Bills

Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 2 December 2015.)

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (10:19): At the outset I feel that I must put on the record my wholehearted support for other members in this place—particularly the Hon. Mark Parnell—who expressed their dismay at the government's insistence on pushing this bill through before the end of the year. With regard to this bill, on 22 July this year the Attorney said:

I have been speaking to these gentlemen either side of me and I have told them that I want it in here next week, you see. They keep saying, 'Yes, no worries, we will do it.' If it does not happen next week, just take a good look at them…They are the people who, when you see them in the street, you will be able to say, 'Why didn't the bill turn up when he said so?'

That was said during estimates this year, and the gentlemen the Attorney was referring to were Stuart Moseley, General Manager, Information and Strategy, and Andrew McKeegan, Chief Development Officer from DPTI. The Attorney had put on the record that he expected the bill would be introduced to the House of Assembly on 29 July. If that had happened we would all have had the winter break to consider the bill, which is perhaps the most significant piece of legislation which has been presented to our parliament for the last few years.

However, the bill was not introduced to the House of Assembly until 8 September, about one and a half months later. This meant that members lost six weeks in which they could have been considering this substantially-sized bill and consulting with stakeholders. I would be interested to know if the Attorney, when he crosses the paths of these aforementioned DPTI employees, asks, 'Why didn't the bill turn up when I said so?' If the bill was introduced when the Attorney said it should have been I doubt very much that the government would be rushing this through and asking the Legislative Council to just pass the bill without proper consideration or consultation. This is completely unacceptable and I will be supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell when he moves to have this matter dealt with in the new year.

In the same vein, this house has had very little time to consider the final plans for the urban growth boundary. The minister only released the final plans yesterday, yet here we are, just a little over 24 hours later, pressured to make a decision on it. I cannot support something when I have been given such little opportunity for thorough consideration.

The bill aims to establish environmental and food production areas which would be protected and surround Greater Adelaide. I agree that prime agricultural environmental land should be protected; however, what the government is proposing is too inflexible. The bill will enshrine these environmental and food production areas in law and require agreement of both houses of parliament before any changes to these areas can be made. Whilst I understand the rationale behind this is to ensure that backroom deals are not made and that these decisions are held to public scrutiny, I hold concerns that this is a threshold that will be difficult to meet.

Experience from major cities around the world have seen an increase in land prices wherever an urban growth boundary is put in place. This decreases housing affordability and penalises those who are already struggling to gain a foothold in the housing market. Normal supply and demand principles should apply, however. They will not if the supply is limited.

The minister's vision is for new developments to come from infill supply. However, traditionally, this is not what is in demand. The Australian dream of owning a house on a quarter acre block is already one which is difficult to achieve due to the trend towards subdivision and redevelopment. Young families struggle to find properties with adequate space for children to play and a small vegetable patch. Limiting supply will only make these properties rarer and increase the demand as well as the price.

In 1974, the land commission had access to information with regard to the number of vacant residentially zoned allotments in the metropolitan planning area or within any local government area and an estimate as to how many of these may be available. I doubt the government still has access to this information and would appreciate further details on this from the minister.

The minister stated that the bill creates new protection for farmlands and environmental areas around Adelaide. Whilst these objectives are admirable, it is also important to protect the farmers who often devote their lives to farming. Inevitably, farms become economically unviable and farmers should be given the ability to dispose of unviable land to be used for other purposes. I am not saying that farmers should be given the right to subdivide and create new allotments carte blanche; however, many issues could be resolved if farmers are given the ability to undertake a boundary realignment of existing allotments.

Farms are usually comprised of a number of lots, sections and titles, which can be placed seemingly randomly. Giving farmers the ability to realign the boundaries to create allotments which could be sold to another party, whilst still retaining the valuable farming land, would give much comfort to farmers who see their superannuation in the land they own. I understand this is currently allowed. However, many farmers face difficulties when submitting a development application, as allotments have unrealistic minimum allotment size requirements for the building of a house, as set out by council development plans.

I had sought to draft an amendment addressing the issue. However, in discussion with the minister's office, I understand the minister is willing to consult on this and deal with this as a matter of policy. I would appreciate the minister putting on the record that he will do this in order to help our farmers.

The bill sets new standards for professional qualifications required for members of development assessment panels and precludes members of councils and parliament from sitting on panels. I support this move, as I have previously thought that some members of DAPs were flying blind and making decisions which were politically motivated rather than what was in the best interests of the community, or against development plans. However, I do not believe the bill goes far enough and yesterday I filed amendments which would preclude councillors and parliamentarians from being a member of a DAP for two years after their term has ended. My amendments also preclude current and former council staff for a period of two years from DAP membership.

The new infrastructure fund is also a matter of great concern to me. The details of this fund are very limited, and I was only briefed yesterday by the minister's office on the government's own amendments to this aspect of the bill. I understand there will now be two schemes: a basic scheme and a general scheme.

Again given these amendments were only filed two days ago, it is unreasonable to expect that these will be supported. Details on the schemes are lacking and it just serves as another example of the government wanting blind agreement to their proposals. Whilst I do not entirely disagree with spreading the cost of augmentation charges across a period of time rather than requiring the developer to pay these charges as a lump sum before development begins, I am unwilling to sign a blank cheque.

More details on how it will work need to be provided before I can even think about supporting this measure. Infrastructure charges for new roads, sewerage, water connections and electricity are one thing, but the responsibility to pay for transport, education and infrastructure should remain the responsibility of the government.

Any promise of a decrease in the cost of housing may be negated by the anticipated spike in land prices due to an urban growth boundary and other matters. Whilst the developer will save on the outlay of augmentation charges, I doubt that all these savings will be passed on to homebuyers.

I again echo the sentiments expressed by the Hon. Mark Parnell with regard to the e-planning portal and cost for this service. Under the current planning system, there are already fees that are imposed on applications which I believe are unnecessary. For example, there is a fee in the order of about $20 from councils to provide a copy of the title. This fee should not apply if an owner already has the duplicate title for a freehold property.

Access to information and applications made through the portal should not attract any costs additional to what already applies, and I will oppose any measures which will increase fees. I would be grateful if the minister could provide more details on this and give an undertaking that there will not be a fee to access information through the portal.

I hold concerns about the efficiency and effectiveness of the new planning commission, given my recent experience with DPTI. In early 2014, the minister announced that he was prepared to consider an extension of the township of Roseworthy and advised the council to prepare a development plan amendment. In March 2014, the minister signed a statement of intent and indicated that the council should get on with preparing a draft DPA. This draft was presented to the minister and DPTI in December 2014 for consideration.

Now, 12 months later, DPTI have finally released the draft DPA for consultation. In other words, it took DPTI 12 months to consider the draft DPA for Roseworthy township's expansion. This is nothing short of disgraceful and incompetent. If this is how DPTI currently operates, I am not convinced that a new planning commission will be as effective as what the government is spruiking. The irony of DPTI taking its time on this matter and delays to introducing this bill while pressuring this house to consider the bill in four sitting days is not lost on me, and I again urge the government not to force this issue and allow us all an opportunity to properly consider the bill.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (10:30): I believe that all second reading contributions have been made to this important bill, and I would like to thank all members for their contributions to the second reading debate. This bill is a product of an arms-length process conducted by the Expert Panel on Planning Reform, which handed down its final report to government in December last year.

Over two and a half years, this process involved more than 2,500 South Australians in 127 separate community events across more than 30 city and country locations throughout the state. Overall, the panel published 794 pages of information, including three major reports. The expert panel process was rigorous, detailed, evidence driven, transparent and thoroughly independent. There is a direct line of sight between the panel's recommendations for reform, the cabinet-endorsed government response released in March, and this bill.

The government recognises that reforming our planning system is a major economic opportunity that can help unlock a prosperous future for our state. The sooner we get this bill through the parliamentary process, the sooner we can commence the important task of implementation and see the benefits flow across South Australia.

Getting started on this long-awaited process cannot be understated as an economic priority for South Australia. Indeed, the overall economic benefits of this reform have been assessed in the published regulatory impact statement by national consultancy MacroPlan Dimasi as in the order of $2.3 billion over the next 20 years.

Because of this, the government has worked tirelessly to reach agreement on the limited number of outstanding issues that were not able to be resolved before the debate concluded in the other place. Since this bill was introduced on 8 September, the government has held more than 60 meetings and briefing sessions with stakeholders as well as receiving detailed written submissions. This is on top of the many meetings we have had prior to introduction of the bill, and, of course, the panel's extensive engagement program.

I would therefore like to place the government's thanks to everyone outside of this parliament who has engaged with us in good faith over recent weeks and months. In particular, I put on the record the government's thanks to the Local Government Association, the Property Council, the Urban Development Institute, the Community Alliance, the Conservation Council and the Environmental Defenders Office. The conversations we have had directly with these and other committed groups has been thoughtful, constructive and positive.

Already, we have made amendments in the other place in response to these discussions and feedback, and we will be moving further amendments in this chamber during committee stage which are the result of ongoing positive discussion with these interest groups. Importantly, we believe the good will that has been generated by these conversations will stand us in good stead as the new planning system is implemented over the coming years.

On this front, I indicate the government will be moving an amendment reflecting this collaborative approach during the implementation phase through two committees that can be used to engage local government, community groups and industry. This means these groups may have a seat at the table as we embark on implementation tasks, including the second bill, which will deal with transitional, consequential and staging matters. All of this is evidence of the government's genuineness in seeking to listen to all interests in designing our new planning system.

As the minister in the other place has stated all along, the government is open to reasonable suggestions that improve or enhance the bill at any and every stage of the parliamentary process and beyond. Matters which are raised with us will not be ignored and, in many cases, may be addressed in the second transitional bill or as part of the implementation process under the guidance of the proposed new state planning commission.

Importantly, the amendments that we will be moving have already been flagged directly with the opposition following a thorough committee debate in the other place. Prior to commencing the committee stage it is important that I make some general comments about these amendments, the commitments that we will be honouring during the implementation process, and other matters that have arisen.

Before moving to that detail I should make one final, overarching point: the government recognises that this bill sets out major reforms that will change the way we conduct the business of planning in this state for decades to come. Many of these will necessarily challenge existing practices that we have become accustomed to. We understand that even though they are the result of an extensive and independent consultation process, some will have difficulty accepting the need for all of these changes. In this respect I remind the chamber of the expert panel's own words:

All of us must be open to new ideas and willing to set aside historic debates that have reached their use-by dates.

This is a challenge that we in this parliament must take up. We cannot afford to miss this opportunity for genuine and lasting reform. I now turn to matters of detail. The fundamental tenet of the expert panel's recommendations is the need to place a greater focus on policy setting processes. That is why the panel recommended the establishment of a state planning commission, an improved role for parliamentary scrutiny and, crucially, a shift in how we engage communities in planning decisions.

A key element of this bill is a new community engagement charter intended to lift the bar on community engagement across the system, focusing on early conversations, when it is most meaningful for communities, and not at the end when critical choices have already been taken. This approach should not be a surprise to anyone in this place. It was at the heart of the expert panel's recommendation and flagged in the government's response in March this year.

Since the bill has come into publication, a range of concerns about the details of the charter have been flagged. This is understandable and we have already moved, in the other place, to address these; for example, by subjecting the charter to parliamentary scrutiny. However, we will not sacrifice the fundamental principle that underlies this reform. It has been suggested by the Hon. Mark Parnell that an approach that favours up-front engagement sounds nice in principle, but in practice it is unrealistic and unachievable and because of this, so the argument goes, rights of consultation which apply downstream in the system should be maintained alongside the charter. With respect, this is a criticism founded in outdated thinking and not supported by the expert panel's recommendation. If we accept this argument the promise of this reform will be negated.

Indeed, the most important function for the new charter will be giving the community the opportunity to literally shape the new planning rulebook and, in doing so, help create something that is clear, simple, easy to understand yet sophisticated and innovative. It is precisely because of this that there is less need for bureaucracy in prescriptive consultation on individual development proposals. When the rules are clear about what is allowed people are far less likely to need to get a second bite at the cherry, and then there are those who are unlikely to ever accept the umpire's decision.

Of course it is reasonable to have the opportunity to comment on a development proposal that falls outside the expectations of the rules. This bill enshrines this right at a statutory level. However, as the panel itself observed, it is not appropriate for people to be involved in every planning decision, particularly where the issues are technical, private and in accord with settled planning rules. It is far better that we find ways to engage citizens in meaningful dialogue, and there have been a number of points raised by members here that suggest ways in which this charter can do just that, and I note comments made by the Hon. David Ridgway and the Hon. Mark Parnell about useful interstate and overseas models that could be applied in this situation.

Overseas cities, such as Vancouver, Dublin, Chicago, Copenhagen and Portland, have all successfully adopted sustained engagement programs that have helped shape urban renewal initiatives in ways that meet community needs and aspirations. Closer to home, the early engagement piloted in the design of the Bowden Village precinct, as well as work undertaken by a number of metropolitan councils, tells us we should pursue this thought when we hear this kind of criticism.

Many of these examples and the statutory systems that underpin them were looked at closely by the expert panel in coming to its conclusions. To say we can never get this up-front engagement right is one of those self-fulfilling prophesies that none of us in this place should uncritically accept, and it seems to fly in the face of the evidence that these and other examples illustrate.

The key point here is that we should not, as the Hon. Mark Parnell suggests, simply write legislation that describes human nature as it is. If we did that, after all, we would not have laws against discrimination, violence or theft. We should instead seek to design a system that will bring out the best in people. Our system cannot afford to simply default to old habits that we know push up the costs for everyone.

The role of local government will be enhanced. Some have suggested this bill will curtail the role of local councils in the planning system. This is a glass half empty perception. We are changing the role of local councils, but in ways that will enhance their ability to plan for their communities. Indeed, we have been working with the Local Government Association on amendments that put this beyond doubt, and these have been filed. I think the fact that the LGA is positive about these changes speaks volumes on this issue.

Local government has been in the past, is in the present, and will be into the future, central to the operation of the planning system. The government recognises councils as key partners in delivering effective, efficient and enabling planning to South Australians. That is why in this bill we are giving local councils the tools they do not currently have under our antiquated planning system to do their task better, faster, more efficiently and more effectively.

The current planning system has encumbered local government in the minutiae in processes instead of functioning as an empowering system. Limited ratepayer resources have become tied up with trivial matters which, in the overall scheme of things, do not warrant such attention or effort. There are many examples, some of which have been put on the record during debate, and there are further examples to populate that list.

They may be anecdotal, but they clearly tell us where our current planning system is failing to properly channel important ratepayer resources. Whether it is inspecting rabbit hutches and umbrellas, or prosecuting fish and chip shop owners, there is little defensible about some of the more egregious examples that are widely known in the public domain. It is not just anecdotes; the data bears this out, as the report of the expert panel comprehensively details.

Do not, fellow members, buy the Hon. Mark Parnell's selective use of statistics in his earlier contribution. No prudent elected body could be satisfied with the type of inefficiency that we have seen in the planning system. I know elected members on council should be eager to find ways to avoid expenditure that pushes up rate on mum-and-dad home owners. We do not want councils at the centre of a slow and unresponsive administrative bureaucracy. We want them to be able to focus their attention on the genuine tasks of planning, engaging with communities, and planning for the future.

This bill acknowledges that councils will have an awareness of fine-grained local issues. This detailed knowledge is important in understanding the impacts a particular strategy or policy may have, and we want to tap into this. That is why this bill puts councils very much in the role of leading engagement and planning policies in their local communities and in having the capacity to influence those policy decisions. The amendments the government will move, with the support of the Local Government Association, will ensure this is the case, and reinforce the central role councils will have and should have in the planning task.

Getting the rule book right and leaving decisions to the umpire are a key tenet of this bill. This bill is focusing on getting the rule book right and then leaving downstream decisions to an independent umpire. Local government will have a central role in the task of shaping policies and setting rules with freedom to develop, maintain and amend all significant statutory instruments such as state planning policy, regional plans, infrastructure frameworks and design standards in the planning and design code.

This is a much wider role than they have under current arrangements. At the same time, the bill makes a logical next step in professionalising the development assessment system. This will free elected members from the retail politics that is so often the burden for them in the development assessment process as it stands. It was a key recommendation of the expert panel. The bulk of development assessment under this legislation will be assigned to accredited professionals, many of whom will be council employees, either working individually or on assessment panels. Professionals will be subject to stronger integrity controls and will no longer be subject to the second-guessing by elected officials that plagues our current system and creates so much uncertainty and conflict.

This is all about ensuring that we get the rule book right and leaving individual decisions on the field to the umpire who is trying to apply them correctly. This is a scenario which should not be foreign to any public policy maker. After all, many South Australian laws confer statutory powers on public sector professionals rather than elected officials. This is quite common in respect of laws which councils administer. Indeed, it is very common in respect of laws which the state government administers. Imagine if we had a sub-committee of parliament determining who gets a learner's permit, the conditions of a publican's liquor licence or the scientific basis on which groundwater extraction approval should be sought.

We have rightly conferred these powers on appropriately trained statutory office holders who perform their functions at arm's length from the political domain, so why should the development assessment process be any different? Elected councillors will retain their powers to choose what zones go where in ways that meet how their local communities want their neighbourhoods to look and feel but, like us in state parliament, they should not have a direct hand in deciding who gets an approval and who does not.

The government also notes the questions that have been raised concerning adaptive re-use. A variety of statutory instruments in the bill will attend to this subject. Indeed, adaptive re-use is highlighted in the principles of good planning. However, I note the opposition will be moving amendments on this topic and I indicate the government welcomes these improvements and will be supporting them.

As to limiting urban sprawl to protect our environment and food production areas, a matter of contention in the public domain has been the proposed measure known as the environment and food production area which is designed to contain urban sprawl and promote transparent decision-making. The environment and food production areas will help protect the state's precious food bowl and environment from urban sprawl.

Much of the debate has been fevered and based on fundamental misconceptions, so it is important to address these while also flagging that the government will be moving some amendments which will clarify intended operation of this clause. Let's be clear: Adelaide has in effect had a limit on urban sprawl since the 1962 plan. These boundaries until now have set the strategic policy level by the minister of the day; in this bill, that role will be shared with the parliament.

The argument that has been put in agitated tones by some suggests this measure will push up housing prices. This argument is a furphy and reasonable people might query whether it is also self-serving in the mouths of those who raise it. It ignores the fact that fringe housing has hidden transport and other costs for home owners. It ignores the fact that fringe housing generates six times the cost in infrastructure for taxpayers compared to infill development. It ignores the fact that Adelaide is the lowest density capital city in Australia with plenty of potential for urban development to accommodate expected future growth. It ignores the fact that we already have more than 20 years zoned land supply within greater Adelaide right now as a result of the efforts of this government. It ignores the fact that more and more South Australians are opting to live in infill which suggests we have even less need for new greenfield developments that will extend urban sprawl even further.

In fact, over the last decade, 59 per cent of the population growth in Greater Adelaide has been in the inner and middle-ring suburbs. Infill houses are what the market demands. The proposed boundaries for the environment and food production area, which were lodged with the General Registry Office on Monday, preserve the limits established in the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide, so they should come as no surprise to any council or developer. This fact is acknowledged in discussions the government has had with industry groups and the Local Government Association. The only exception to this is the long-term growth option that was tentatively pencilled in at Roseworthy in the 2010 version of the 30-year plan, and I will come to that in a moment.

In relation to councils, the minister has accepted the offer of the Local Government Association to arrange a special briefing for affected councils. We do not think there will be, as a result of that, any need to change the boundaries but, if there is, the government commits now to bringing those back to parliament. Importantly, I emphasise, as the minister did in the other place, that the environment and food production area will only affect residential subdivision. All other land use rights will be unaffected, included rural living rights. Indeed, we will be moving an amendment to clarify that owners of properties currently zoned as rural living or equivalent will retain their rights of subdivision. This is consistent with the approach this parliament took in the Barossa Valley character legislation.

In respect of Roseworthy, I make these points. Firstly, I remind members that this government made an election commitment not to expand Roseworthy beyond the first stage rezone. Secondly, I make the point that the second stage rezone was always flagged as a long-term growth option beyond the 15-year land supply target. In other words, any suggestion of sovereign risk that may be raised in this respect is frankly absurd. Thirdly, with building trends showing a much greater take-up of any inner-city locations, there is no need for the Roseworthy expansion any time soon.

Because of this, the government has decided we should set the boundary now rather than wait, so we will be moving an amendment that provides for a map lodged with the General Registry Office to be treated as the first defined environment and food production area. Responding to industry feedback, we will also be moving to ensure this boundary is subject to review every five years to ensure that we maintain land supply within the urban area that will assist with maintaining downward pressure on housing affordability. This will be the first time a land supply target has been included in legislation and is a matter which industry should see as a positive development.

For the government, the introduction of the environment and food production areas is a principle which we will not resile from. Parliament must have a role in shaping where this boundary lies and when it changes. The nub of industry concerns seems to be a lack of faith in the members of this chamber. They seem to think that parliamentarians will not be capable of making a decision to alter the boundary quickly enough. Apart from the insult to the democratic process, this view also ignores reality.

Many cities around the world have statutory green belts or urban growth boundaries and have proven themselves more than capable of adjusting them when needed. Portland in Oregon has had a boundary for 40-odd years and has managed to change it through the legislature over 30 times. Melbourne, a stone's throw away, has had green wedges that limit urban sprawl since 1971, when they were first introduced by the then Hamer Liberal government, and for all that time parliament has had a role in their oversight.

Here in our own parliament, we are more than capable of changing boundaries subject to statutory dedication. The changes to the boundaries of Government House to accommodate the ANZAC commemorative walk, for instance, currently before the other place, are but one example. For the government, this is a fundamental public integrity measure and one that the minister has talked to Commissioner Lander about in developing this bill. In this respect, I note the Hon. David Ridgway's comments reflecting on the Ombudsman's observation regarding the Mount Barker rezoning process.

It seems strange to me that the Hon. David Ridgway would criticise this process but not recognise that we are proposing a measure that will ensure this scenario will not happen again. As the minister has said in the other place, government should not be the insurer of last resort for land speculators. Changes to zone boundaries, which in the stroke of a pen deliver windfall profits to private interests, should not come at the whim of a minister. They should be considered, thoughtful and evidence based, and this bill will guarantee that that is the case.

In relation to getting infrastructure funded and delivered, much of the public debate has focused on the infrastructure funding regime that this bill will deliver. I make the point that the government has already moved in the other place to strengthen these provisions, including by making the schemes subject to parliamentary scrutiny. We have been engaging closely with the local government and industry groups in order to arrive at a workable set of amendments, which I will move later in proceedings.

However, I remind members that this infrastructure funding model was not only strongly recommended by the expert panel on planning reform and the Economic Development Board but genuinely reflects the demands made by industry itself before the last election. The fundamental issue is that a new development requires infrastructure. Unless funding for that infrastructure is locked in, taxpayers will pay or communities will miss out when rezoning occurs. The alternative is to delay rezoning, but this puts pressure on affordability or to do a 'Swiss cheese' style rezoning, which runs counter to the best practice planning approaches.

This bill puts in place mechanisms that will address this scenario with a simple tool that ensures that the cost of infrastructure can be fairly apportioned. For too long first home buyers have been burdened with the cost of providing new infrastructure, while subsequent owners reap the benefits. For too long taxpayers have been asked to bear the costs of significant new infrastructure, while others have been windfall beneficiaries; and, for too long major projects have been approved without the details of how major infrastructure is to be provided, when it will be provided and by whom.

This bill addresses these deficiencies and puts in place a fair and more efficient system for the provision of infrastructure. It enables the funds needed to provide new infrastructure and upgrades to existing infrastructure by distributing the cost fairly across the beneficiaries and not just the first home owner. This will ensure that costs are apportioned appropriately and that everyone, including government, pays their fair share. It means that windfall profits from the value uplift associated with rezoning or new infrastructure in the area can be partially captured to augment the capital that would otherwise be available for that infrastructure.

Historically in South Australia we have provided a type of value capture through joint venturing arrangements that we no longer have the opportunity to pursue. This will be increasingly problematic as we move towards a future which has urban renewal at its heart. With limits to what government can fund at any point in time, the scheme we propose will enable us to meet economic challenges of providing infrastructure by encouraging more private sector involvement in its provision and jump starting those important projects, which will boost productivity and underline economic growth.

At the same time, we do not want to repeat the mistakes made elsewhere in Australia with over-the-top developer contributions that add massive costs to new homes. This model does not make that mistake. What we are proposing here is new for Australia, but not new on the world stage. With that, I seek leave to conclude my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.