Legislative Council Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Motions Commonwealth Nation Building Program COMMONWEALTH NATION BUILDING PROGRAM The Hon. M. PARNELL Legislative Council The Hon. M. PARNELL (16:24): I move: That the regulations under the Development Act 1993 concerning Commonwealth Nation Building Program, made on 26 February 2009 and laid on the table if this council on 3 March 2009, be disallowed. The effect of these regulations is to fast-track various forms of development that have been identified as Commonwealth Nation Building Program projects. The regulations seek to fast-track these developments in two ways: first, by removing environmental standards; and, secondly, by removing consultation provisions. I want to explore both those aspects of these regulations, because they are at the heart of my motion to disallow these regulations. I should say at the outset that I do not mean any criticism of the nation building program itself. I am not going to say anything about the merits or otherwise of that program, but I am concerned that we are abandoning our development assessment system, environmental standards and our consultation regime in the interests of fast-tracking these developments. The first matter that I am concerned with is the amendment to regulation 6A, concerning significant trees. We have debated significant trees in this place on many occasions. These laws, whilst they may benefit from some fine-tuning, are generally accepted as an important part of our suite of environment protection measures. We have all seen the hundreds of years old river red gums that are deserving of our protection. They provide a great amenity value, they provide nesting hollows for animals, and if it was not for significant tree laws they would not be protected, especially in the metropolitan area, because they are not covered by the Native Vegetation Act. This new regulation effectively provides that the significant tree laws, the protections, do not apply if: ...the tree is located at a site where it is proposed to undertake development that has been approved by the State Coordinator-General for the purposes of the Commonwealth Nation Building Program, other than where the site is a site where a State heritage place is situated. In effect, it provides that, if it is one of these Commonwealth Nation Building Program developments, if there is a significant tree in the way, that will not enter the consideration of whether or not the project should go ahead. There will be no requirement to consider that significant tree. The second aspect of these regulations is that they undermine the extensive referral mechanism that exists under the development regulations. Just to explain that to members, there are various classes of development that clearly impact on more than just the local council that might be considering it. For example, if you want to build a development on a major highway, clearly, there will be access arrangements, so you would have to consult with the Commissioner for Highways in the transport department. If you want to build something that has a potential environmental impact, you may need to consult with the EPA. If you want to build something on the coast, you have to consult with the Coast Protection Board. If you want to build something on the River Murray floodplain, you have to consult with the Minister for the River Murray. These referrals are all set out in schedule 8 of the development regulations. In some cases, these referral agencies have a power of direction; in other cases, they have the power to give advice only. These new regulations basically provide that schedule 8, in other words, all of these referrals, does not apply to any development that has been approved by the state coordinator-general for the purposes of the Commonwealth Nation Building Program. To remind members, here are some agencies that would normally be consulted in relation to development. There is the Environment Protection Authority and there is the South Australian Country Fire Service. I will emphasise that one. We were talking a little while ago about bushfires. Schedule 8 provides that, if you want to build something in a bushfire-prone area, you have to consult with the CFS, and that makes absolute sense. Under this regulation, which is currently in effect, if it is for the purposes of the commonwealth funded Nation Building Program, you do not have to consult with the CFS. I mentioned the Commissioner for Highways and the Coast Protection Board, but there is also a range of ministers and CEOs of agencies who will now no longer need to be consulted about development. These include: the minister administering the River Murray Act, the Aquaculture Act, the Public and Environmental Health Act, the Natural Resources Management Act, the Mining Act, the Heritage Places Act. All these ministers and agencies are built into schedule 8 as agencies that must be consulted in certain circumstances. Of course, you do not have to consult all those agencies in every circumstance, but if it is on the coast you have to consult with the Coast Protection Board. The reason why I say that these regulations should be disallowed and reconsidered is that we are effectively saying that, depending on where the money comes from for a particular development, our environmental and consultation laws will not apply. So, we do not have any say as a state parliament over what is or is not included in the commonwealth nation building program; that will be up to the commonwealth and state ministers. We had been talking about school gymnasiums and school halls, and people probably think, 'Great, we need more school halls and gymnasiums.' We also have affordable housing. But let us think about it. We are talking about major building works and houses which ordinarily would have to comply with the significant tree laws and which normally would have to go through the consultation process of government agencies. However, for the simple reason that the money has come from the commonwealth under this program, we as a state are saying that we throw out the window our environmental and consultation laws. I think that these regulations are out of line. As I have said, it is not a criticism of the commonwealth nation building program per se: we can have a debate at another time about how much money is involved and how it is being spent. But let us not allow the state and commonwealth governments to collude in throwing out our development assessment system, with all its checks and balances, under the excuse of having to spend this money so quickly that we cannot afford to consider things such as significant trees or the proper input of our public agencies. I commend this motion to the council. Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.