFORD: I was not given the opportunity to speak, sir, because the motion was not put, which was what I was waiting for before I sprang to my feet to speak in support of my motion. Motion interruptus, I am afraid.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, well, one way or the other we will get you the opportunity to speak, member for Florey.

Ms Bedford interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My understanding, member for Florey, was that you were simply going to stand and put the motion.

Ms BEDFORD: The minister spoke to me before I got to my feet and he understood I was going to speak to the motion, but I have not had the chance to do that.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I suggest a suspension of standing orders to allow the member for Florey to make her opening remarks. I also point out, sir, that you did not recognise her. You recognised the minister and I think that is what has caused the confusion. I am not making a reflection on you, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I think I did recognise the minister, in fact.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I think the member wanted to make some opening remarks. The minister could respond and then she could close debate, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, so the member for Florey stood, she spoke and then sat down.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, waiting for the Clerk to read out the motion.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, the Clerk does not need to read the motion.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Well, then, sir, I think there has been some confusion.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Here are our options: member for Florey, you can seek leave to make your second reading contribution now.

Ms BEDFORD: I have already made a second reading contribution, though, sir.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: On the motion.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, on the motion, and then, member for Florey, you will also have the opportunity to wrap up debate, so could you seek leave now, please. My apologies for any confusion, member for Florey and other members of the house.

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (17:06): I seek leave to speak to the contingent notice of motion I have moved.

Leave granted.

Ms BEDFORD: This motion, if passed, will afford the Committee of the Whole House an opportunity to consider a range of amendments to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act that go beyond merely the timing of the Planning and Design Code.

After making my own second reading contribution, I listened carefully to those of other members. I particularly noted the comments of the member for Hammond who alluded to the 300 or so amendments to the then government's bill. I noted also the comments of the Attorney-General, who wondered if it was at all necessary to return to the act and remedy the problems. Of course, I have noted the comments of the minister himself. I say to you all, if it is as it seems that the legislative framework is flawed, then we must make changes. I have no political barrow to push. Rather, it is obvious that problems were missed and they are now all too obvious.

It is undeniably clear that there are problems. That is not my opinion; it is the opinion of councils, many planning professionals and like experts in many parts of industry and notably thousands of South Australians who have signed a petition expressing concerns about the progress of planning reform. Councils like the City of Salisbury in my own electorate were among the first to point out how the draft code had errors. Councils like the Copper Coast Council, the Fleurieu council, the City of Prospect, the City of Marion, and the City of Norwood Payneham and St Peters did as well.

On occasion, the language to describe the situation has been very blunt. One councillor has described the code as a 'horror story', another as 'laughable', with a further saying it was a 'joke'. In one of the more eloquent remarks I see the code described as 'dumbed down into something you can drive a truck through'. If that were not enough to merit a wider debate, then the 12,000 people to date who have signed a petition calling for the code to be deferred and for there to be a thorough review of the legislative framework undertaken should be considered. Thankfully, even if the government closes down debate today by using its numbers to defeat this motion, the new legislative requirements for petitions will ensure further debate ensues. I commend my contingent notice of motion to the house.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (17:08): I would like to speak in support of the motion. I will do so briefly because all this motion actually does is open up the opportunity. It does not mean we will actually be endorsing any other suggestions, but I think it is worthy of discussion, given the concerns in the community raised by a number of residents, residents' groups, local government, the HIA, the Master Builders Association.

Apart from the minister, everybody else in this community seems to have some concerns about this Planning and Design Code. A few minutes ago, he said the first thing which I think was truthful. He is quite stubborn and is being stubborn. By his own admission, five months ago he started hearing people who were asking for this code to be delayed in its implementation, yet three months ago his colleagues in the upper house spoke against this very bill which he is now seeking to restore.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: How humiliating.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes, exactly. And a Greens bill at that.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: This is a Greens bill you are moving.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: It's a Greens bill; that's right. This is essentially a procedural motion. It is not a substantive motion in the sense that it actually changes anything, but it gives us the opportunity as a committee to revisit some ideas and some thoughts on this, and there is no harm in that. What might come out of this is probably some tweaking of the actual act, which may improve it and address some of the issues raised in the community. For those reasons the opposition will be supporting this procedural motion.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 21

Noes 21

Majority 0

The SPEAKER: There being 21 ayes and 21 noes, I have a casting vote and I cast with the noes, so the noes have it.

Motion thus negatived.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The CHAIR: We have three clauses and one amendment.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: My question to the minister on clause 1, which is the short title, is: could the minister please explain what this amendment seeks to do in relation to the actual finished product of the code between the date it is finalised and the date it goes live?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: It is the subject of a subsequent clause and I do not want to ruin the suspense but, in terms of the short title, essentially what we are trying to achieve here is that the time frame at the moment would be that in April people can look at phase 2 of the code, have April, May and June to grapple with it and then for it to go live in July; then for phase 3, for people to see it in July and go live sometime in September.

The CHAIR: I have just realised the member for Light and the member for Florey have both been in this position as Chair of Committees.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: But you are doing a much better job than I did.

The CHAIR: I would not say that, member for Light. You might get four questions.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: It is Thursday afternoon. Member for Light, you have the call.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Your rulings in the next few minutes will actually judge whether or not that was a true statement I made. Just to clarify, at the regional Legatus meeting last Friday the minister indicated, as he just said, that phase 2 of the introduction of the Planning and Design Code would have two elements: the actual gazettal date and also the date it goes live, and there will be some time in between those. April is the gazettal date and 1 July is the actual live date. What is happening in that regard for phase 3 of the code?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: To reiterate my previous answer—but he does not get an extra question because this is still his second question—with phase 3, people will see it in July and it will go live sometime in September. That is the current thinking.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Just to clarify, you are saying it will be gazetted in July and go live sometime in September?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I refer to my previous two answers.

The CHAIR: So I understand that—

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: He could have just said yes; it would be easier.

The CHAIR: Yes, well, anyway, that is it. You have had two questions on clause 1, member for Light. Any further questions?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: To clarify, if I could, when people talk about the finished product of the code, is that the finished product that is actually gazetted? When you go out to consultation and there is language used by the department and other people saying when the code is finalised, by the code being finalised is it that product which is actually then gazetted?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Not necessarily. It is not envisaged that we have a further proper public consultation period. That is not to say that there will not be discussions with people about various aspects, especially in regard to their submissions. Some work is still going on behind the scenes, but there will be an opportunity for people to see the code, to be able to grapple with it and to understand it before the go-live date, and I expect that period to be somewhere between two and three months.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Just to clarify the answer he has just provided, he said there would be no further consultation. He has said that on a number of occasions in this chamber over the last few days, that the consultation period will not be extended. Now that consultation has, in his opinion, concluded, there is a whole range of submissions. I think there are hundreds of submissions, putting aside the petitions. Am I right in understanding from these comments that when either phase 2 or phase 3 is gazetted and then goes live some months later, the minister will entertain no other changes to the code in that period?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: That is not what I said. There is a particular meaning about public consultation. You open it up exactly as the period we have just had five months of, where you open up and people have the ability to make public submissions. Quite clearly we do not go into a little box now and hide from everybody. There is still the ability to have direct discussion; it is just that the formal consultation period has closed.

In terms of opportunities post gazettal pre go-live, a number of options are being explored. There is an opportunity post gazettal pre go-live to deal with any technical errors that are made. In the old act, there was section 29, and there is the same head power under the new act to correct errors of a technical nature. That opportunity will certainly exist. But can I reiterate that this code is a live document. It is not set in stone. It is a living, breathing document and, as soon as it does go live, all the opportunities that exist within the act to undertake code amendments will kick in and this document will continue to evolve from there.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The next question I have is about one of the things that the minister stated, that between the gazettal notice and when the code goes live there is an opportunity for training. Can that be elaborated upon: what sort of training is envisaged by the department and for whom?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: At the moment, there is training being codesigned with the LGA in relation to councils and assessment managers and assessing authorities within the council sphere. Obviously the ePlanning solution is one that we are going to need to help people work through and understand and also in relation to the code itself. We have also had requests from the development industry to have training undertaken, and certainly we have committed to them that we will undertake what training they believe to be necessary, and then there is certainly an opportunity for community groups or whoever to be able to, if they want, have some training provided. We are more than happy to do that.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I wish to clarify that further because this is an issue that has come up time and time again in my discussions with various groups, and I need to clarify it because there has been some shifting sand in what we have been saying in this time. What I am trying to clarify is that last time (and I can be corrected because one of the officers who was present at the briefing I think is present here today) I understood that the training would be delivered in digital form—I think those are the right words, 'digital form'—and that, secondly, the training would be over some period of time. I would like to clarify the delivery mode of the training to the various stakeholders and, secondly, the time period allowed for that training.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: We will certainly include digital training opportunities as well as other opportunities, but again—

The Hon. A. Piccolo interjecting:

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Non-digital and face to face or paper-based—certainly not on the back of toilet paper at the moment. That is precisely why this amendment bill is here, to provide us with a greater opportunity to do that based on the feedback that all sectors have given us about wanting more time to grapple with the code before it goes live.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The second part of my question was about the actual time frame, which has not been answered.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I refer to my previous two answers. It is being codesigned at the moment, and once it has finished being codesigned those time frames will be well known.

The CHAIR: Are you seeking clarification on that, member for Light?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes, a supplementary almost.

The CHAIR: I will call it seeking clarification.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I am seeking clarification because the minister was quite certain in response to a question on notice that the training provided would be both digitally and face to face and would be at least somewhere between four and six weeks between the gazettal and the code going live. If that is the case, what has changed that he cannot tell me now?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: It seems as if he already has the answer, so I do not know why I have to answer the question. I refer the member to the answer I gave in the question on notice.

The CHAIR: I will call a halt there.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: That does raise another question, but I will not go there.

Clause passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I seek leave to move my amendment in an amended form.

Leave granted.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Piccolo–1]—

Page 2, after line 17—Insert:

(3a) Schedule 8, clause 9—after subclause (7) insert:

(7a) However, the Minister cannot revoke a Development Plan under subclause (7) unless the Minister has given the LGA and any council affected by the revocation—

(a) notice of the proposed revocation; and

(b) a copy of the amendments to the Planning and Design Code proposed to take effect on the date on which the revocation is to operate from,

and given consideration to any submission made by the LGA or an affected council within a period (of at least 2 months) specified by the Minister.

In the last line, I have replaced 'at least 1 month' with 'at least 2 months'. Given the answers provided by the minister, it does not actually alter but just provides some warranty to those stakeholders.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: The government opposed the original motion because it would have the practical effect of delaying the code not for one month but for something like eight to 12 weeks. In the amended form, it will delay the code by a further 12 to 16 weeks because, when we undertake consultation, we need to provide a report on what the consultation and engagement heard, and then we need to consider those things.

There is a balance here between wanting to get this right and also of wanting to create some certainty in the industry. As I think was noted by the Master Builders Association in the paper today or yesterday, creating a further three to four months' worth of uncertainty is ill advised. Moreover, I am not 100 per cent sure about the rationale for why only councils and the LGA are consulted. If we are going to undertake public consultation, why are we not giving the community the opportunity?

Regardless, this amendment is not needed because there will be opportunities for there to be some back and forth with the department, so it does not need to happen through a statutory consultation period; it naturally happens anyway. Within the department we have people who are assigned to each council to act as liaison, essentially, and deal with the issues that arise. I think that the existing consultation mechanisms are appropriate, so the government will oppose the motion.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I have to disagree with what the minister has just said. The reason I moved this amendment is that, in his own words today, the minister said that phase 3 of the code would be gazetted sometime in July and would actually go live sometime in September. So that is July, August and September. If the minister is actually consistent in what he is saying, my amendment is entirely consistent with his declared intentions. All it does is provide all stakeholders with a safeguard that the minister will be held to his word.

Once it is gazetted, this actually gives effective notice of two months. I am at a loss to know why the minister is opposing it. On the one hand he says that he is going to do this, and on the other hand he is opposing a statutory obligation. Perhaps the minister wants the capacity to actually change his mind.

Ayes 21

Noes 21

Majority 0

The CHAIR: There being 21 ayes and 21 noes, the vote on the floor is tied. I have a casting vote. I vote with the government, so the noes have it.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: I remind members that, even though it is Thursday afternoon, they should not reflect on a vote of the house.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL (Schubert—Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government, Minister for Planning) (17:41): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

At 17:42 the house adjourned until Tuesday 24 March 2020 at 11:00.