HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS) (URBAN RENEWAL) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 12 September 2013.)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (15:33): When we last dealt with this matter I sought leave to conclude my remarks and I intend to make a few comments and conclude my second reading contribution now. As I indicated when I last spoke, the opposition will be supporting the second reading of this bill, but certainly we wanted to have a look at the amendments that the government had been negotiating with some of the other stakeholders. We have been aware that this negotiation has been going on for some time and we have been awaiting those amendments. I think this Tuesday I saw the minister the Hon. John Rau up on the second floor with one of his staff. I asked him when we would receive them and he said, 'Some time today,' and we got them just before lunch on Tuesday. We have looked at those amendments and we will process them in due course and I suspect that when we next sit—probably Tuesday 15 October—I am sure the opposition will be ready to complete the debate on that particular bill.

I do draw some of my conclusions in relation to this bill from the six-odd years that I was the shadow minister, and over that time I think the face of planning changed considerably and not necessarily always in positive ways. Some of those changes, which I will discuss soon, have accumulated in the establishment of the Urban Renewal Authority. Consistently, though, the Labor government has proved throughout this changing planning environment its blatant disregard for what most South Australians actually want for the city and their neighbourhoods. I think the 30-year plan is an example, and then its numerous flow-on effects, including the infamous Mount Barker debacle.

It is for that reason that I am always cautious when this government instigates legislative change and, of course, the amendments that I spoke of earlier were being negotiated with some of the industry stakeholders, which included the Urban Development Institute of Australia, the Property Council and the LGA.

Just this week upon receiving the government's bills, with the shadow minister I also received a briefing from the minister's office and Planning SA staff and we were led to believe that the associations that had been negotiating had agreed to those amendments or accepted them at best. We were surprised—although I probably should say not surprised—that when we contacted the LGA, in fact, they have not agreed to the amendments. They believe the government has come some way in appeasing their concerns over the bill, but their understanding is that they are still in dialogue with the minister over his amendments, so it is interesting on one hand to be told that they have agreed when in actual fact they have not agreed. Perhaps this was a strategy to underhandedly rush this bill through the final stages before the LGA had even had a chance to know what was going on.

It was interesting also that the Property Council, who we spoke to yesterday, has always been happy with the bill, but the government has not had the courtesy to forward the amendments to it. So, you have an industry group that was happy with the existing bill, the government has proposed a range of amendments and the Property Council has not even seen those amendments. Again, I think it demonstrates the way that this government consults.

Then I note the general support that the Urban Development Institute of Australia has for the bill, but it also has some understandable reservations about how it may affect private sector involvement in renewable projects. I believe that in general the government's amendments are a response to the LGA's concerns over consultation with local government and the UDIA's concern for the private sector.

The opposition generally agrees with the bill. We need a body to carry out the functions of the former LMC and to focus on affordable housing and renewed social housing, and apart from upgrading and refreshing a number of areas, we also need positive leadership in the development of key precincts.

Throughout my post as shadow minister I spent some considerable time observing the Western Australian Planning Commission model and, in particular, the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority, which has been pivotal in maximising the benefits of their rapid growth and the economic growth of Perth. This legislation does move a little more in that direction, perhaps not as far as creating truly independent management of development precincts.

I place on the record my congratulations to the people who have been appointed to the URA board. I believe they each have a strength which could value our state's positive development. I have worked closely with a few of them and have confidence in their abilities. The question will be whether the legislation provides them with an adequate framework to go about their business effectively and efficiently. I believe the principle of somewhat independently managed precinct development is positive, but I would like to note that ultimately the planning strategy will still be a major platform for the development of these precincts. For the community to support any development in our state, it must be confident those development decisions are made without political bias or favouritism.

I remind the house that our planning strategy, which will still lead the development of precincts under the URA legislation, was a submission to cabinet prepared under the minister's direction. South Australia, clearly, over the last 11½ years has come not to trust this government when it comes to planning decisions. Clearly trust has been betrayed in a number of areas with this government when it comes to planning decisions and also community consultation.

Only recently I have had some discussions with stakeholders in relation to the protection bills for both McLaren Vale and the Barossa. Obviously the government portrayed the need for this particular piece of legislation because the urban sprawl was going to engulf them. I remind honourable members that the land at Seaford Rise, on the northern end of what can be best described as McLaren Vale, was rezoned for housing during the time of the Bannon government. Through all the period of debt reduction of the former Liberal government it was never placed on the market, but it was placed on the market by minister Holloway before the last election, and now minister Bignell was silent while that process was happening.

It was not until after the process had been dealt with that he made a big noise. I wonder where he was prior to that process and why minister Bignell, the member for Mawson, was so silent as that land was sold, land which ultimately will be developed. With those few words, I commend the bill to the chamber for its second reading and look forward to processing the many amendments that are now on file when we next meet on 15 October.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (15:41): I rise to close the debate. I would like to thank honourable members for their contribution to the second reading debate on this bill—some more gracious than others. Can I just start by noting that the Hon. Mr Ridgway wants to have his cake and eat it too. He indicates general support for our bill, but then he goes on to say, 'We haven't had time to consider the amendments,' which we tabled, quite frankly, on Tuesday.

However, I seem to recall that yesterday, when we were considering another situation, the Liberal Party tabled an amendment straightaway and expected consideration to be given to that amendment forthwith. So it is good enough for the Liberal Party to do it, but we have given three days' notice—three days' notice—on a very important amendment, and they are saying, 'Oh no, I'm sorry, we need to take another three weeks.' All they are doing is holding this bill up—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order, the Hon. Mr Ridgway!

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: —when it should be considered forthwith. It is disgraceful—just disgraceful; but, sir, let me close the debate now and reflect more silently on the perfidy of those in opposition. To ensure that this bill addresses all the competing interests involved in complex urban renewal projects, the government has consulted with and listened to the views of a wide range of groups. In debate on the bill in the other place the Minister for Planning indicated the government's willingness to consider amendments to the bill in response to submissions.

Submissions have been received from the Local Government Association, the Urban Development Institute, the Community Alliance, the Environmental Defenders Office, the Law Society, the Planning Institute, the City of Adelaide, and the City of Charles Sturt. I understand copies of these submissions have been circulated for members, as well as a copy of the comments, on the legislation provided by the Expert Panel on Planning Reform. While it is evident there is broad support for the bill's intent, we have worked to make a number of refinements to address the issues raised in these submissions.

The government has held discussions with a range of organisations, including the Local Government Association, the Urban Development Institute, the Community Alliance, the Environmental Defenders Office and the Planning Institute in relation to amendments. These amendments have now been lodged, and the opposition spokesperson has been briefed on them. The minister's office will also provide briefings to any other members who have requested them, of course. The amendments, we believe, strike the right balance in addressing the issues raised by all key stakeholders.

Members will note that when the bill was first introduced supportive comments were made in the media by a number of organisations, including the LGA, the Community Alliance, the Civil Contractors Federation, the Property Council and the Urban Development Institute. This is unsurprising, as a number of these organisations, such as the Property Council and the LGA, have had longstanding policy positions supportive of the establishment of an urban development authority with adequate statutory powers to undertake urban renewal and development projects in partnership with councils, community and the private sector.

It is pleasing to note that, as a result of further conversations, the support of the Local Government Association and the Urban Development Institute, in particular, has strengthened. I note that the LGA vice-president, Mayor Lorraine Rosenberg, has thanked the government for the close consultation through this process. In turn, the Minister for Planning would like to thank the LGA and staff, including Ms Wendy Campana, Mr Pat Gerace, Lisa Taburea and Megan Leydon, on their approach to discussions with the government on this bill, which have been constructive and helpful.

The government would also like to thank the Urban Development Institute for confirming their continued support for the bill, including the proposed amendments. The industry has been a long-time advocate for this type of reform, and the minister would like to thank Stuart Moseley and Terry Walsh for their engagement with the government on the bill.

Although the government recognises that not all the amendments proposed will address all of the concerns raised by the Community Alliance and Environmental Defenders Office, a number of the changes directly address issues they have raised and, as I understand it, they have been welcomed. The government would like to thank Mr Tom Matthews, Ms Helen Wilmore, and Ms Melissa Ballantyne, among others, for their input and contributions.

Of course, I should stress that all stakeholders are in a similar position. We have not adopted any single set of suggested changes holus bolus. We have attempted to strike the right balance and address the substance of the issues raised while also maintaining the intent of the legislation. I reiterate that the government has closely modelled the legislation on similar legislation that works in other jurisdictions, such as the Victorian Urban Renewal Authority and the Perth Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority, amongst others. These bodies are well established and there is sound evidence about the robustness of their procedures and active engagement of communities and design of urban renewal projects.

I would like to address one further matter of process before moving to outline the substance of the government's proposed amendments. This goes to the reasons the government is seeking to progress this bill at this time. I note there have been some calls for this bill to be withdrawn pending the outcomes of the government's planning review. This was a view I think put by the Hon. Mr Parnell, for instance, in his second reading contribution.

Indeed, I note there have been calls in some media reports that suggest going further than this—proposing a moratorium on all major planning decisions until a review of the state's planning system is complete. To be clear, this would mean that all major rezonings, major projects and substantial assessment processes would need to be suspended. As the minister has clearly said, this is an untenable proposition.

So that members are clear about time lines, a review being undertaken by the Expert Panel on Planning Reform will not be complete until the end of next year. This is to enable thorough consultation with all stakeholders in the development of new legislation for our planning system. The panel has just recently completed an intensive round of community engagement across South Australia, and they have an ambitious program in the new year as they refine ideas and options for the future system framework. I gather that a number of members attended a recent updated briefing hosted by the minister and the Chair of the expert panel.

It is likely that it will take a further one to two years to draft new legislation in consultation with all relevant stakeholders and secure parliamentary passage. Depending on the extent of change adopted, there will also need to be a carefully staged program of implementation of the new legislation. In other words, it will be some two to three years before this process ultimately delivers a new system.

It takes time to do these types of jobs effectively. We have set up this process (and I note it is one that has cross-party support) to ensure that, as a community, we are able to genuinely interrogate our system and set the framework that will take us forward for the next 30 years or more. To do that, this process needs to be genuinely bipartisan and based on an attempt to exhaustively listen to all views and identify the areas of potential consensus and compromise.

So far in the initial stage of the review, the panel has held some 30 community workshops across the state in addition to attending stakeholder sessions and seminars. Those members who have been around will recall processes such as the Local Government Act review which spanned similar time frames. It should be very obvious that we simply cannot cease all planning initiatives while this review goes on. This would result in a system gridlock.

However, out of respect for the expert panel and those participating in this consultation process, there is a need to ensure that, wherever possible, matters which can be addressed through the review process are not dealt with out of context. This is doubly so when these issues are potentially contentious. This is exactly what the government has done. We sought the views of the expert panel, who agreed there are sound reasons for this bill to continue forward and provided suggestions for improvement to it.

Members will note the panel was asked to consider another bill which was at the time under development by the government. The panel's advice to the government, which we have provided to members, indicates that the panel thought this second bill should be deferred and the issues considered through the review process. The minister agreed this was appropriate and has not sought to pursue other significant legislative reform ahead of the review process. I think this speaks for itself.

Significantly, while the bill is, in a larger sense, a reform that will effect the delivery of good planning outcomes, it is not fundamentally a change to the general regulatory framework established under the Development Act, and this, no doubt, was a factor considered by the panel in providing its advice. This makes it quite different from the proposals the Hon. Mr Parnell has brought forward, which go to the heart of the development control system as it stands.

This government is serious about urban renewal and urban regeneration, and we do not want to put off the task of serious renewal until another day. We are doing what we can within the current legislative framework, but it has long been identified that the framework is poorly structured for urban renewal activity. For example, in addition to the 2008 planning and development review, a number of submissions from councils and industry on the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide called for the establishment of a development authority with appropriate urban renewable powers.

The proposals in this bill are a targeted reform that help kickstart urban renewal while the panel continues its work of reviewing the overall legislative framework. It is important to note that this is not about the state government taking control of urban renewal; rather, it is about setting up a mechanism that allows complex urban renewal projects to be undertaken by the state or local government in cooperation with the community and the private sector. It will follow up the government's establishment of the Urban Renewal Authority in 2011 and the foreshadowing of a precinct-based approach to urban renewal, outlining the planning strategies since 2010. It is also a bill for which there is wide support both in principle and now for the amendments the government is moving on issues of detail.

The same cannot be said of other bills that have passed this place recently or that remain on the books. On issues such as landowner notification of zoning changes, interim operation, assessment notification of requirements in the development plan process—all raised by the Hon. Mr Parnell—there is simply no consensus of opinion yet evident. There is, for example, no evidence of consultation on these proposed reforms with local government, which I am sure would have a view on the potential costs involved. Industry has also raised a number of concerns with the proposals.

None of this is to say the ideas raised in these bills are not worthy of being considered—far from it—but the compelling case for prosecuting them ahead of the expert panel's process has not been made, in the government's view, nor has clear agreement emerged amongst the key stakeholder sectors which would be affected by the bills. That consultation needs to happen before such bills could be taken forward, and that is our view.

The government, on the other hand, has brought forward a proposal based on longstanding discussions stretching back to 2008 and given life in the establishment of the Urban Renewal Authority in 2012. We have openly invited feedback on the proposal, and we have actively engaged with stakeholders to address their needs effectively in the bill. We have industry support, local government support and a reasonable level of acceptance from community organisations.

We have taken on board the advice of the expert panel and received their agreement that the bill can be handled ahead of the conclusion of their review process. We have drawn from interstate legislative models in designing our proposed precinct planning approach. We have both private sector and councils ready to take advantage of the proposed precinct development process set out in the bill, as well, of course, as a number of future government-led urban renewal projects that could become candidates for this process in due course. Why would we wait?

I would now like to briefly outline the amendments the government is proposing, with a view to more detailed exposition on a clause by clause basis presently. The amendments in large measure seek to provide greater checks and balances around the establishment of precincts, including a high degree of parliamentary oversight throughout the precinct planning process and better consultation and engagement processes with the community and councils.

The amendments will also provide for greater clarity around the use and application of the precinct planning process and greater accountability on precinct proponents. Perhaps the most significant aspect of the changes has been the introduction of greater parliamentary oversight of the precinct planning process. Our amendments will introduce reporting of all stages in the precinct planning process to the Environment, Resources and Development Committee, with the potential for disallowance of a precinct master plan on a similar basis to a development plan amendment.

Reinforcing this, we have made it clear that the minister cannot initiate precinct declaration of his or her own volition but can act to receive and consider proposals from the public or private sectors, subject to consultation with the planning minister and relevant local councils. We have also, at the suggestion of the Local Government Association, introduced a requirement for precinct proponents—who may be public or private sector—to prepare a business case outlining the proposed precinct development and providing critical background material, such as commercial feasibility, infrastructure requirements and the like. This business case will also be specifically required to address community engagement.

We believe the introduction of the business case also clarifies the ability of the private sector to submit precinct proposals and have them considered. In effect, this opens the door to a statutory form of joint venture style arrangement by allowing negotiation of potential urban outcomes on a tripartite basis between state government, local government and private sector investors. Additionally, we have included a provision that makes it clear that the Urban Renewal Authority should aim to involve the private sector in urban renewal projects where practicable to do so.

We have strengthened the role of community consultation in a number of ways and also made some changes in response to submissions of the Community Alliance to improve the access to information about a precinct development. For example, we have inserted a requirement that all reports to the minister or by the minister, including the business case, are transparently published online at each stage of the process.

We have also strengthened the role of the design review and community reference panels, making them mandatory default requirements which can be departed from only by regulation; we would expect this only to occur when the engagement plan put forward as part of the business case demonstrated a better form of engagement. Similarly, we have specified that minimum consultation timeframes for each stage of the precinct planning process should be specified in regulation.

We have qualified the relationship between local councils and precinct authorities in a number of ways, including in the exercise of rating or infrastructure powers, the making of by-laws, the transfer of precinct infrastructure and assets, and other transitional arrangements. Consultation provisions have been included to ensure that partnership with local councils in the delivery of precincts is effective. We have also expanded the ability of councils to participate in the precinct process by allowing a council subsidiary to become a precinct authority.

A number of provisions of the bill, including in the amendments, will require various procedural and operational matters to be specified by regulation. Recognising that the devil is often in the detail, we have included a specific requirement to consult with the Local Government Association in relation to regulations that could impact on the local government sector. The minister has asked me to indicate that, in relation to the first set of regulations, he will propose to extend this consultation to members, industry and others who made a submission on the bill prior to promulgation.

Finally, we have included a provision requiring review of the legislation within two years of its commencement. This will enable operational matters to be identified and clarified. We expect that this obligation could be discharged by the review being conducted by the Expert Panel on Planning Reform, or as a separate process. I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): I am advised that the bill has nine clauses, one schedule and a title. The first amendment is planned at clause 8.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: There will be a range of questions that I want to pose, once I have feedback, to the minister and to the officers on the vast number of amendments we are still considering. I indicated in my second reading speech that we would be happy to process the committee stage of the bill on Tuesday 15 October, so on that basis I move:

That progress be reported.

The committee divided on the motion:

Majority of 5 for the ayes.

Progress thus reported; committee to sit again.