DEVELOPMENT ACT REGULATIONS

The Hon. M. PARNELL (17:51): I move:

That the miscellaneous regulations under the Development Act 1993, made on 16 September 2010 and laid on the table of this council on Tuesday 28 September 2010, be disallowed.

This is a motion to disallow regulations under the Development Act that were gazetted on 16 September and tabled in the Legislative Council on 28 September. The aspect of these regulations which I find objectionable and which is the main reason for my seeking disallowance, relates again to section 49 of the Development Act, that is, Crown development and public infrastructure.

Earlier today, in speaking to my bill to amend section 49, I went through the eligibility criteria for the use of section 49. In fact, one additional piece of information that I want to give to the council now is to actually go through the definition of public infrastructure because that is one of the threshold questions for the operation of some aspects of section 49.

What we are talking about in relation to public infrastructure is what most of us would imagine is public infrastructure. It is things such as works in relation to the supply of water, electricity, gas or other forms of energy, drainage, treatment of waste water, sewerage, roads, ports, wharves, jetties, railways, tramways, busways, schools, hospitals, prisons and in fact, as it says in section 49, 'all other facilities that have traditionally been provided by the state (but not necessarily only by the state) as community or public facilities'.

So, that is the definition of public infrastructure. Members would appreciate from that list that, yes, last century almost all of those things would have been overwhelmingly provided by the state. These days, many of them have been privatised and I gave the example earlier of ports and wharves, many of which are subject to a 99-year lease to Flinders Ports and have effectively been privatised.

The Hon. P. Holloway: Are you going to include electricity as well in those changes?

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The minister asked if I am including electricity. In fact, electricity, as I understand it, is the next section which is 49A, I think, in relation to electricity infrastructure, and that is not included in my bill. Now, the most significant change brought about by—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I will ignore the interjections, Mr President—

The PRESIDENT: Good on you.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: —because, in fact, the purpose of this disallowance does not actually relate to ports or to electricity, but it does relate to a large number of other projects which I am sure members will be appalled, as I am, to realise will henceforth go through no assessment process whatsoever. That is because the most significant changes brought about by these new regulations are substantial additions to the lists of the types of government or government-supported development that do not require any development approval at all under the Development Act. In other words, there are substantial additions to the types of development that can simply be approved by the government with no need to consult with the local council or community, no right of public comment and no formal development approval.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Name them.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I am going to name them. Under the changes that were introduced by these regulations, local councils must be notified of the proposed development but they have no further right to engage in the process. I see this as yet another erosion of community rights in relation to development. Section 49(3) provides that no approval is needed for certain types of crown development that are listed in the regulations—this is the mechanism. Section 49(3) provides:

No application for approval is required (either under this section or any other provision of this Act), and no notice to a council is required under subsection (4a), if the development is of a kind excluded from the provisions of this section by regulation.

Development regulation 67 provides:

Pursuant to section 49(3) of the Act (but subject to this regulation), the various forms of development specified in Schedule 14, when carried on by a prescribed agency, are excluded from the provisions of section 49 of the Act.

That means that, whilst they are government projects, they will not require approval under section 49, or under any other section at all.

Why have I moved to disallow these regulations? What is on this list? What are the new things on the list that do not need approval? Boat ramps is the first one. In a previous life, as an environmental lawyer, I spent a considerable amount of time with the people of Beachport, who were arguing about the proper location and construction of their boat ramp. These can be locally controversial issues. Tramway extensions do not need development approval. Local desalination plants will no longer need development approval.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Hon. Rob Lucas asks whether a new tramline—

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Parnell did suggest a while ago that he would ignore interjections.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I will ignore the interjection, but I will just make a comment in relation to tramways. If a tramway is being constructed by a government agency then by virtue of these new regulations they do not need to go through the section 49 process. Local desalination plants—for instance, the one that was controversial on the foreshore at Port Hughes—will not need development approval.

Developments in national parks: until recently, when these regulations came in, developments in national parks could occur if the development was something that was envisaged by the management plan for that park, and that makes sense because the management plan went through a public consultation process. What these new regulations provide is that, even if there is no management plan for the park, development in a national park no longer needs to go through the development approval process—you just build it.

Probably my favourite of all—and I will not go through the whole list—is alteration to existing dams for the purpose of increasing capacity. The first thing that you have to think of is Mount Bold, a $1 billion-plus project, an ill-conceived project, that would flood vast quantities of some of the last remnant bushland left in the Mount Lofty Ranges. According to my understanding of these regulations, you would not need approval under section 49. Maybe the minister would declare it to be a major project and require an EIS, but as members know there is no formal trigger for an EIS, other than the minister's opinion that an EIS might be required.

The principle that I apply in these matters is that all development, other than the most minor sorts, should go through at least some process of assessment and consultation, but under these regulations these forms of development do not have to comply with local planning schemes, they do not have to comply with zoning and they do not have to fit in with existing surrounding developments.

Section 49, as I said earlier, originally dealt only with government projects. It has now been extended to semi-government and even private projects, but in these cases here, even if it is the government that is proposing the development, the new additions to schedule 14 of the regulations provide that they will not need to go through any process at all.

To finish up, members should note that support for this motion should not be, and I will not be taking it as, support or opposition to any particular form of development. Some of the things that I have talked about are possibly very good ideas and should go ahead. What I think we need to think through is whether or not we have sufficient checks and balances to make the system work. It is not about whether these projects are a good idea, it is about how they are assessed and the rigour of the process that they need to go through.

My experience over many years is that if we put in place appropriate checks and balances we increase the chance of getting good outcomes. I think these regulations take us in the wrong direction and I urge members to support their disallowance.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.

[Sitting suspended from 18:01 to 19:48]