Bills

Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

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) (11:22): To conclude my second reading summary in relation to this important bill, it is the approach I have been talking about that has been embraced in the United Kingdom, the United States and many other countries to effectively bring forward the economic windfall that typically accompanies this new infrastructure and other improvements. The new prime minister has established a Cities ministry, and it is very clear, from his public statements, that he has expressed keen interest in the innovative funding models this bill will allow.

The amendments we will be tabling in response to the issues raised by industry will further elaborate this principle by establishing a second category of value uplift for simpler development scenarios. This will sit alongside the existing provisions with common features across each. In short, this additional scheme type will allow for basic infrastructure—roads, sewer, water and power—to be funded by a one-off index charge on land which crystallises when land is subdivided or developed. This is alongside the rate-based value capture scheme (to be referred to as the general scheme), which will retain its flexibility to be used in more complex urban renewal contexts. Importantly, however, we will be amending this scheme to increase parliamentary scrutiny, with disallowance opportunities at two separate stages in the process.

In relation to e-planning, with lower costs for everyone in relation to the e-planning system, this bill contemplates that the cost of establishing e-planning will result in cheaper, quicker processing planning decisions outweighing, and indeed with the potential for recouping, the up-front costs involved. It will not involve shifting costs to councils.

The government expects that councils will still deal with the vast majority of development applications and receive the application fees for them. The system will allow for a certain amount of automated decision-making, and will be able to detect errors and provide prompts to decision-makers to verify, but it will still require an assessment authority to make the final approval. We believe this type of helpful automation, e-planning, will reduce administrative overheads that councils have to bear for archiving, storage, retrieval and processing, while at the same time making the new planning system more open and transparent.

Without going into detail of the modelling, we know there can be substantial savings to councils and ratepayers through e-planning. We know from the experience of one major suburban council which digitised its records, it has achieved concurrent savings in the vicinity of $120,000 per annum, not including staff hours. There is no reason other councils cannot achieve similar savings for ratepayers through the e-planning system this bill proposes.

If this bill passes, the government will look at a shared funding model, with the proportion of the costs recovered from users and beneficiaries of the system and the balances funded by the government. Indeed, we will be moving an amendment which will require the department to engage with councils in the developing of a fee structure for the new system. To minimise unnecessary costs, councils will not be asked to replace existing council systems. Rather, the new e-planning system will be designed to enable councils and government to talk to each other and swap information.

In relation to access documents, members in the other place and here have raised concerns over the interaction of this bill and the Freedom of Information Act. In fact, under existing legislation, the Freedom of Information Act is already displaced by the Development Act, as is the State Records Act. This is because documents held in the planning system are often more sensitive and have to be retained for longer periods than other kinds of records.

For example, making building plans publicly available could compromise the integrity of a secure facility or result in unwarranted intrusion on the privacy of residents. This is why these matters are subject to statutory protection against release on a similar basis to the existing regulations. On that point, it should be noted that the foreshadowed e-planning portal is required to provide access to historical records, with the details of this to be governed by regulation. We expect that these will cover similar issues that feature in the Freedom of Information Act and the State Records Act.

In relation to this, I note that the opposition in the other place asked how material which has been removed from the portal will be retrieved and accessed. This will be a matter for the regulations in due course. I can confirm that the exclusion of the Freedom of Information Act only applies to material received, generated or held on the portal. Other documents which may provide advice or information to the minister are not subject to this exclusion, such as advice given by the commission to the minister that is otherwise not subject to publication.

This bill is the beginning, not the end. This bill is not, nor has it ever been intended to be, the final product of our reform process. There are many details which necessarily can only be settled once the architecture of the legislation has been agreed. To establish the e-planning system, replace the current 23,000 pages of planning rules with the new code, develop new design standards for the public realm, create a new charted, establish robust accreditation schemes, and address the many other detailed task envisaged for our new planning system will take time.

These are significant and major tasks which cannot be achieved overnight or in isolation. To successfully deliver these statutory bodies and instruments, two things are needed: time; and the involvement of the community, local government, relevant professional organisations, business and industry. That is why the bill creates a new state planning commission, which will have key responsibilities for taking these matters forward. It is also why we are moving to establish implementation committees, which I mentioned earlier.

The bill can only create the framework, the structures and the processes of a new planning system. Our task in this place is to debate whether the bill provides the right checks and balances, the right development mechanisms and pathways, and the right consultation processes. The government has brought forward this bill to lay down the building blocks of a new planning system. I emphasise again: we will consider any reasonable amendments that improve this bill at any stage in the parliamentary process.

Why is it important to pass this bill now? During the course of this debate, we have heard much about the so-called haste in which the government is seeking to press this bill forward to finalisation. This is after an exhaustive three-year consultation process by an independent panel, supported on a bipartisan basis. We have heard the Hon. Mark Parnell indicate he will be moving a motion to adjourn consideration of this bill further until February at the end of this second reading debate.

The Hon. Mark Parnell, who has by his own admission spoken more than 600 times on planning matters since he has been here, could perhaps be described as this parliament's planning tragic. And good on him for this passion—we admire it—but it does not mean that he is entitled to set the pace at which this parliament works or that his opinion on this bill is more legitimate than any other member's in this chamber. In fact, I note that of the 10 bills the Hon. Mr Parnell has introduced on planning matters since 2008, the chamber has supported but two, and on one of those the Liberals offered support that was ambivalent at best.

I think the Hon. Mark Parnell at times can be caught up in the detail and he is not able to see the wood for the trees. For example, he says the system of parliamentary scrutiny of development plans is broken because there have not been any disallowances in the last 20 years but, if I were to put things in a wider context and tell this chamber that there have only been 10 disallowances across the whole statute book in the last decade, would this critique sound reasonable? Of course not.

The problem is the Hon. Mark Parnell and the Greens just do not agree with the key elements of the expert panel's report. No matter how long we debate this, they simply will never agree because that is the platform on which they stand and the principles that underpin their party framework. We, in this government, are willing to consider the 96 Greens amendments that were filed today. In the meantime, we have already engaged in discussions with the opposition, Family First, Dignity for the Disabled and the Hon. Mr Darley, all of whom—

The Hon. K.L. Vincent: Dignity for Disability.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I said Dignity for—

The Hon. K.L. Vincent: Dignity for Disability, not the Disabled.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I beg your pardon—Dignity for Disability and the Hon. Mr Darley, all of whom—

The Hon. K.L. Vincent: I've only been here six years, Gail.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Sorry?

The Hon. K.L. Vincent: I've only been here six years!

The PRESIDENT: Order! Minister, just do your response.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: It is easy to slip when you are on your feet for so long, the Hon. Kelly Vincent—all of whom submitted their amendments earlier. For example, the Hon. Mr Darley and the government are already in discussions about ways in which realignment of agricultural properties could be enabled in the environment and food production area without increasing residential subdivision. Similarly, we are discussing with the Hon. Ms Vincent and her office how universal design concepts can be addressed as part of this reform package. I am hopeful that these discussions will bear fruit next year with the changes to the bill that are widely agreed.

But we cannot accept delaying this bill which is the product of such a robust and independent process as that conducted by the Expert Panel on Planning Reform because one member here does not agree with all of it. So, it is time to get on with delivering this very important reform, and I appeal to members to not allow this debate to be adjourned. I commend the bill to the house and look forward to the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.