DEVELOPMENT (PRIVATE CERTIFICATION) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 27 November 2012.)

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women) (12:12): I understand that there are no further contributions on this. I thank honourable members for their second reading contributions. I understand there are a number of questions, which I will be happy to deal with in committee. I thank honourable members for their support and look forward to dealing with the bill expeditiously through committee.

Bill read a second time.

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have a number of questions on which I would like answers before we progress. There are only two amendments. My first question was one that I put in the second reading debate last night, and it was to get a confirmation that private certifiers will deal only with residential code developments. We know the residential code is not prescribed in the act. I had discussion with parliamentary counsel about limiting it to the residential code. The Hon. Mark Parnell has an amendment that tries to do that. The opposition is not necessarily committed to that any more, but we want to know why, as the LGA sums it up:

The regulations provide private certifiers with the authority to determine a minor variation from complying development and consult with other authorities and agencies to request further information from the applicant and grant permission to vary a development plan consent.

I want to know why private certifiers have been given the authority to determine minor variation and how you quantify that minor variation? If you give an inch, people take a yard. I am interested to know how you quantify that minor variation. That was an issue that the LGA raised with me. Somebody who is a private certifier gives a development approval for a particular project and it is only a very slight variation; the next one they come to is a bit further. It is an incremental, if you like, dilution of the residential code. That is the first question I would like an answer to.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Perhaps you could put all your questions while we are waiting for an officer.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: There were a number of questions posed by the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors that I put on the record last night, so I hope the officer is busily trying to answer them now. The implications for private certifiers include insurance, that is, liabilities of the planning system. If the planning system fails, where does the liability lie? With the private certifier? The second question—and I will number them so I can come back to them when the officer gets here—

The Hon. M. Parnell: The minister can answer them.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I do not think the minister can answer them; that is the trouble. It is a shame. The Minister for Planning, the Hon. John Rau, was in the gallery. Perhaps we should have him down here as an officer to advise her. My second question is: if a conflict or an inconsistency arises with local government—we have 67 local governments across the state—if we drop private certifiers in, how will we deal with any inconsistencies that may arise between private certifiers and the local council and any liabilities that arise from that?

The third question relates to the sort of skills and experience that will be required for planning certifiers. My understanding now is that local government planning officers are not required to have a planning degree or any tertiary education, but they are required, obviously, to understand the development plan and the components that affect their local council. Building surveyors are the ones who are likely to take up these positions. I guess they are just asking: what will I need to do to be skilled up to be able to do this?

Other comments and questions were raised. My fourth question is: why the rush? It seems that these time frames were almost too short for proper consideration of all of these other implications. My fifth question is: why are the regulations structured such that a private certifier is given powers that he does not need for residential code development? I think that comes to the same point as the Local Government Association: it is allowing these minor variations outside of the residential code.

Where is the demonstrated need for giving private certifiers these powers? That is my sixth question. My seventh question is: what evidence is there that private certifiers will use the powers that are given to them? The government talks about this being of great economic benefit and it will speed up the system. The Australian Institute of Building Surveyors is wondering whether there will be much take-up of this at all.

My eighth question relates to the government spending a large amount of money training local government planning officers in the residential code. What evidence is there that private certifiers have sufficient knowledge on the residential code planning requirements and do not require further training?

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Yes, where is the evidence that private certifiers can just jump straight into it? My ninth question is: if they require further training, how is that training to be provided? My 10^th question for this point is: has the government considered whether there should be an increase in public liability and professional indemnity insurance requirements for private certifiers considering now they have both planning and building for ResCode developments? That is the extent of the questions that I would like answered before we progress the bill. I know the Hon. Mark Parnell may have some, but at this point in time, I would like some answers.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Parnell, have you got a question or two?

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I had thought to save some of these up until we get to the appropriate spot in the bill, but I will put a couple on the record for now. Could the minister explain the regime for the management of paperwork around private certification? In particular, what obligation is there on private certifiers to hand their file over to the council for the purposes of long-term keeping under public register provisions?

It may well be that it is in the bill or the regulations somewhere and I have missed it, but I am trying to work out what obligation is there; that is my first question. Secondly, is there any reason why the government has not included in the bill the same access to information provisions that apply when a local council deals with an application? Why has the government not mirrored those provisions when it comes to private certifiers?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: In relation to the first question, I have been advised that the definition of 'minor variation' is, in fact, a question of judgement that is to be exercised. It is something that I have been advised is impossible to define precisely in legislation. However, the department will be issuing guidelines that will assist in providing a context for that and it will also be covered in training. Also, just to reassure members, private certifiers will be audited and, obviously, if their judgement is out of alignment, those issues will be able to be picked up there.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I am interested in the audit process, and I am aware that there is a proposed audit process. Who will conduct the audit? How will be it be conducted? Is it a random audit? For the record, it would be interesting to know exactly what is envisaged for the audit process.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: In terms of who, I have been advised that the department will employ a specific person to be the auditor; in fact, I am advised that they have already been employed. They will be a department employee who will have specific expertise in auditing. In terms of how, I am advised that a program of auditing will be put in place and, like most other systems of compliance, it will be a combination of spot checks or random auditing as well as a system that responds to specific complaints or problem areas that may have been identified or brought to the attention of the auditor.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: So the auditor will have training. Are they auditing the building surveyors and private certifiers and planning certifiers? I would like to know what qualifications they will have and what salary band they will be on.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that it is believed (although we can have this checked) that it is set in an ASO6 level. As I said, we can double-check that, but the person has appropriate qualifications involved in auditing, in risk or compliance management, and it is a skill set that can apply to both areas of expertise.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: That might follow onto one of the other questions I asked, given that we are talking about training. For planning certifiers, the third question I asked was: what skills and experience will they need to have to be able to be registered or approved to be a private certifier?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that we are not having separate planning certifiers. What we intend to do is extend current certifiers to include residential codes.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: My understanding of the current certifiers for building rules consent is that most of them are structural engineers. I know that we did have some discussion over the qualifications of one of former minister Holloway's advisers, as to whether they were a building certifier or an accredited certifier; I can't recall the exact term, but I think there was a slight difference in the technical term. I would be interested to know what additional training or qualifications a current certifier has if we are giving them an extra role to play. How will you know that they actually have the ability to perform that role?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that it is the view of the department that the current qualifications held by building surveyors are sufficient to do this role, as per what happens in Victoria, where they do both residential and building codes. However, you can be assured that, in addition to that, they will be required to do some additional training that will specifically deal with the South Australian ResCode.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Who will provide that training; where does that come from?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The department will be working with appropriate industry bodies to provide the training.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: A lot of my questions have been answered, but I have a couple more. One of the questions the Institute of Building Surveyors provided me with is: why are the regulations structured in such a way that a private certifier is given powers that he does not need for the residential code? I guess they are alluding to the variations outside of the residential code. They feel that, by reading the regulations, there are powers given to them that are more than they need for the residential code.