DEVELOPMENT (PUBLIC CONSULTATION) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 11 September 2013.)

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (22:08): I rise to speak about the Development (Public Consultation) Amendment Bill 2013 on behalf of the government. This bill essentially contains three amendments to public notification procedures for development applications under the Development Act. While the proposal may have some merit, the government opposes the bill at this time.

As previously mentioned in speaking to an earlier bill, the government appointed the Expert Panel on Planning Reform in March this year to undertake a major review of the planning system. The panel has canvassed and considered a very wide range of views on the role and extent of public consultation of development applications. The panel has heard from over 800 people in 36 community and stakeholder workshops, as well as additional briefings, meetings and information sessions, and many written submissions and online comments have been received.

Again, the panel is due to release an issues report on 9 December 2013 and, given that there is such a wide range of views on the issue of public notification and the importance attached to it by many respondents and submitters, the government believes that this matter is best considered in the context of broad reform.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (22:10): I rise on behalf of the opposition to speak to the Development (Public Consultation) Amendment Bill. I raised a whole range of issues in the previous bill I spoke to, so I will not repeat them.

The Hon. Mr Parnell proposes that the development regulations or a development plan be able to list a form of development as a category 3 development. At the moment, it is a remnant category, so it comprises of any form of development that is not category 1 or 2. Category 3 is the only category which involves general public notification in the print media. As we know, most complying developments are category 1, a very small number are category 2, but they can never be category 3. The Hon. Mr Parnell would like it to be possible for certain developments to be listed as category 3.

Again, we are well aware that the issue of public notification is a divisive one, and we have no doubt that it will be an area of focus of the review. As I indicated before, we will await the findings of the Hayes review to decide which course of action best suits the public and the state. I have forgotten the cost of the review (we have been told) but it was a significant cost. While we are not opposed to review and reform, we think that support of this bill tonight is premature and we believe that we should wait for the final report of that expert panel.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (22:12): I thank the Hon. Carmel Zollo and the Hon. David Ridgway for their contribution. In responding to what the Hon. David Ridgway said about the category 3 developments, it is clear to most people who have studied this system that the number and type of developments that are able to be challenged by communities, individuals or groups has been shrinking year by year. I recently managed to get the figures out of the Environment, Resources and Development Court and, over the last six or so years, the number of third party appeals has dropped by over a half; in fact, it is closer to two-thirds.

Mind you, the number of developer appeals has also dropped, which I think is largely because they are getting more approvals and there is less need for them to appeal. Some people might think that this more an indication of economic downturn, but we know that it is getting harder and harder for people to challenge developments. It is also getting harder for people to find out about development.

The amendment included in this bill that provides for a sign to be placed on the land is a reform that I have not heard anyone disagree with. In fact, for my education, I sat in the other house the other day and I heard the minister say that this was a very meritorious idea. I have heard frontbench members of the Liberal Party, including the shadow minister, say similar things. But, again, everyone is hiding behind the fact that there is a review underway that will report in a year's time; therefore, no planning reform should be considered until that is done—unless, of course, it is a radical government planning reform that undermines community participation and the ability of the public to engage in these planning decisions. Again, I am disappointed that this community alliance bill will not go any further this time.

Because this is the final of these bills, I put on the record that, as far as the Greens are concerned, we are not giving up on these. When the new parliament is formed after March, these ideas, which have been so long in the gestation, are not going to become worse ideas with the passage of a few months, and we will certainly be pushing them again next year. But for now, I can see that the numbers are against us. I see the will of the house is that this bill not proceed any further tonight; nevertheless, I will not be dividing.

Second reading negatived.