Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Constitution of Commission) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 5 May 2021.)

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (10:53): I rise to speak to this bill put forward by the member for Light. I think maybe he thinks he is still the shadow minister for planning, but, alas, he is not.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: He was too busy. He had to go back and work in his electorate, remember?

Mr KNOLL: He did, he had to go back and concentrate on his marginal seat. This measure, which has been advocated for by the member for Light, is not a new proposition. For the awareness of the house, what this seeks to do is put in a positive obligation that somebody has to have skills or knowledge in agriculture or land—to have that background—to sit on the State Planning Commission.

It seems to me to be a bit odd that this is the specific and single criterion the member for Light thinks is lacking in the current commission. There are only four members of the commission, and by virtue of that they need to have a broad set of understanding of land use planning issues and different sectors of our economy and built form, but for some reason this is the one issue that the member for Light thinks needs to be tackled. Interestingly, I do not think the member for Light has made the case for what would be different or what would be improved with the passage of this bill or indeed what the deficit is with the current members of the board and the decisions they have made with regard to regional land use planning.

As such, I do not think this is worthy of support, for two reasons: first off, because this government's record through the code reform process of improving the productivity and variety of land uses for primary production land in regional South Australia is one of the great successes of the planning reform process. In fact, opening up primary production land to be able to be used for small-scale retail and small-scale production associated with primary production activities is a massive step forward.

I know for my community, whether you are growing sheep or whether you are growing fruit to be dried, the ability to process in a small-scale way on your property and then sell that product on your property is a great step forward. It is something that was made more difficult before and is something that through the code reform process we have been able to make easier.

The second thing that I think is a massive step forward is helping farmers diversify through better engagement with the tourism industry. Again, what has happened through the code is an increased ability for small-scale tourism facilities to be built on primary production land. I will give one really good example that the member for Narungga took me to when I was minister. It was a small distillery on Yorke Peninsula that essentially made spirits from the grain that was grown on the property—a fantastic step forward.

The comment at the time from the guy running the joint was, 'If I was just a broadacre farmer, I wouldn't be here, but the fact that we're able to value-add our produce, to diversify our business, to capture more of the value chain means that we can keep doing what we're doing on farm and we can have a better life and a better income.' That is a massive step forward.

Again, I think we have done a whole lot to try to codify and better understand rural living. I think we have done a whole lot to improve buffer zone issues where we see interface between primary production land and more intensive land uses. All of these things show that this government's record and this commission's record of improving the productivity of primary production land means that there is no issue.

I think I do know, potentially, where this has come from. I saw it because I think recently the member for Light met a constituent in my electorate, a gentleman who would be known to many in this chamber, a guy by the name of Peter Grocke. Peter has long been an advocate for change—more radical change—to land use on his primary production property. Certainly, I do not think I am misrepresenting Peter in saying that he does not think that the current planning system compensates him properly for what he believes has happened with encroachments on his land and his ability to produce on his farm free from interference. Essentially, he is trying to progress an idea that we need to better enshrine a right to farm.

That said, the 2012 Barossa preservation act and the mirror legislation down in McLaren Vale have enshrined in law that primary production land is sacrosanct and should be kept for primary production or associated purposes. But, unfortunately, some advocates and some landowners who have a degree of proximity to urban environments—not necessarily directly adjacent; in fact, the number I have spoken to over my time as minister were not necessarily adjacent but were adjacent to the ones who were adjacent—essentially wanted to have their land rezoned for some sort of housing or rural living developments so that that land could be subdivided and sold at a reasonable profit. It is a valid argument for a landowner to make but not one that I think can be supported or should be supported in an isolated context.

I took a very disciplined approach, and it is something this government has also taken a disciplined approach on. In trying to identify the most appropriate and best use for a piece of land, what should be taken into consideration is that, in the broader context of land use planning in South Australia, we need to do what is right for that land as distinct from using the planning system as a way to be able to up-zone land to provide financial windfalls for individuals.

Let's say, for instance, company X are going broke but, if they could just get their land rezoned from a shed to housing, they would be able to subdivide that land, make some money and it would make everything okay. Taking into account that financial consideration, in my view, is not what planning should be about. Planning should be about finding the highest and best use for that land, and I think that is the principle by which this current system operates and the one which it should continue to operate under.

The case has not been made for why this very surgical and specific amendment needs to be passed. There is no case that has been made. On that basis, narrowing what should otherwise be a broad remit and a broad range of skills and experience that individual commission members bring to their position would be a negative step, and that is why I do not think this bill should be supported.

While I am on my feet, I want to thank the current commission members for their work. They have been through a pretty tough, difficult time trying to navigate bringing in a nation-leading planning code. I want to put on the record my thanks to the former chair Michael Lennon. He has been through reform processes in planning for the past 30 years, and his depth of experience really did help to give context and showed that a lot of the discussions we are having are the same discussions we have been having for 30 or 40 years.

I want to thank the current commission and the new chair, Helen Dyer. She is a woman with a wealth of experience and is certainly a very worthy appointment to that cause. Again, as someone who has been around for a long time, she provides that context. The other commission members, Craig Holden and Alan Holmes—again, people with a wealth of experience across a variety of sectors—all do a brilliant job.

With that, the member for Light may have more that he wishes to contribute to make the case for why this bill needs to be passed but, as it stands, that has not been made. I think that the way the system is operating is as this parliament intended and that it is actually providing beneficial outcomes for regional South Australians.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (11:03): I rise to indicate that the government will be opposing the bill presented by the member for Light, namely, the Planning and Development Infrastructure (Constitution of Commission) Amendment Bill 2021. As has been indicated, there has been a failure to put any persuasive case to add the experience of a state planning commissioner, namely, in rural land use or agriculture. Furthermore, I would suggest it is inconsistent with the current terms of requisite knowledge or representation in the act.

Let me start with the first, the merit of adding in rural land use and agriculture as a single additional area of expertise for at least one of the commission members. The current act provides for members of the commission to share expertise across a broad range of disciplines that span the planning sector to ensure that they have knowledge and representation to make informed decisions. These areas are required as set out in section 18(2) of the PDI Act and are as follows:

(a) economics, commerce or finance;

(b) planning, urban design or architecture;

(c) development or building construction;

(d) the provision of or management of infrastructure or transport systems;

(e) social or environmental policy or science;

(f) local government, public administration or law.

This is part of legislation under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 driven and introduced by the former planning minister, Minister Rau. The Labor government of the day presented this alternative framework for planning and it was very substantially amended during the debates that we had.

I do not recall the areas of expertise for qualification for appointment to the commission being challenged. They may have been. My recollection is that the member for Narungga at the time, Mr Steven Griffiths, was the shadow minister, and I know that he spent many months dealing with hundreds of amendments that were presented during the debate on this bill, but I do not recall that being an area of concern. There seemed to be general acceptance that there would be an independent state planning commission and that it would comprise members who had this level of expertise.

What is curious about this amendment within the envelope is it is the only suggested area of land use that is to be incorporated. If one were to say, 'We want to recognise people in all different pursuits of land use,' then you would think that would be the basis upon which this amendment would be presented.

Secondly, just within the rural land use or agriculture that is presented here, I have no idea—and I have reread the presentation by the member for Light—as to the basis for this being defined in this way, and not other areas of land use, especially viticulture. He purports to be the duty member for Schubert in his presentation; he tells us that. It is an area that is dominated by viticulture, which even he acknowledges is at times in tension with agriculture. Why is he then specifying agriculture and not horticulture or viticulture or fishing, or any other rural land pursuit or ocean pursuit, within this definition?

To me, it is a scrambled together throw-in to try to make it look like he has some area of sympathy for those who are working or living or recreating in a rural area. For the life of me, if he wants to represent the area that he is in, he has sadly missed an opportunity to consider very substantial industries within that northern region for that purpose. For all those reasons, I would say this reference to an increase in area of expertise on the State Planning Commission is without merit.

I also indicate that the first phase of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act occurred as of 19 March this year. The Development Act of 1991 is dead, and we now have a new regime. The member for Schubert has acknowledged the work of the commission in the role they played in not only the transition to the PDI Act but also the implementation of planning reforms for ePlanning. It has been massive. It has certainly been the most advanced in Australia as to the accessibility of material in relation to this new medium by which planning transactions are employed, and we thank the commission for their role in that regard.

They have been established as the state's independent principal planning body that provides advice and makes recommendations in relation to the administration of the act. They do not represent particular vested interests in relation to land use, and I think for good reason. That is why the areas of expertise are presented in the act already. The assistance that they currently provide to both state government and local government, together with an extensive period of advice to the community and business organisations in respect of planning, development and infrastructure, is already well known.

The members currently comprise Helen Dyer as the commissioner, Craig Holden, Allan Holmes and Sally Smith, who sits as the head of the Planning and Land Use Services division in that commission. They are currently undertaking another area of important work. Having completed the implementation of all the machinery operations for the new PDI Act, they must address a number of other issues.

I just remind members that section 18 of the act requires that commission members must collectively have the relevant skills and experience listed, and I have referred to them. It may not be considered reasonable or practical to seek a member with specific rural land use or agriculture experience, as that person's experience will have less relevance to the significant number of the commission's functions or those that do not involve rural land use or agriculture.

I also remind members that section 19 of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act allows the commission to appoint one or two persons to act as additional members of the commission for the purpose of dealing with any matter arising under this act, so it falls within their capacity to call upon other areas of expertise. It may be considered practical in the future to appoint a member with experience in relation to rural land use, agriculture or any other area of expertise for the purposes of planning.

The important work that they are now doing, which I bring to the house's attention, deals with two initiatives that have direct relevance to rural and agricultural areas, which is dealing with the state's regional plans. I have to say that it was very disappointing coming in as the new minister to find that all of these state rural plans are dated 2011 and 2013—they are way out of date. It is 2021, and these should have been updated by the previous government. While we have been dealing with the immediate issue of planning reforms, I have asked them to now get on with that aspect because it clearly needs to be done.

There is also the environment and food production areas review, and that work is being undertaken. Thirdly, there were some reviews that were done to deal with some anomalies that have been identified in respect of the character preservation zones. The member for Schubert has mentioned that one is in the Barossa and one is in McLaren Vale, and that is a matter that also has their attention.

In relation to dealing with our metropolitan growth, which relates particularly to the environment and food production areas and to the regional plans, I expect that we will have some reports for consideration of the industries generally, and of course the public will take an interest in this. Aspects such as land supply are critical for both the development of the state and for those who are going to be invested in undertaking those developments. So it is a critical area that we need to get on with, and our government is doing precisely that. So I indicate that we oppose the bill.

Time expired.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:13): I rise to speak to the Planning and Development Infrastructure (Constitution of Commission) Amendment Bill, moved by the member for Light, and support all the comments made by the Deputy Premier and the member for Schubert. Planning can be fraught and, at the ground level, different planners can have different views.

Recently, in Murray Bridge there was a decision on a proposal and on all the evidence the council supported this proposal. Two planners on the panel said yes, two said no and then it was left to the councillor on the panel to either approve that project or not. Despite the councillor having full authority from the council to approve the project, they did not. That has since been remedied with another application and I wish the proponents of that project all the best. They have worked for many years—they know who they are—and I applaud them for sticking at it.

These issues around the interface of agriculture and urban development, whether it is the often-had conversation around agriculture or mining, the biggest encroachment we have on agricultural land for all time in this state is urban encroachment. There is absolutely no doubt and we need to have robust planning laws and robust planning legislation and we also need to have sensible legislation.

I have said this in this place before that my father knew every acre—because they were acres back then—between Gepps Cross and Gawler as paddocks. Look at it now. Urban sprawl happens, as does regional sprawl. Look at the disaster of Mount Barker's early years, when the developers took control and it went berserk and infrastructure did not keep up with the development.

I note that the Attorney mentioned the environment and food production areas. Part of the legislation was debated on the birthday—I call it the birthday because it was a big birthday—of the planning act in 2016. I, too, note the extraordinary work by the shadow minister at the time, the former member for Goyder, Steven Griffiths, in bringing multiple papers to our party room on different amendments coming forward. I have mentioned in this place before that the former member for Enfield, former Minister Rau, brought in 300 amendments to his own bill.

An honourable member: Shocking.

Mr PEDERICK: It was outrageous. It was being made up as it went along and this was the full birth date of the planning act, so we were second-guessing on the floor. I cannot imagine how many grey hairs the former member for Goyder got because of this. I know he put countless hours into deciphering what was coming up next from the government of the day—and then it got worse.

There were 50 clauses in committee, which I have mentioned in this place before. Once we debated the bill and it had gone through, at about clause 50 the former member for Enfield threw in the environment and food protection areas. It took multiple questions from me and others as to what that meant. In the end, the former member for Enfield had to admit that it was essentially a replication of the Barossa protected area and the McLaren Vale protected area, and this area went from somewhere around Kapunda right down to Goolwa in the south.

Some people may think that is a great thing, but you end up with all sorts of absurd things that happen around the legislation, where horticulturalists cannot have a second property on their property. I know through the Environment, Resources and Development Committee we remedied that, I think in the Wakefield council, or a council in the northern area. It does create a whole lot of issues. As the member for Schubert rightfully said, 'Where's the opportunity for value-add businesses?' whether it is places like a gin distillery on a barley farm on Yorke Peninsula; opportunities for vignerons, for example, and what they can do on their property; or whether, as I have already said, it is dryland farmers and options they can utilise on their land.

We have this ridiculous situation in my electorate where on one side of the river, if you are in the Rural City of Murray Bridge, the environment and food protection area rules are in play, but if you go over the other side to Coorong District Council, where I reside, they do not come into play. It promotes all sorts of different investment opportunities, and not just investment opportunities but opportunities for the landholder, the person practising agriculture. I am very pleased to see that the review is coming up for the environment and food protection areas. I think it had a five-year sunset clause or a review clause in it, and we will be debating it soon.

We have to be realistic. Yes, we do have to produce food, but we also need to house people during a boom that is happening in regional areas through this time. I am certain that COVID-19 has impacted on the growth of regional areas, whether it is Mount Barker, which is booming away as the fastest growing regional centre in South Australia, or Murray Bridge in my electorate of Hammond, which is the second fastest growing regional centre in South Australia. Mount Gambier would be having the same growing pains in the member for Mount Gambier's electorate. It is a great problem to have, that essentially there is barely a house available. However, when you have a billion dollars worth of development going on, as is happening in my electorate, we have to find houses.

I am having these conversations with relevant bodies and relevant people, but we have a meatworks that is working on the beef project as we speak. The earth is being moved out at Thomas Foods out on Mannum Road, and they will need somewhere around 450 workers when that opens. At the end of the day, they will need 2,000 workers, with another 4½ thousand affiliated jobs revolving around that meatworks, which will be the most modern meatworks in the world.

Apart from that, we have growth in a whole range of areas. Big River Pork has expanded as well. Whether it is Ingham's chickens or Costa mushrooms, the growth is just amazing. That is apart from all the small, medium and larger manufacturers of various industrial goods around the electorate and the service companies that go with all those needs of an electorate.

Another area we need to be concentrating on is rezoning. I certainly know that there is plenty of room inside the town boundaries of Murray Bridge at the moment, bar Gifford Hill, for potentially 3½ thousand housing blocks that can be rezoned. If they are not already in a rezoned area, they need to be rezoned pronto by the local council. Gifford Hill, thankfully, because it was already in place before the legislation of 2016, stayed out of the environment and food protection area—that is where the racetrack is just outside of Murray Bridge—and will have another 3½ thousand opportunities for housing into the future.

Certainly, I concur with what has been said today and I acknowledge the Attorney's comments that people can be essentially subbed on to the commission at any particular point in time. In regard to this bill, if someone with particular agriculture expertise needs to be appointed for certain items, they can be subbed on. I do agree with our position in opposing this bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Brown.