DEVELOPMENT (DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 11 September 2013.)

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (21:51): I rise to speak about the Development (Development Plan Amendments) Amendment Bill 2013. The bill seeks to introduce two additional mechanisms by which development plan amendments can be considered by the Development Policy Advisory Committee established under the Development Act 1993. While the scope and the work of the committee is a matter for consideration, the government believes that this is best done in the context of broad reform and, as such, opposes the bill at this time.

As members know, the government appointed the Expert Panel on Planning Reform in March 2013 to undertake a major review of the planning system. The panel has canvassed and considered a wide range of views on a large number of matters, including this important issue of development plan amendment processes. The panel has heard from over 800 people in 36 community and stakeholder workshops, and has also had additional briefings, meetings and information sessions, and many written submissions and online comments have been received. This work should consider the functions of the committee and, as such, the government does not support this bill at this time.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (21:52): I also will speak briefly. As members are aware, we have a number of private members bills that we are dealing with tonight. It is the second last Wednesday; we could have that optional week so we could have a third Wednesday. I will speak briefly on this bill and the second one. They are two relatively simple bills introduced by the Hon. Mark Parnell. Obviously, I was the shadow minister for planning and urban development for some time, particularly throughout the Mount Barker fiasco, so I am well versed in the functions and inefficiencies of the development process, particularly as it relates to the Development Policy Advisory Committee.

As Mr Parnell has stated, the only trigger for that committee to consider the effects of planning and rezoning changes is if the minister asks for advice. Mr Parnell proposes that two further triggers be added: when a local council asks or when DPAC deems it necessary. I have made no secret of the fact that I believe the system under which DPAC operates is flawed.

I believe that the community has little or no faith in the function of the committee. I also think that has been exacerbated by the way the Hon. Mark Parnell often encourages people to come to public hearings knowing full well that the Development Policy Advisory Committee can only judge the rezoning or the issue that has been proposed against the planning strategy. It has no capacity to do anything other than that. So, while the community has little faith in it, it is fanned and encouraged by the Hon. Mark Parnell because, of course, it often serves his political benefit when he has 400 or 500 people at a public meeting who are disappointed with the process; but, of course, he never really told them what the process was.

However, I am of the view that there is a far more fundamental issue with our planning system and that is the process by which the state government actually formulated our planning strategy. That document is where the buck stops. It is clear under the Development Act that the mandate of DPAC is to provide advice to the minister on developments, but that advice centres on how any given development fits with the planning strategy. While Mr Parnell's bill has its merits with these so-called new triggers, they are just a bandaid solution.

Ultimately, the council and the community was left out of the planning strategy process so as long as DPAC's advice is founded on that document we have a more serious problem. Further, I noted Mr Parnell's comments throughout the debate on the recent Urban Renewal Bill where he commented that further planning reform should not occur until Brian Hayes QC's report on our planning legislation was complete.

I indicate that the opposition fully concurs with those comments. We believe that these bills should not be put into force until we have the findings of that expert panel. Undoubtedly, Mr Hayes and his panel will look into the transparency issues with DPAC regarding their advice to the minister and whether that should be publicly available as proposed in the Hon. Mark Parnell's bill. With those few words, I indicate that the opposition will not be supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell's bill.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (21:55): I thank the Hon. Carmel Zollo and the Hon. David Ridgway for their contributions. It does not surprise me in the least that the old parties are not supporting a bill that was developed over a period of years through consultation with community groups and, in particular, the groups that comprise the Community Alliance.

The government's excuse, which the opposition has now leapt onto, is that it is premature to be talking about any changes to the planning system without it going through the expert panel on planning reform chaired by Mr Brian Hayes QC, a committee that will report in December 2014.

I am not going to divide on this. I accept that we do not have the numbers tonight. I just say again how disappointed I am that when the government decides that it wants to change the decision-maker, change the rules, change the ability for people to participate in planning, they just—what are the words the Liberals have been using for the last hour? They 'jam it through', and the community can just lump it.

The community, through this bill and subsequent bills, has spoken. It says this is a reform that would put people back into planning. That is the catchcry of the Community Alliance. I would urge other members to support this bill, but I am disappointed that the major parties will not be.

Second reading negatived.