DEVELOPMENT (ADVISORY COMMITTEE ADVICE) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Just by way of explanation, on the last sitting Wednesday a fortnight ago, I spoke to the Hon. Mark Parnell's bill and indicated that the opposition had some sympathy for a more transparent process, but we did wish to consult more. I had had some discussions with the former minister for urban development and planning, the Hon. Diana Laidlaw, and I had also written to the minister requesting to meet with the Development Policy Advisory Committee to discuss the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendments.

I did flag that I certainly would be moving an amendment that empowered the locals. In fairness to the Hon. Mark Parnell, I think I need to explain. He feels as though I dropped him in it a little, so to speak. We had a private conversation in the corridor of this building after a Gawler meeting, and I asked why he spoke first. He said, 'Well, I put in a submission, and I guess the chair always gives MPs a chance to speak first.' It was not that I was annoyed with it, but that was just the way it happened.

Having gone to Gawler myself, I actually wanted to hear what the locals had to say. I think I said to the Hon. Mark Parnell at the time—and it was not long before the election—that, if we were fortunate enough, and South Australia was fortunate enough, for the Liberal Party to win the election, I would make some changes that would enable the locals to speak first. A fortnight ago, I flagged that I would be introducing some amendments that would give the chairman of DPAC the capacity to ensure that locals could speak first.

We have some amendments before us which were tabled only today. I also wrote to the minister requesting a meeting with the chair of the Development Policy Advisory Committee, which I had at 10.30 on Monday morning, to discuss issues, such as whether this sort of amendment would assist them in their deliberations, whether it would enhance the process and whether disclosure of their advice should be before or after the minister made a decision and published it. A whole range of issues were discussed at that meeting, which lasted about an hour.

What came out of that, of course, is an amendment that I have also tabled today, which probably best serves the function of the committee and the process by having more transparency, and having that advice made public after the minister makes his or her decision, not prior. I just make those few comments on clause 1. Having had the meeting on Monday, I instructed parliamentary counsel on Monday afternoon to draft some amendments, which were provided to me late yesterday. I asked for them to be put on file today.

I know that that is short notice, but I did give the Hon. Mark Parnell notice a fortnight ago. I said that we wanted to consult further. As I said, I had spoken to the Hon. Diana Laidlaw, I had spoken to industry groups, and I wanted to speak to DPAC, which we did on Monday. I understand that these amendments have not been on file for any length of time, and I also understand that the government has not had an opportunity to take them to caucus.

I guess it is up to the minister whether he is prepared to continue the debate or take it to caucus. I have tried to do it as quickly as I could. Unfortunately, the DPAC meeting could not happen until 10.30 on Monday morning. I will not make any further comments, other than to say that when I move these amendments I hope the house sees fit to support them.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: In relation to the thrust of the amendments the Hon. Mr Ridgway is moving—or at least the first one—I agree with it in principle. I think it probably is a good idea. DPAC's role is to hear the views of members of the public, and they really do not need to be lectured by members of parliament.

I have been criticised widely for not attending meetings of DPAC. There are two reasons for that: first of all, as the minister, my involvement in the DPAC process, when its whole role under the act is to advise me as the minister on the submissions it receives, would be inappropriate. It could even put the process at risk, and that is why I do not attend those meetings. I am quite happy to attend other meetings, and I regularly do attend meetings about the issues involved in planning policy, but to attend DPAC meetings is probably not a good idea. That is in relation to my role as minister.

For members of parliament, as well, while they should have their views heard, primarily the role of DPAC is to hear views from members of the public. That is why, as I indicated by way of interjection when the Hon. Mr Ridgway first canvassed what he was thinking about, I thought it would be a good idea. However, as the honourable Leader of the Opposition said, we have not had a chance yet to take that to caucus.

I do not think it is something that one need necessarily put in legislation. I think it is better that the chair of DPAC should have the discretion to conduct meetings as he or she thinks fit. In this case it is 'he'—Mario Baroni—who has been the chairman of DPAC for a number of years now going back to before I became a minister. I think he does a very good job.

An honourable member: 1995, I think.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It has certainly been a long time. He listens to members of the public when they come before him and I think he gives them all a good hearing. My view is that he should have discretion in relation to how he conducts meetings; if someone is going to leave early, for example, and so on, he should have discretion to do that. However, I certainly have some sympathy for the sentiment of the motion moved by the Hon. Mr Ridgway.

As the minister, I am happy to write to the chair of DPAC and suggest—certainly if it reflects the view of the parliament—that, in determining the order of speakers and how he conducts the meeting, he should give consideration to letting members of the public be heard first. I am very happy for that to take place, but I do not think it would be wise for us to move amendments to direct him as to how he conducts a meeting. There is more than enough prescription in relation to how these things happen as it is. I am sure the chair of DPAC would be quite happy to know what the views of parliament are in relation to those matters, but I think, really, to get to that level or degree of prescription about how he conducts meetings is probably not appropriate.

As the honourable Leader of the Opposition says, we have not had a chance to take this amendment to caucus yet, so on that basis, the government's view is that we would oppose it regardless, although my inclination would be that we would not support it. I would certainly advocate in caucus that we probably should not support it anyway because it is overly prescriptive, even though I do have sympathy for the intent of what the honourable Leader of the Opposition is trying to achieve. As I said, I am quite happy to talk to the chair of DPAC and suggest that, given this matter has been raised, he could take that into consideration in how he conducts future meetings.

I am at least pleased that the Leader of the Opposition, I think, has agreed that it would be unwise to release DPAC advice until the decision has been made. As I indicated last week, there is provision with our freedom of information laws and the like for information to be provided at an appropriate time, but as I strongly argued when we had the debate on this bill, to release that advice prematurely before the government has had the benefit of making a decision and receiving other feedback that might be necessary for making the decision would be an unwise measure. I think, under the Hon. Mr Parnell's bill, the suggestion is that DPAC advice should be released two days after receipt. I think that would be unwise.

While DPAC is just one source of advice to the minister—and I do not have any particular problem with having that advice ultimately being released when the decision has been made—I think to do so prematurely would simply put unnecessary pressure on the committee at a time before decisions are made. It is important that DPAC can give fair and frank advice to the government. Certainly, it is one thing to have that advice ultimately available so the minister can be held accountable for the decision, but I think it is another thing for the DPAC advice to be thrown into the political arena of decision-making when essentially it is not there for that role. DPAC's role is to listen to the concerns of the community as they relate to the development plan before them.

I know that much of the context of this debate from the Hon. Mr Parnell has been in relation to Mount Barker. I have said on a number of occasions that people should take into account that the role of DPAC is to consider the development plan that is put before it in the context of the state planning strategy. The state planning strategy not only in relation to Mount Barker but all development plans before it is the 30-year plan. When that was released in February this year, it became part of the state planning strategy, so it is the objectives of that plan against which DPAC gives advice.

For anyone to suggest that DPAC has a role of reconsidering the 30-year plan is really mistaken and I think they are putting unfair pressure on DPAC to do that. That is not its role. In relation to all the ministerial development plans before it, its role is to consider those development plans in the context of the state planning strategy as expressed (as it is) through the 30-year plan. I think it is important that, if that advice does become available, people should not judge what DPAC has done other than in the context of what its responsibilities are under the act.

With those comments, as I say, it is really up to the committee whether we seek to adjourn this debate and it can officially go to caucus or whether we proceed, but if we do proceed I indicate that the government would oppose it—not that I have so much objection to the sentiment of the bill (I do agree with it), but I think it is putting a level of detail in an act which is inappropriate. We should have faith in the quality people whom we appoint as chairs of our advisory committees and let them run the meeting in the way they best think fit.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Just some general comments on clause 1. I will have more to say when we get to the Hon. David Ridgway's amendments, the first of which is at clause 3. The first thing in relation to the process that we are following here, one of the things that I think this chamber has been very good at, especially on private members' day, is honouring requests that are made by members of parliament for their private members' business to be taken to a vote at a time of their choosing. That principle is tempered by an expectation of reasonableness. That, provided we are given reasonable notice—and the amount of notice might differ according to the issue before us—then a member has a right, if you like, to have their bill or motion voted upon.

I gave notice, probably a month ago, for this to come to a vote a fortnight ago. As the Hon. Mr Ridgway has pointed out, I accepted his request for an adjournment for another couple of weeks so that he could consult with people and prepare some amendments, and that is what he has done. But I would just like to say now that I am not inclined to have this adjourned any more; I would like it to be dealt with tonight. I accept the minister's position that, in the absence of a considered debate in caucus or cabinet, the answer is no. I do not disagree with the minister on his assessment in relation to these amendments, and I will speak to them when we get to them.

The second thing I would like to do is thank the Hon. David Ridgway for his clarification about our earlier conversation. I know that he did not intend to imply that I had somehow worked the system in relation to that Gawler meeting. I put on the record that I have been going to DPAC meetings for a very long time. One of the early ones I went to was back in 2003, when the rezoning of the Port Adelaide waterfront development was being discussed. Whilst I was not a member of parliament then, I certainly did not go first.

At the Buckland Park Policy Advisory Committee hearing, I certainly was not first there. In fact, I think I followed the potato farmer, from memory, who did not even own land in the area that was affected. But that is not the point when it comes to DPAC because any interested person can make a submission. When it comes to the Mount Barker marathon 15 or 16-hour DPAC hearing, my recollection is that I was early on the first day, but I certainly was not first, and followed the council and possibly even some others. I just put those things on the record.

By way of background, I also acknowledge the opportunity I had to speak to Mario Barone, the chair of the Development Policy Advisory Committee. I have had many conversations with him on issues such as this over many years, but I did appreciate the opportunity recently to get his views again.

That is enough by way of introduction on clause 1. When we get to the Hon. David Ridgway's amendments, I have a contribution there and a number of questions of the mover of those amendments, but we will get to those in due course.

Clause passed.

Clause 2 passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I move:

Page 2, after line 9—Insert:

(1) Section 25—After subsection (11) insert:

(11a) When a meeting is held under subsection (11)(b), the person presiding at the meeting must ensure, insofar as is reasonably practicable, that the order of persons making representations reasonably reflects the relative degrees of interest of the persons attending the meeting, with the person or persons with the most significant personal interest in the matter (and most directly affected by the proposal) being given the opportunity to speak first and the person or persons with the least significant personal interest, or with any other interest (whether direct or indirect), speaking last (although a failure to achieve compliance with this subsection will not affect the validity of the meeting).

This is the amendment I asked parliamentary counsel to draft. It was of some debate in our party room when it was discussed whether this was the best possible drafting. In fairness to my Liberal parliamentary colleagues, I went back to parliamentary counsel, and they think this best encapsulates what we are trying to achieve; that is, that the locals be heard first. The Hon. Mark Parnell and I have both commented on the meeting at Gawler, but I have attended a number of meetings—Cheltenham, Mount Barker and Gawler—as the shadow minister. I have gone especially to the ones in Gawler to listen to the locals. Of course, we all know it was in the lead-up to an election campaign, and I wanted to hear what the locals had to say.

They are the people on the ground, the people that are directly affected by it, the people that will have their main street congested, the people with extra pressure on their public transport system and extra pressure on their utilities—their water, electricity and sewerage. They were the people I wanted to hear from first. I would have to say I was a little surprised. The Hon. Mark Parnell has not abused the system at all, and I certainly want to put on the record that he has done nothing wrong, but he was one of the first people to speak. In fact, on that particular night I think it was somewhere around half past nine or quarter to 10 before the locals got to speak, and the meeting, I think, went to about 12.30.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: How long did he go for?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Hon. Mark Parnell did not speak for the entire time, but there were a number of other people. There were a couple of local government speakers, the developers and a couple of other lobby groups that certainly were not locals, who had put in submissions and were given an opportunity to speak first. I was disappointed that when I left—I do not believe parliament was sitting (I do not recall exactly), but it was quite late and I had to get back to town because I had an early start the next morning—there were still a number of locals sitting there in the audience waiting to speak, yet some of the people (not the Hon. Mark Parnell) who had spoken first had gone. So, they said their bit and then left.

If as the Hon. Mark Parnell says we are about bringing the community to the umpire, then the community should have an opportunity to go first. As I said, I had a chat in the corridor of Parliament House to the Hon. Mark Parnell that, if I was fortunate enough to be the minister after the election, it was something I would look at to make sure that, at DPAC hearings, the local community members—those who are directly affected—actually get an opportunity to put their case first. They are people who are trying to get about their business, their lives, their farms. They are farmers, they are business people; they are not professional public advocates, they are not professional politicians, as we all are.

We should actually give them a chance to say their piece and then get home and get to bed and get on with their lives, rather than be subjected to sitting there; I think the Hon. John Dawkins left at about 12.00 and there were still locals waiting to speak after he left at midnight on that night. I know the minister has indicated that it has not been to caucus and he is likely to not support this. As we indicated yesterday with the mining bill, the two major parties have a little bit of a luxury as we have a team in the House of Assembly. I would urge the minister to support this amendment at this point on the full understanding that we know it has not been to caucus and it may or may not change its view.

However, if he is wanting to write to the chair of DPAC, whoever that may be, male or female, and indicate that it is the will of the parliament that locals be heard first, it would send a much more powerful message if the Legislative Council supported this amendment, notwithstanding what may happen in the ALP caucus. I am quite relaxed; I would be disappointed but understand that the caucus may not support it. I think it would send a much more powerful message to the chair if the Legislative Council supported this amendment, even if it does not ever become part of the legislation and part of the act.

I urge the minister and his team to support this amendment, because it does send a strong message. It is a good message for all of us to send to the community that we actually want to listen to the community first. I know the minister and the government have copped a lot of criticism—I think a lot of it justified—for not communicating and not consulting. The member for Cheltenham, the Hon. Jay Weatherill, has—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Absolutely. As my colleague, the Hon. Rob Lucas, interjects, the Hon. Jay Weatherill is running a leadership campaign on the basis that the government has been deciding and then trying to defend. This would send a very strong message to the community that, actually, it would like to listen to the community first. If the government is not careful, one of the failings with some of the things that the minister would like to achieve with higher-density and transport-oriented developments will be a failure to bring the community with them.

I think this sends a very strong message to the community that the parliament does value the community's contribution, and I think it is important to listen first to those who are directly affected, those who have to live with whatever they see being built on the block across the road or the paddock down the road or in fact the high-rise or the eight or 10-storey development that happens at Bowden or Thebarton or Kent Town.

Having said that, I do not think we should prevent people such as the Hon. Mark Parnell or myself or the local members or anybody else making a contribution. I think that certainly would be undemocratic but we should listen to the locals first because they are the people who will be directly impacted.

The Hon. Mark Parnell commented in his contribution just a few moments ago that he was at Port Adelaide in 2003, but he does not live there. He certainly has a big interest in it and he is passionate about it but he does not live there, so whatever happens at Port Adelaide—and I know that he has been raising a number of questions about air quality and the Incitec Pivot facility—at the end of the day, the Hon. Mark Parnell lives not far from me up in the Mitcham/Belair area.

The Hon. P. Holloway: The eastern suburbs.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: True; at the end of the day, he is not directly affected. He is passionate about it; he wants to make sure that the people in that part of the state live in a safe and healthy environment, and I think we all do. He has every right to express his point of view and his opinion, but it should not be the one that is heard first. The locals should speak first. I say those few words and urge all members of the Legislative Council to support this amendment that actually gives locals the opportunity to speak first.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: We have debated this earlier and I did indicate that I do have some sympathy with the point that the Leader of the Opposition is making: that these meetings are really to hear members of the public who have a specific interest in it and they should be heard first. I do not disagree with that at all. It is a matter of whether one should actually amend the act to provide for it or not. That is a different question.

As I said, my personal view is that I believe the chair of the meeting is the best person to determine that but if he is aware of the wishes of parliament, which could be done through a resolution, for example, then I am sure he would reflect that. If the honourable member wishes this matter to be reconsidered by the government, then obviously this matter would have to go to caucus and we would have to report progress. Otherwise I think the only option that I would have available to me would be to oppose it.

It is really up to the leader whether he wishes to report progress and we can come back and deal with it later. Otherwise my inclination would be to vote against it. I should indicate that the government is opposed much more strongly to the measures that are in the bill itself moved by the Hon. Mr Parnell in particular the 'two days' line, but we can debate that and the Hon. Mr Ridgway's amendment to that later. In relation to this particular matter, if the Leader of the Opposition wants proper consideration by caucus, then I suggest that he move an adjournment.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Just for the benefit of members, the Hon. David Ridgway has tabled 10 amendments. Amendments 1 to 5 deal with development plan amendments that are initiated by the local council and amendments 6 to 10 deal with development plan amendments initiated by the minister. So, the first five are replicated in the second five.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: They're mostly consequential.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Well, no, they're not. There are two separate issues here. The minister has already addressed both of them. The first issue is: do we legislate to tell the development policy advisory committee who it should listen to in what order? That is the first issue and I am going to address that one in a minute.

In fact, eight of the 10 amendments are consequential on the second issue, and the second issue is: when does the development policy advice become public? Is it before the minister has made his decision, which is my bill, or is it after the minister has made his decision which is the Hon. David Ridgway's amendment? Let's deal first with this question of legislating to guide the chair of the development policy advisory committee as to the order in which people are to be heard.

The first thing I would say is that, when the Hon. David Ridgway mentioned to me that he had this notion of maybe putting the locals first, my first reaction was, well, it does not matter that much—not such a big deal. But I have to say—no disrespect to parliamentary counsel, I guess they work with the instructions they are given—that is not what this amendment says at all. It does not mention locals and it does not say the locals should be heard first.

What the amendment does is create an absolutely impossible dilemma for the chair of DPAC to try to quantify the level of interest that different people have in order to determine the speaking order. It is an impossible dilemma, but even worse than that, it is fundamentally flawed because at the heart is some suggestion that there should be a weighting to people who speak first rather than people who speak last, in terms of the relevance of their contribution.

One thing that Mario Barone, the current chair of the Development Policy Advisory Committee, has been scrupulous in doing is telling the people who come at 12.30 at night, in the early hours of the morning, 'We are listening to you just as much as we listen to the people who went at 7 o'clock.' There is really no other response that he could make, otherwise it would be shocking, if maybe your name started with Z and you drew the straw to go last. Of course we have to regard all people's submissions equally.

The other flaw, I think, in this amendment is that it misinterprets the purpose of these Development Policy Advisory Committee hearings. Their real purpose is to listen to the submissions and the representations that are made, and then to advise the minister. It is not the purpose of the DPAC meetings to provide entertainment, education or information for anyone else. That is what happens, of course, because those of us who sit through those meetings get to find out a lot about what locals think. We find out a lot at 7.30 when the early submissions are heard, and we find out a lot at 12.30 when the last submissions are being heard. Ultimately, all submissions must be taken equally seriously. Some will have more merit than others and that is the judgement call that the Development Policy Advisory Committee makes.

I will just make one point in relation to the relevance of this amendment No. 1. This amendment does not relate to DPAC at all. It actually seeks to tell the person at the council who is running the local council public hearing, because DPAC does not run all public hearings. DPAC runs the hearings where it is the minister's rezoning, and it gives a report when it is a council rezoning, but it does not run those meetings. So effectively, the honourable member has brought in an entirely new issue, and that is council-run meetings.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Well, what I am saying is it is a new issue. I am happy to consider it because it is replicated in the honourable member's amendment No. 6 which, in fact, does relate to the DPAC hearings.

Let me just tell you why this cannot work in practice, this idea that the chair gets to decide who goes first based on the relative degrees of interest of the persons attending the meeting. Firstly, are all landholders equal? What does the chair do? Do they say, 'Put up your hand if you own a hundred hectares. Put up your hand if you own 50 hectares. Put up your hand if you just own a house and put up your hand if you own a business'? Which of them is more important than the other? It is absolutely impossible to judge.

Let us take members of parliament. Should the local member of parliament, who lives in the affected area, have priority over a member of the Legislative Council who does not live in the area? You might say, 'Yes, they live there.' What if the flip side is the case? What if your local member lives somewhere else, as many local members do, and the member of the Legislative Council happens to live in the area? It is actually quite remarkable to think that this could happen.

The other point is something that might not be known to the honourable member, and I must admit that this debate has had me scouring the Development Act and regulations for the fine detail. We have all been working on an incorrect assumption. I will say here that I told the Hon. David Ridgway as much, but my assumption always was that your right to make a verbal presentation at these meetings was dependent on you having made a written submission, but that is not the case at all. In fact, you can choose not to make a written submission, turn up to the public hearing and you have a right to be heard. It says that in the Development Act. I will read the part from the DPAC hearing:

The advisory committee has to ensure that at least one meeting is held where members of the public may attend and make representations in relation to the matter.

So, it does not actually have a prerequisite that you have to have made a written submission. Mind you, if no-one makes a written submission, the meeting does not have to be held, but you go even further—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I am going to ignore the Hon. Rob Lucas's interjections because they are most out of order. If you go further, and you look at regulation No. 12 under the development regulations, it states:

Any interested person may appear at the public meeting and make representations on the proposed amendment or any submissions on the amendment.

I am giving this advice freely to the Hon. David Ridgway—that next time he turns up to a meeting and he has not made a submission, he needs to tap the chair on the shoulder and say, 'Under regulation 12, Mr or Madam Chair, I am entitled to have my say.'

Let's put this in perspective. I agree with the minister when he says that this is a level of legislative imposition that is unreasonable. When I asked the chair of the Development Policy Advisory Committee, 'That time I went early on, how was that?' he said he did not know. He gets a list and whoever wrote the list did it.

If there is to be guidance, then the minister can write and give guidance. I would counsel against that because it is absolutely impossible to expect the chair to make that judgement call. They cannot make the judgement call unless they have read every single written submission and ranked them in order of priority. They certainly cannot make the judgement call for the latecomers, if you like, who turn up on the night and also want to have their say. Are you going to have 20 questions? Where you live? How much land do you own?

Even that is not good enough because what if a person is making a submission in relation to, say, an area of native vegetation? An example is Coffin Bay, the deferred urban zone. The submissions in relation to Coffin Bay, one of the highest areas of biodiversity left on Eyre Peninsula, are less likely to be from locals (although there will be locals who make submissions) than from ornithologists and ecologists and people who do not necessarily live there but have a massive contribution to make as to whether or not it is appropriate to rezone that land.

I know that case particularly well because I did argue a development approval case and, in the end, it was the evidence of out-of-towners in relation to the incredibly diverse bird life, animal life and diversity of plant species. At the end of the day, that evidence prevailed over a local who wanted to clear some of the best bushland left on Lower Eyre Peninsula and turn it into a housing estate. I think it is absolutely fraught for us to be pretending that some pigs are more equal than others. That some advice—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The honourable member knows that I am referring to Animal Farm, in terms of some pigs being more equal than others.

We need to treat all submissions equally. I personally will not mind, if I go to one of these things, whether I am first or last, but I do not think it is the subject of legislation. If the honourable member had drafted it differently, we might have had the view that no great harm was done if he mentioned locals, in which case, you have to make sure that people declare their residential address when they are making submissions, rather than a postal address. You might think maybe no harm done.

It seems to me that, when you put all these things together, including the ability of people who have not made a written submission to make a verbal submission, we are making the chair's job absolutely impossible, and I do not think it is worth going down that track. Along with the minister, I have some sympathy for the idea that we do not want an elite system where politicians always go first. I am not arguing for that. I am arguing for the chair of the meeting to have discretion as to who they hear from and in what order.

Whether the meetings need to go for as long as they do is a matter for the chair. At early meetings, you were limited to your two or three minutes and if you had not finished by that time you got sat down. More recently, I know the chair has had more latitude and has let people go on.

In the case of Mount Barker (certainly not me, because I would have taken five or 10, as I do with these things), I recall one member—and the Hon. David Ridgway would remember a member of the clergy—who went for over half an hour, perhaps representing the interests of his flock. I am not at this stage going to say any more on it, but I think that, while we can acknowledge that the Hon. David Ridgway is trying to make sure that we do not have an elite system where politicians always go first, this is not the answer. It does not mention locals and it does not actually achieve what it is I think he wants to achieve.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: I was not going to contribute to this, but I would like to add a few words in support of the Leader of the Opposition's amendment. I understand the concerns that the Hon. Mr Parnell might have about the way in which we deal with these matters, but I think the leader has brought some sensible discussion to this place by bringing these amendments to the fore tonight. Anybody who has experienced those meetings will know this, and the one I remember most was the one held for the Gawler East DPA some 17 months ago. The Hon. Mr Parnell talks about the chair's discretion, the amount of time that is given to people and that he took his five or 10 minutes.

I think that we need to look at the way in which those meetings are chaired, because my memory of that Gawler one particularly was that the Hon. Mr Parnell went first. I do not think he was very long in his contribution, but we then had contributions from the two councils involved (the Town of Gawler and the Barossa Council). We also had presentations from representatives of the developers, and they were longish. I think the chair on that occasion said at the start of the evening that there would be a time limit on everybody's discussions of five or 10 minutes and then proceeded not to take any notice of how long people were speaking.

What happened was that, when there was this large number of people at the end of the evening who still had not been heard as we were approaching midnight, those people got less and less time. I just think that is something. Legislation may not be the way to address it, but I hope the minister takes notice of those concerns, because I have heard those concerns in other meetings. I think it is very bad when you have people who are very sincere in their concerns, who have to go to work the next day and who are sitting there at midnight or afterwards waiting to give their presentation about their particular area.

Some were repetitive but a lot were not. The lady with the concerns about the firefighting capacity at Gawler East had to wait until 10 past midnight to get her spot, and that was a new issue. Even if these amendments are not supported, I hope the minister will take note of the fact that I think we need to make sure those meetings are chaired well. Chairing a meeting like that is not easy but, to have something go on for 5½ hours, and for some locals to have to wait for many hours to get their say and then to be limited in time, is not the way to do it.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I would like to make some comments in relation to this amendment and, in particular, to time limits. I did have a meeting with the chair at DPAC and I gave him an undertaking that I would not divulge too much of our conversation, but the Hon. Mark Parnell and I think the minister have mentioned Mr Mario Barone as the chair of DPAC. The time limits, in particular, are an issue that the Hon. John Dawkins has raised. The chair feels a bit constrained, because I think some time ago he had an experience where a person asked to give a presentation first in the evening because they had another meeting to go to, so he then decided that it was fair because this person needed to leave.

They were not local, as I would like to achieve with this amendment. This person wanted to speak first because they had another engagement. They spoke for 45 minutes, much longer than the 10 minutes. I have only been to five or six of these meetings but I am sure that Mario Barone tends to say, 'We will try to allow everybody to speak. If you can confine your comments to roughly 10 minutes, that is a reasonable time.' So, I am sure that he gave that type of instruction.

This person spoke for 45 minutes and the chair could sense that the meeting was getting agitated and that this particular person was taking more than their fair share of time, so he cut them off. They then sat in the audience for the entire length of the meeting. I think, from memory, they may have been an advocate on behalf of a group that was opposed to whatever decision DPAC was dealing with at the time and then used the fact that the chair gagged them at the meeting as part of their legal challenge to the decision.

As this debate unfolds, I am wondering whether—and I do not like to be too prescriptive; I hate too many laws—the chair should not be given some direction within the legislation or within the regulations to say that perhaps people should be given 10 minutes and then at that point, if they wish to speak further, they also go to the end of the meeting, because clearly in that particular example the chair felt as though he could not cut the person off, and now, given that that was part of a legal challenge to DPAC's decision, the chair is reluctant to cut people off as they make their presentations.

The vast majority of people attempt to keep themselves constrained to 10 minutes. In this place, we all know that 10 minutes is about 1,500 words and that sort of fits nicely for all of us, but if you are inexperienced at making a presentation, and either a little nervous or a bit enthusiastic about your presentation, then maybe it takes longer than the 15 minutes.

I am a little concerned that maybe this is another issue; that if this committee is going to act in a way that is fair and impartial then maybe we should be looking at potentially giving some direction, whether it is by way of a resolution of the parliament, or the Legislative Council, as the minister spoke of earlier, or by way of legislation. So, that is the first point I would make: I am a little concerned with that.

I am also interested to listen to the Hon. Mark Parnell talk about, 'Maybe the drafting should have been different.' The drafting we have here does not really achieve what I am trying to achieve. I am also interested in the comments that he made that this directs local councils, as far as consultation, rather than DPAC. I have gone to parliamentary counsel and said, 'This is what I want to achieve. I want to make sure that the locals speak first at DPAC hearings.'

I am not a lawyer; obviously, the Hon. Mark Parnell is. If, in the end, this amendment is not drafted to achieve what I want for DPAC then that is a little bit of a concern to me, and I think it would only be sensible, as much as this will frustrate the Hon. Mark Parnell, that at this point in time I move to report progress so that I can consult with parliamentary counsel to discuss the issues raised by the Hon. Mark Parnell about whether this actually delivers what I want, or whether it does not.

If I report progress and it is successful and supported, then I hope that the Labor Party caucus sees fit to consider this issue before we next sit so that they may be able to support it. So, I move:

That progress be reported.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Can I speak on the motion to report progress?

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. Carmel Zollo): I am afraid it has to be immediately put that progress be reported.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: We are going to have divisions, David, if you want to have divisions. We are going to get this through tonight.

The ACTING CHAIR: That is the standing orders; that is what I am told, I am sorry.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I am moving that we report progress. You have raised a number of other issues that I need to consider.

The committee divided on the motion:

The ACTING CHAIR: There being only one no, I call it for the ayes.

Motion carried.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.