Bills

Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: In relation to clause 1, I want to ask the minister about the process that the government is seeking to follow in pushing this bill through in this optional sitting week. Before I ask the question, I refer the minister to two documents that she has presented us with in the last few days. One is a priority letter, dated 4 December, which says that the government's priority will be to complete all stages of debate by Thursday 10 December in relation to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill. The letter goes on to say that only if an opportunity presents itself will the government seek to complete the following bills, and there is a list of four other government bills. Since that letter was distributed to all members of parliament we have had another letter, this one dated yesterday, Monday 7 December. It is only a few sentences so I will read it out:

Dear Colleagues,

Further to my letter to members in the Legislative Council dated Friday, 4 December 2015, it is the Government's intention to pass the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill before the Christmas break.

In anticipation of the above, the Council may be required to sit this Friday, next week and any other week following, in order for the Bill to pass.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Including Christmas Day.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The Hon. Rob Lucas interjects, 'including Christmas Day'. Christmas Day is not excluded from this list, so the honourable member might be onto something. The letter goes on:

Members should be prepared to sit early and late on all days.

The optional sitting week and any other further sitting days thereafter are set aside to debate Government business, as such will take precedence over Private Members' Business this year.

It concludes: should further information be required, and there is a contact phone number. So, my first question of the minister is: what is the necessity for the bill to pass this year?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I thank the member for his question. The government is on the record, particularly the Attorney-General, who has expressed his desire to have the bill completed this year. It is major reform. The bill has been through extensive consultation and the Attorney-General is very keen to implement the bill as soon as possible. There are a raft of changes that will result, if this bill is to succeed, and the Attorney-General is very keen to proceed to implement those.

In terms of contribution to clause 1, I might just put some matters on the record. Whilst this clause is formal, in order to facilitate progress of the committee deliberations, I wish to make a few overarching points. First, I wish to indicate that the government has been in dialogue with the Local Government Association and, accordingly, a number of the amendments we will put in committee directly respond to matters raised with us by the LGA. Members will have seen correspondence last week from the LGA outlining outstanding issues, and I am confident that members will see that with these amendments this list will have even fewer entries. In that respect, in addition to the amendments we will move a number of implementation commitments, which we will make at the request of the LGA when we reach the appropriate clause. There remain some matters where the government and the LGA do not agree, most obvious being the role of the elected members on assessment panels.

Secondly, the government has been closely engaged with industry groups over recent years, with particular focus on clauses relating to the proposed environment and food production areas and the proposed infrastructure delivery schemes. I will come to the detail of those shortly. It is important to recognise how far these conversations have come and how much industry has to gain from the passage of this legislation. It is clear to government that, as dialogue has proceeded, the willingness of industry groups to pull out all stops to reach a satisfactory outcome on these outstanding matters is recognition of that. That goes to the question the Hon. Mark Parnell has just raised: why the need to progress this as expeditiously as possible?

Thirdly, noting that there are a number of government amendments, amendments moved by the opposition, amendments moved by the crossbenches, I indicate that to facilitate the committee deliberations the government will treat certain amendments as test votes for wider propositions, and I will deal with those as we go along. In this respect I also note negotiation on some amendments that are ongoing and, should negotiations be fruitful, we would be willing, with the chamber's agreement, for particular clauses to be recommitted prior to finalising the bill for transmittal to the other place, and I will highlight those limited matters as we proceed through the committee deliberations.

Finally, in respect to the time frame, members will know that the government is keen to get this legislation through this year. That has been the case for some time, and of course the bill itself has been in the public domain for some time and is supported by the extensive consultation undertaken by the expert panel on planning reform that preceded it. I will not reiterate all the reasons I outlined in my second reading closing, but I remind members that the sooner we get this bill through the sooner we can start the implementation task, and that means the sooner the benefits can flow to South Australians.

I can give assurances that members will be engaged in the implementation process of key stages, and I already note the interest of the Hon. John Darley with respect to primary production issues and the Hon. Kelly Vincent in relation to universal design. As we come to the end of the committee's deliberations, I indicate that the government will be willing to give commitments to other members with respect to particular implementation matters, should they be requested. I hope all members will approach this debate with these considerations in mind.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the minister for her answer to my question. She has effectively said that the need for this to pass this year is because the Attorney-General wants it to pass this year and he has said it is going to pass this year. The minister referred to a number of stakeholders. She said the government had been closely engaged with the LGA, and that their conversations have come a long way with other stakeholders. More specific, can I ask the minister which of the key stakeholders has come out in the last week agreeing with the government as to the urgency to pass this bill this year? Is there any correspondence—because I certainly have not received any—from any stakeholders saying, 'The Legislative Council must pass this bill this year'?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that a number of key stakeholders have indicated that they are keen to progress the implementation stage because a lot of the detail in terms of the implications for them are at the implementation stage. They are very keen to get to the implementation stage and, obviously, we cannot reach the implementation stage until we have completed the bill.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the minister for her answer, which was that no group has put in writing, or even to me verbally, that they want this bill to pass this year. Certainly, they are keen to advance all the stages—a process that will take, on the government's own admission, between three and five years—but that was not the question. The question was about whether any of the stakeholders are clamouring for this bill to pass the Legislative Council this year, and the answer is no-one.

I refer the minister to the government's document entitled Transforming our Planning System: Response of the South Australian Government to the final report and recommendations of the Expert Panel on Planning Reform. This is a document dated March 2015. It is in fact the government's official response to the lengthy Hayes review process.

In that document, as well as the government's general response to the broad recommendations made by the Hayes review, there is a targeted time-line page, which is page 9 of the report. This report goes through the release of the Hayes review, back on 12 December last year, the deadline for public comments on that review—13 February this year—and then goes through to March 2015, which is the release of the government response, which is the document I am referring to of March this year. Then it states:

March—June 2015 drafting of legislation

Those are stages 1 and 2. Stage 3 is entitled 'Parliamentary process', and the document states:

Bill targeted for introduction to Parliament in July 2015. Debate on the legislation will commence in September after consultation over the winter break and is expected to be completed by the end of 2015.

Under the heading 'Key dates'—and these are the government's own words; they are not mine:

Key dates

July 2015 bill introduced to Parliament—with feedback sought during the winter break

And then:

September 2015 parliamentary debate proceeds on bill

My question of the government is, firstly: why was the introduction of the bill delayed for two months from July 2015 to 8 September 2015? What is the reason for that two-month delay in the process?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the time frame that we outlined in those early stages was an indicative time frame only. Obviously, we did everything in our powers to meet that time frame; however, the complexity of the legislation and the detail around drafting meant that we were not able to. In compensation, if you like, or to make up for that, I guess you could say, we conducted more than 60 meetings with stakeholders before and after the bill was tabled to ensure that we got the robust feedback that it warranted.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the minister for her answer. The part of it that I am struggling with is that the compensation for the two-month delay is that the government did what the government was always going to do and talked to stakeholders. The big difference was that we were delayed by two months. The whole process was two months behind and, in particular, in that crucial winter break, when parliament is not sitting and when all members of parliament have their opportunity to meet with stakeholders, talk to people, circulate the bill and get feedback on it, that process was basically short-circuited. We lost two months in the process: that is the point I am making.

My point, I guess—I can pose it as a question but I think the minister probably is not going to say any more than she said—is that, if the government has slipped the process two months, why is it not appropriate for the legislative process to likewise be put back two months, which would, in fact, bring us into the February sittings of parliament? That makes absolute sense to me.

In fact, it was the basis on which discussions had proceeded because, certainly, the government made it very clear to members of parliament that we would not be sitting the optional sitting week and a simple calculation of time would show that there was not a snowflake's chance in hell of the committee stage being reached during the scheduled sitting days and, suddenly, we find that to sit the optional week is back on and it is for the purpose of the planning bill.

The point I am making—and, of course, I am leading up to what will surprise no members, and that is a motion a bit later on to report progress—is that the government slipped two months. In fact, there is more to it than is in the government's formal response because the minister was asked this question in estimates before the winter break and, basically, his view was that he would have the bill before the winter break. Heads would roll if he did not have the bill before the winter break. He did not get the bill before the winter break, and neither did parliament. I do not want to make much of that other than that two months that we lost in terms of consultation should now be added to this end of the process. Give us our two months back so we can consult with stakeholders.

In terms of the minister's response so far, she said that this bill is being progressed because the Attorney-General wants it progressed. As far as I can see, there are two main reasons that the government is progressing this in the way it is. The first is that the planning minister thinks we have had enough time. He is over it and he thinks we should be over it. He has had to deal with the lower house of parliament and the last thing he wants is to have to deal with a lengthy, complex debate in the upper house.

The minister in another place and the minister here have pointed out the lengthy process, which I will say I have engaged with. I have been to many of the consultations from the very early days of the Hayes review. But the approach that, certainly, the Greens have taken, and I think other members have as well, is that at the end of the day, as members of parliament, our time is going to be most valuably spent when we receive the bill and going through the bill as we do, clause by clause. When we knew exactly how the government was responding to the Hayes review, that was the time for the Legislative Council to focus on the detail.

I alluded to this but did not outline it in my second reading contribution, that those of us who went through the previous process between 1991 and 1993, that planning review process, know that you could spend hours and hours engaging in debate that ultimately made no difference to the outcome. The real debate was on the bill and in parliament and, of course, that was the great disappointment because, despite, as I think I have described, forests of butcher's paper being taken from endless community meetings, the ultimate result was a bill that was pretty much the status quo. The bill before us is not really that much more imaginative. The Legislative Council is where the rubber hits the road and it is where we need to do a thorough job.

The second reason I think the government is keen to progress this bill this year, for it to pass, is that the government does not give two hoots about the bicameral system of parliament. The conversation in the eastern corridors of the building is always the same, certainly amongst crossbenchers, that is, that we acknowledge that the government does not get it. They do not understand the bicameral system of parliament. They are arrogant and disrespectful, and they are disrespectful of the mandate that the people of South Australia have given the upper house of parliament.

As a result, we get these laughable, I would say, priority letters that tell us that, like naughty children, we are going to be kept in class until we come up with that the answer the government wants. In a classroom, if a student does not do what the teacher wants, they get sent to the naughty corner. That is what the government's attitude is: send the Legislative Council to the naughty corner. Make them sit long hours, day and night. Make them come back long after the scheduled sitting time for parliament has expired. Make them come back Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, Boxing Day, New Year's Day. Make them come back until they give the government what they want. But what is so offensive, I think to the government, is that the Legislative Council dares do its job properly.

As I have pointed out, every stakeholder that I have spoken to has problems with this bill, and in fact we are still getting correspondence. Most recently, and this letter, I think, arrived either last night or this morning from a group of key stakeholders being the Environmental Defenders Office, the National Trust of South Australia and the Conservation Council of South Australia. I need to put parts of this letter on the record because it goes to the haste with which the government is pursuing this bill. The letter starts, to members of the Legislative Council:

We understand the Government's intention is push ahead and finalise debate on this Bill during the upcoming sitting week.

Why the rush?

There has been a very limited opportunity so far for a genuine community debate on such an important planning reform. Generally, this level of reform is only undertaken once every 20 or so years and is accompanied by deep and wide community engagement.

What is different about this current reform process, and similar reform processes interstate, is the absence of sufficient detail for the community to be able to comment in an informed way on the nature of the proposed changes. There's been very little consultation on this highly complex Bill or the extensive amendments that have been tabled so far.

I will just interrupt my reference to this letter by pointing out that the government does talk about extensive consultation, but at the end of the process where we did not have any detail available to us. This is the pointy end. The bill is now before us and these community groups have not had sufficient opportunity to look at the detail of the bill.

The letter refers to extensive amendments that have been tabled so far. I am sure other members will refer to this fact that we received another 36 government amendments at 9.07 this morning, and we got this through the excellent initiative promoted by the Greens—which is the online service—so that once the amendments have been filed, we all get an email in our box telling us that an amendment has been filed at 9.07 this morning.

The government might say, 'Oh but it is date stamped last night.' We did not get it last night. I was in the chamber at 8.30 this morning going through the list of paper filed amendments, and it was not here at 8.30 this morning. In discussion with Legislative Council staff, it arrived at about 9.30 this morning, so shortly after we were notified electronically.

The point that I am making is that with these groups—the EDO, the National Trust and the Conservation Council—what possible chance have they had to consider these 36 amendments that were tabled this morning? When we add the 36 amendments to the previously filed amendments, we get to 241; 241 filed amendments, most of which in the last week, the last few days, which stakeholders not had a chance to thoroughly digest. To continue with the letter, it says:

We are very concerned there is no detail in the public domain on important matters such as the Citizens Charter, the Planning and Design Code, qualifications of members of decision making bodies, community comment on assessments and environmental impact assessment. Without the release of exposure drafts, it is extremely difficult for the community to provide a response on these matters.

There is far more to the Bill than the public would be led to expect from the Expert Panel's recommendations and the State Government's short response to it in March 2015.

As a result, many stakeholders and interest groups are calling for less haste and proper engagement.

The letter then goes on to say that they strongly support a number of aspects of the bill, and that is good on them. The Greens support a number of aspects of this bill. I will read the headings but certainly I will not go through all the detail, but this group of three important stakeholder NGOs is supportive of the environment and food production areas, the so-called urban growth boundary; they support 'empowering regional strategies to conserve and improve environmental and heritage resources.' They support some of the efficiencies to be built into the Planning and Design Code and they support some of the new enforcement tools.

There is a range of things that people will support, and they are more likely to support it the more opportunities they have to understand it and to go through the detail. The letter then goes on to a range of things that the bill does not achieve. Many of those are ones that I referred to at some length in my second reading contribution so I will not repeat them here, other than to conclude with the words in the letter, which says:

No one who is pro-democracy should be comfortable with this Bill in its current form. It appears stacked in favour of remote government, not inclusive practices. In the absence of more detail, there appears to be effectively unfettered Ministerial control in most processes.

There is no need to rush this legislation through. Rather, it is essential that the Legislative Council be given an appropriate opportunity to review and consult.

We therefore urge you and your colleagues to insist on the release of further information before the Bill is debated to ensure that you (and the wider community) are better able to adequately assess the practicality of the proposed legislation.

This letter is signed on behalf of the Conservation Council by its chief executive, Craig Wilkins, on behalf of the National Trust of South Australia by its chief executive, Dr Darren Peacock, and on behalf of the Environmental Defenders Office by coordinator and solicitor, Melissa Ballantyne.

This is something we have just received in the last 24 hours or so—key stakeholders saying that they desperately want to be able to support elements of this bill but that it is difficult to do so when they do not have the detail before them. I have a couple of questions that flow from that. In relation to the amendments that have been filed, and the government can only speak to its own amendments but there are over 100 of those, my first question is: who did the government consult in the preparation of these amendments?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: All of our amendments?

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: All of your amendments, who did you consult?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I thank the member for his question. In terms of who we consulted, as I have already indicated, there were 60 meetings conducted with a wide range of key stakeholders. There was a comprehensive list of groups outlined in the second reading contribution, so I refer the member there. The list contains community, local government and also industry.

In relation to the comments made around the 36 amendments filed last night, I am advised that they involve only extremely minor amendments, minor word changes, and they were in direct response to industry group feedback, so it was through consultation that those amendments were generated. The government indicated back in March last year the document that the Hon. Mark Parnell refers to, the government's response to the expert panel.

The Hon. M.C. Parnell: No, this year, March this year.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: What did I say?

The Hon. M.C. Parnell: Last year.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: It feels like last year. I beg your pardon—it was March this year; it just feels like it is an additional year. In that document we make it quite clear that we intended to complete the bill before the end of this year, so we have indicated well in advance our time line around that. Since then, we have indicated that the progress of these reforms will now require a two-bill process rather than one. The second bill, as we have indicated, will deal with the implementation issues, and we plan to do that in the first half of next year, subject obviously to this bill being completed this year.

In effect, the Hon. Mark Parnell says, 'Give us our two months back,' but we are doubling that: we are in fact giving an additional four months to progress these matters, so members will have further opportunity at the implementation stage to deal with those particular matters.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the minister, but most specifically, in terms of the amendments that have been filed, the minister says of the second set, 'Nothing to see here; they're only minor.' With respect, we will be the judge of that. Unintended consequences haunt these corridors quite frequently and so we need to be able to have a look at it.

In her answer, the minister was not able to refer to any stakeholder to whom the government had forwarded these actual two sets of amendments and asked them whether they were happy with them. I will give the minister one more chance if she wants to say, 'Well, actually, yes, we did send the amendments out to all these groups.' I do not think she did, but she can clarify that if she wants to.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I advise that various stakeholders have seen various iterations, so we have been involved with key stakeholders all along. As I said, basically, most of those amendments are in direct response to those lengthy discussions that we have had with stakeholders to be able to incorporate their concerns and considerations.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the minister for the answer. I do not deny for one minute that what she is saying is true: some people have seen some detail and the amendments are in response to submissions that some people made. But that is not the best way to legislate for the good order of the people of South Australia. It needs to be a more open process. The minister has admitted that she has not circulated these amendments to key stakeholders, and I just let that point stand.

In response to my suggestion that I would like our two months back, the minister said that we are getting double value—we are getting four months because of this additional bill. I certainly note that one of the planning minister's staff members wrote to crossbench members last week, and I will just read out a sentence:

For your information, please also note that the Department continues to compile a set of minor/technical miscellaneous amendments to the Bill, which amendments the Minister has foreshadowed may be moved during a further necessary implementation Bill in the New Year.

My question is: what exactly is the government doing? Are there problems with the existing bill that need fixing or is the subject matter of a further implementation bill exactly that—implementation—in other words, not touching the framework and just working out how to implement it, or is it a bit both ways?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I thank the member for his question. Indeed, the second bill will deal with implementation matters. However, the government has also indicated that it is prepared to address any unforeseen or unintended consequences that may have arisen from this particular bill. We would be prepared to address those.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I will just ask one question before I let someone else have a go for a while, not that I have finished on clause 1. I would just like to explore something that was raised in the letter that I referred to before from the Conservation Council, the EDO and the National Trust, that is, the suggestion that, with complex legislation, often the community expects there to be some sort of indication of what might be coming in terms of the detail. We can have things like exposure drafts or draft versions of regulations, and I think that is an eminently sensible way to go.

There are four sets of documents where the community sector, at least, is interested in getting some indication from the government of what they might look like. First of all, we have development plans under the current act, and I think there are 70 or so. There is one for each council area plus one or two for out-of-council areas and coastal waters as well. There are about 70 of these and they are all going to be rolled into something called the 'planning and design code', so people are interested in how that process is going to work and over what time frame that will be done.

Secondly, when might we see a draft of the regulations? The importance of the regulations, for example, is that, from memory, schedule 1 of the regulations contains all the key definitions—what is a shop or an apartment or a multidwelling. That is obviously crucial, and people are interested to know what is going to be in those. In fact, I do not recall a year going by in this place where someone—very often the opposition but sometimes a crossbencher—was saying, in relation to a bill, 'This doesn't give us enough to go on; tell us what you have in mind for the regulations.'

So those are my questions. The development plans are first: when will we see what they might look like? The regulations are important. Secondly, the community sector is really keen to see this new charter of citizen engagement, even just a preliminary advance, no-obligation version. Finally, there is the range of other statutory planning documents; there are state planning policies, there is a couple of obligatory policies that must be prepared. Wrapping all that stuff up into a single question: what is the government's plan for providing indicative drafts of these documents so that the community can have a better understanding of this whole package of reforms and what it might mean for them?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: In relation to process, in terms of the task of changes to planning, this will require an enormous level of change and will require a very thorough and rigorous process with considerable input from key stakeholders. There are 23,000 pages of development plans, so it is just a huge task. That is why we have committed to the second bill and a thorough process of implementation, and that level of detail will be done during those stages.

In relation to how we will go about doing that, one of the amendments the government has put in place, and that I will be moving—hopefully soon—is an amendment to ensure that everyone will be involved, so industry, local government and the community will be involved. That amendment sets up two implementation committees, making sure that all relevant stakeholders are thoroughly engaged.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I will just make a couple of quick comments before I address some questions to the minister. From the opposition's point of view regarding this bill we are now in the committee stage of, the Hon. Mark Parnell highlighted the time frame we were all working to. We had been told that we would not be sitting the optional week, and your party members, Mr Chairman, were as surprised as we were when we learnt we would be sitting the optional week.

However, if you look at it in the context of the important reform that I think everybody is wishing to get from this new bill—and it is, as you mentioned when you sat down in your chair, Mr Chairman, 230 clauses—at this point there are 249 amendments. The honourable minister opposite was elected on the same day as I was back in 2002 and in the 14 years we have both been in this chamber, while we have sat a couple of times in optional weeks, this will be the first time in those 14 years that we have had a bill of this magnitude, with the expectation from the government that we would deal with it in a week, when we actually have more amendments than there are clauses in the bill—at this stage, I point out.

It is unprecedented that the government, particularly the planning minister and Premier, think that we should be able to quickly process this bill in the week—

The Hon. G.E. Gago: Two weeks; last week and this week.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: We agreed to do the second reading speech last week which, I would point out, was a break from convention. Bills normally sit on the Notice Paper for a sitting week before we undertake the second reading debate but, I guess as a sign of cooperation, I think we were all happy, even the crossbenchers, to do the second reading speech last week. We were happy to do that in the interest of progressing things, and I think the understanding would probably have been, at that point, that we would come back in the first week next year, having had a couple of months for industry, government, various stakeholders and all of us in the opposition and on the crossbenches to work through all the proposed amendments, some 249 of them now, to actually come up with a much more considered position.

It is interesting that, of course, now we have some discussion around a second bill that presumably we will see some time in the first half of next year, as the minister said; although given their track record, it will probably be towards the second half of next year. It is interesting that the minister made some reference in her response to the Hon. Mark Parnell's question that they want to make sure that all stakeholders have a say. That is a recognition that they actually have not achieved that in the process that they have undertaken so far.

Just by way of example, I think it was minister Rau who said that he was very keen to make sure there was community engagement upfront. I have contacted all of the councils that are affected by the urban growth boundary. I will not go into too much detail because I am going to save that for when we get to those particular clauses at some point in the next three days. It is interesting he talked about consultation. This is from the Light Regional Council. Their first opening sentence to me, in relation to the map for the environment and food production area, is:

The council first became aware of this via the related article in an edition of The Advertiser dated 2 December 2015.

We are now at 8 December, so that is six days ago that they read about it in The Advertiser. One of my first questions to the minister is: can she confirm that councils did not receive the detailed maps of their particular environment and food production area boundaries? How were councils, like the Light Regional Council, informed?

I have another question that I will quickly pose to her as well. I think the whole process of consultation has been, by and large, with minister Rau, the Minister for Planning and Attorney-General, with industry. I think he has a good rapport with industry. He has travelled overseas to Shanghai, or to China, and to the US with an urban development group.

The question I posed several times in my second reading contribution—and I have read the minister's response—was: can she give us a guarantee that minister Rau will be the minister through the next year or two, but especially next year? Maybe he will not be the minister before the next election, but certainly in the next 12 months, because he has actually undertaken this consultation. He has made some commitments as a minister that they will fix things up on the way through. Clearly, I can see this very acute opportunity for a reshuffle where a new minister will say, 'I did not give that commitment. I was not the minister.' So all of the commitments that the minister has given amount to nothing. Could the minister confirm whether the Minister for Planning will be the Minister for Planning for the next 12 months?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Most of the answers to these questions have been dealt with either in the second reading debate or my second reading summary. In relation to the consultation about the boundary, the development boundary has remained unchanged except for Roseworthy, So, that is the only change to the boundary. In relation to the guarantee of commitments, all commitments will be delivered.

In relation to the councils being consulted, every single council has been consulted in relation to the 30-year plan update process, and that has been conducted over the past 12 months. Over the course of this year, every council has had at least three briefing sessions on the 30-year plan, which go to the question of particularly where growth will be and implications to the boundary. So, they have all been involved in that.

As I said, it was deemed that it was unnecessary to make any changes other than to Roseworthy. In relation to Roseworthy, it was a key election commitment at the last election not to proceed with the second stage of the Roseworthy development, so that is no surprise to anyone. That was made at election time.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I was not going to ask this question now, but the minister says there have not been any changes. We were provided with a copy of the map, which we forwarded to all of the councils. The Light Regional Council said the map that we attached features an error. Freeling is shown to be part of the Barossa preservation district, and the council says it is not. The government have said they have consulted, and the maps have been distributed. They have not changed yet. Clearly, in the very first piece of feedback I have had from one of the affected councils, there has been an error identified, which does spook me.

In the Barossa preservation bill, which was designed to protect our premium food and wine areas, we saw that the Henschke Hill of Grace vineyard was excluded. You would know, Mr Chairman, how important and how wonderful Henschke's Hill of Grace wine is, and that vineyard was excluded from the character preservation zone. It was not deliberately excluded; it was just an oversight, because they did not realise, but this is what frightens me about these maps and boundaries around every little town in the area. I will explore that later on, but it does frighten me that those mistakes or oversights can be made. That is what happens when you rush pieces of legislation: you are in such a hurry that you do not give them full consideration.

Interestingly, with the [EmpHESkills–3] amendments that have been tabled, I think, today, can the minister confirm whether all the stakeholders that they have consulted with have seen the amendments, and do they have agreement from those stakeholders? My understanding, as of late last night, was that the amendment had only just been received by the stakeholders. They were drafted, were incorrect, and had to be drafted again. The opposition has yet to receive any advice from any of the major stakeholders other than verbally—'Oh, we are getting closer to a position.' Exactly what is the position of those amendments, and are we likely to see a further range of amendments?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Which amendments were they? The 36?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The 36 or 37 that we got at half past nine this morning.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have already answered this. The 36 amendments—I believe it is 36, not 37—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: I think it was 37.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Thirty-seven—that were tabled last night, I have already indicated they were in response to feedback from the industry. They are very minor in nature, and we can deal with them during the committee stage. If the honourable members have issues or concerns about them, we will deal with them then. But, as I said, they are very minor and they were directly in response to matters that the industry had raised.

The Hon. David Ridgway is right about one thing, and that is that there were other minor amendments made to the urban growth boundary. The only substantial changes that were made were at Roseworthy. The others were very minor in nature and they were in response to our due diligence process—

The Hon. T.J. Stephens interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: —where we have picked up an opportunity for minor improvements.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: It is interesting that the minister describes it as minor. I know that interjections are out of order, but as one of my colleagues down the line here said, it is only minor if it is not your land, and that is the point I make. What were the minor adjustments? The minister is saying there were minor adjustments made, or minor mistakes, but if councils only received a copy or became aware of the final boundaries six days ago, how can she be certain that they are 100 per cent happy with the boundaries we have?

I remind her also that I think Eden Valley actually wanted consultation with that township. They wanted some more opportunity for their community to expand in the Barossa preservation zone debate, because they actually wanted to have enough houses and enough people in the community to sustain a village store or a small store so they could get a carton of milk and a paper and a loaf of bread. The town would not sustain that, so they actually wanted more. I would like to know what consultation has been undertaken with all of the little communities inside that boundary. Maybe with this I am digressing, because that is more of an issue for one of the clauses yet to come, but what consultation has taken place with those small communities?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The minor amendments that I referred to are outlined in a comprehensive document that was made available to the Hon. David Ridgway on Thursday of last week showing 'Greater Adelaide planning region' and 'Environment and Food Production Areas' and boundaries, and it is the due diligence review, so I refer the honourable member to that. I won't read it out, because it is already publicly available and it has been made available to the honourable member. In relation to the consultation, I have already indicated that a series of meetings was conducted with local councils, with three briefings each, in relation to the 30-year plan, at which issues around the urban growth boundary and implications were obviously able to be aired, and I have already indicated the 60-odd meetings that have taken place in relation to the bill.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I just want to address some comments to clause 1 as clearly not one of the major participants in terms of the passage of the bill and, from that viewpoint, not having party responsibility for handling the bill but nevertheless as an interested participant in whatever it is that transpires and a participant in the committee stages of the debate, and I guess express some despair at the process we are going through or about to go through and ultimately where it might end up.

I think ultimately the only sensible solution will be that, if the committee stages are not concluded by the end of the normal sitting hours in the optional sitting week, the house chooses to adjourn to consider the matter prior to February, but that will be an issue for later in this debate. I just wanted to clarify at the outset were a couple of issues. As I said, as someone who is not the active participant on behalf of the party but nevertheless wanting to follow this, I have copies of amendments [EmpHESkills-1] and [EmpHESkills-3] and I just want to clarify: was there or is there a [EmpHESkills-2] package that I don't have?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised no, there is not. We decided not to proceed to file package 2.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I thank the minister for that clarification. Again, as hopefully an active participant in this debate, the dilemma I confront as one member of the committee is that, putting aside the argument as to when they were filed, whether it was last night or 9.30 this morning or whatever it is, I became aware of the amendments filed when they were on my desk here coming into the chamber at just after 10 o'clock this morning. We will obviously need to go through those during the particular clauses in the committee stage of the debate.

I just highlight that the difficulty for anyone who wants to follow this bill and this process is that none of us have seen these amendments. There have been questions asked about who supports and who has seen them, and I understand that might allow other members to prosecute that particular case, but as a member of the committee, I am in a position of not having seen any of these. The minister says that there are only minor changes. Nevertheless, she has highlighted that there are 37 amendments, covering some 11 pages, which she has referred to as 'minor wording changes'. In terms of trying to keep up with the process, it is extraordinarily difficult.

As we have outlined, there are no [Minister-2] amendments. We have the original [Minister-1] amendments, which were filed on 1 December and now another 37 amendments filed, we believe, today, but dated 7 December. The other issue I want to clarify is whether the minister in her opening statement today indicated that there were ongoing discussions with some stakeholders and that if—I do not want to verbal the minister, but this was the take I took—there was a resolution with certain stakeholders unnamed that the minister may well be intending to table further amendments this week; or are those amendments to be delayed for the implementation bill that the Hon. Mr Parnell has referred to and the minister has referred to, and that is to be later in the process?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The Hon. Rob Lucas is right; discussions are continuing. The government, at this point, has no intention of filing further amendments, but as we know, in dealing with legislation you can never say never. Obviously, we will continue to engage in debate here in the chamber through the committee stage, and we will have to remain flexible where we can to accommodate honourable members so that we can progress the bill. We are always prepared to consider ways to move forward in a constructive way. As I said, at this point in time I am not aware that the government has any intention of filing further amendments, but we remain cooperative and engaging and willing to progress this bill.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Certainly, the understanding that the opposition has from some stakeholders is that the government is still engaged in discussion and has indicated to some stakeholders a willingness to table amendments if they reach agreement this week. That was certainly consistent with what the minister said at the outset of her remarks in committee today. That in itself indicates the dilemma of actually resolving this whole debate this week. Stakeholders, unknown—or unnamed, I should say—are engaged in discussions with the government, and if the government reaches agreement with them, then another package of amendments may well be tabled in some of the key areas, the substance of some controversy in this bill.

For the Legislative Council members on the fly then to be in a position to be able to consult the other stakeholders to whom the Hon. Mr Parnell has referred, who are not party to these discussions, and for the opposition to consult other interested parties as well, again is further evidence that, whilst we accept the argument that we can progress sensible and useful debate this week, it would be folly to conclude that debate, given the circumstances that confront the Legislative Council and the chamber.

We will come to this later on, but just from the position of the Hon. Mr Ridgway, who is handling the bill on behalf of the Liberal Party, as a result of the process we were unable to file amendments until after our party room met yesterday afternoon. So the difficulty for minor parties and Independents in relation to that process in terms of your consultation on our amendments, we understand. We are also in a position on one of the key areas in relation to the levy arrangements and, if I can summarise those provisions in that particular area, the government clearly is engaged in ongoing discussions with stakeholders and is moving a continuing series of amendments, and possibly might even move another series of amendments some time later on. All of those issues impact on potentially the position that the Liberal Party might adopt.

The shadow minister and the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Dunstan, have put on the public record our concerns in relation to a couple of the key areas in the legislation, and this issue of a levy is one of those areas where we have concern. Ultimately, until we see the colour of the eyes of what the government puts on the table—and we have seen a couple of versions, but we understand there is more work being done—it may well necessitate the Hon. Mr Ridgway on behalf of Liberal members in this chamber to move further amendments in relation to this area, not unsurprisingly. Again, that would be further evidence of whilst you can usefully progress the debate this week in terms of clarifying some of the issues, reaching a final resolution on them in the next two and a bit days would be folly, certainly from my viewpoint.

The final comment I would make in relation to all this is that I cannot think immediately, some of my former colleagues might remind me, but I cannot think of a messier committee stage debate on a major piece of legislation that I have ever seen in my time in the Legislative Council. I cannot remember the numbers the Hon. Mr Ridgway has referred to but it is over 250 amendments or whatever it is—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: It's 249 against 232 clauses.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It is 249 to 232 clauses, and amendments are being filed by all and sundry for understandable reasons. I have given the reasons why ours were not filed because we did not have a party meeting until yesterday. But to have a situation on as important a bill as this to have been handled in such an appalling fashion as it has been is an indictment on the minister, because he has to accept responsibility—that is minister Rau, I am not referring to minister Gago here. It is an indictment on the minister, and ultimately the government, because they have concurred or gone along or been brow beaten to try to ram this through the Legislative Council this week. As I said, I cannot think of a worse or messier process on such an important piece of legislation as this particular bill.

The final comment I will make at clause 1 in terms of introductory statements is—and I think it was referred to by the Hon. Mr Parnell earlier in quoting correspondence—ultimately, the decisions that are taken in terms of how the legislation has progressed will be determined by majority in this chamber and, whilst we understand the position by way of correspondence from the Leader of the Government in this chamber, certainly there will be strong opposition from Liberal members to the proposition that 'you will sit until Christmas Day or thereafter to pass this legislation and we will not let you go home'.

Ultimately the Leader of the Government in this chamber and Labor members should understand that that can only occur should they convince the majority of members that that is a reasonable way to progress debate on the bill. It is certainly my view and our view that that is an unreasonable way to progress, and this is an optional week. The optional week concludes at 6 o'clock. There is nothing in the standing orders which says the rights of the government in the optional sitting week will prevail over everybody else. Ultimately that will be a decision for the chamber, and members will make a decision should the government seek to impose its will in relation to normal private members' time on Wednesday afternoon. Members have complied by being willing to sit from 10.15am through to a reasonable hour at night. Again, my very strong view is that, for those members who are actively engaged in this, 10.15 in the morning until a reasonable hour at night is more than a reasonable day's work.

The Hon. M.C. Parnell interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No. It is reasonable until the dinner break anyway, given that it is the last week. These are issues that we can determine later on. Ultimately, when push comes to shove, if we have not concluded the debate by 6 o'clock on Thursday, which is the normal end of the optional sitting week, the chamber will then need to make a decision about adjourning the business to February of next year. It is my very strong view that, not only does that make sense, it makes sense in relation to ensuring that there is not a disastrous end to what is a very messy process in terms of the handling of the bill.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Members have probably observed over the years that I am not one for making extensive clause 1 comments as a rule. It is not something I have done very frequently in my nearly 10 years in this place, but I think some comments are warranted on the bill. As the Hon. Mr Parnell, the Hon. Mr Lucas and the Hon. Mr Ridgway have indicated, the process has been absolutely appalling. We have just heard from the Hon. Mr Lucas, who has been in this place for 30 years, I understand (or thereabouts), that it is the worst he has seen in 30 years. Those are very significant comments. I cannot testify as to what has happened in 30 years, but I can as to what has happened in 10 years and I would concur with that.

We have just had 30 plus amendments (36, 37, or whatever it is) handed to us this morning. I have not read them. I will be asked to vote on those amendments at some stage, probably as early as today. I have not even read them. I think it is not unreasonable that I have not read them. No-one can accuse me of being negligent. We received them, it is marked as 4.39pm yesterday. I certainly did not have them at that time. I have double-checked with my staff and we did not have those amendments at that time. I do not know how that works, but I can assure you that we did not have those amendments at that time. We had them at approximately 9.30 this morning, I was told. That seems to concur with what other members are saying. It is just not good enough to be asked to vote on things on the same day that you get them. It is simply not good enough.

The other thing I would say, and I do not want to be necessarily disparaging of the minister, in fact I think she is probably doing the best she can in a difficult circumstance, to be frank, but the minister did indicate that these are fairly minor amendments. On my very brief read of the first few of them this morning, they do not look minor to me. I have not had a chance to go through them to correlate them with the bill and the act, which is the normal process when you get amendments, to form a view on them.

They certainly do not look minor to me. In fact, without going through a whole lot of examples, we are talking about the impact on infrastructure levies, which are very significant changes to the way planning legislation works in this state. This is almost, if not the most significant aspect of the bill—in fact, it is probably the most significant aspect of the bill—at the very least it is certainly one of them. So, they do not look minor to me, of that I can assure you. For that to be considered with, really, no time to consider them is unacceptable to me and to my party.

The other thing, and this is not a criticism of the Liberal Party at all, but as members have said, we received the Liberal Party amendments just yesterday. It is well known what their process is. Their process is they have a party room meeting every Monday. That is quite a legitimate process. I have no issue with that. As a consequence of that, we were not able to receive their final amendments until yesterday afternoon, which is when we did receive them. In fact, you could argue that we received them quite quickly after their party room meeting, to expedite things. But again, I have not had a chance to go through those in detail. I am sure no-one has had a chance to go through those in detail.

I do not think anyone on the government benches in this place is going to accuse me, in my nearly 10 years in this place, of being unfair to the government. There might be quibbles at the margins of this issue or that issue, but by and large I think government members, including the ministers, would argue that me personally and in general Family First, but certainly me personally—sorry, the Hon. Mr Brokenshire—it would be a view held by government members, and I would be disappointed if it was not, that I have been more than fair on most occasions, on the overwhelming majority of occasions, to expedite government business, to the point where I have put my own matters of interest at a lower priority, or whatever it may be, along the way.

So, no-one is going to accuse me—I hope they do not anyway (I am pretty confident that would be true)—of being unfair to expediting government business through this place in nearly 10 years. Some may argue that if the government is calling you reasonable, you are probably too soft on them, I do not know. That could be one way of looking at it. I see a few heads nodding around the place there. Certainly some Liberal members on occasions have said to me, 'Gee, you've gone a bit easy on them on that particular issue.'

At the end of the day I believe governments have a right to govern, and that has always been my approach. But, this is a bad process; it is unfair and unreasonable and it will result in bad legislation, it is as simple as that. It will result in bad legislation. The last example I recall of a situation similar to this (nowhere near as bad as this, but similar) was when we dealt with the amendment to the ICAC bill, which allowed the ICAC Commissioner two years to review a particular case rather than what was previously in the bill, which was six months.

That occasion was a little bit different, because the ICAC Commissioner himself was good enough to come down here and personally lobby members of parliament and provide his reasons. I did not agree with his reasons, with respect to the commissioner (and I told him that at the time), but he was good enough to come down here and put his case. So there we had a key stakeholder in the bill (of course it was the ICAC bill, so he was the key stakeholder) arguing his case, and that is appropriate—I have no problems with that. We had a stakeholder saying, 'This is why this bill must pass this house this week.'

Coming back to this bill, certainly no-one has approached me or my party at all yet, not any of the major stakeholder groups. I specifically mention them: the HIA, the MBA, the UDIA, even the LGA, or the Property Council—none of those groups, not once, have approached me or my party asking us to expedite this bill through this place this year, in fact, quite the opposite. Each of them has insisted, as strongly as they possibly can, that we pass this bill in February. Why do they want that? For a very good reason.

I was told by some senior people in those organisations, quite legitimately I believe, that they were not that far away from reaching a consensus position on some of the really meaty issues in this bill. I refer specifically to things like the infrastructure levy to be altered by this bill. So, we are not that far away from a consensus position. There is absolutely no stakeholder group at all seeking to push this bill through this chamber this week, so I have to ask why we are doing it. I know that the Hon. Mr Parnell attempted to ask the same question: why are we doing it? I do not think he was satisfied with the answer he got.

I make no criticism of the minister for that: I think she is toeing the party line, if you like. But, it is not acceptable, when you have no stakeholders of any group asking for this bill to be progressed expeditiously—not one of them—for us to be doing it. I would not be the only member in this chamber, I am sure, who has not had an opportunity to read the amendments that we have just been presented with this morning. In fact, I suspect no-one has read them.

The Hon. M.C. Parnell interjecting:

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Indeed. The Hon. Mr Ridgway's amendments—as I said, I make no criticism of him—were presented to us yesterday. Maybe a few a members had an opportunity to read them. I was at a function last night; I got home at quarter to 11 or so and have not had an opportunity to read them. We have to ask: why are we doing this so quickly?. What is the reason we are doing this so quickly? You hear all these sorts of rumours—there have been things in the media that there might be a reshuffle coming because the Hon. Mr Malinauskas has joined us and everyone is watching with bated breath as to what might happen to him in the new year, and good luck to him. Again, I make no criticism of him.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: It will be a lesson to him to never let this happen.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Indeed. If that is the case and if a reshuffle is coming, that is not a good enough reason to be pushing through a bill of this magnitude without elected members of parliament—elected by the people of South Australia to scrutinise legislation—having had a chance to read those amendments. It is not good enough.

The rumour mill abounds. I am sure that other members have heard the ridiculous rumour, which I am sure is not true, floating around (maybe I should not say 'ridiculous' in case it turns ought to be true—stranger things have happened—but I suspect that it is not true) that the Hon. John Rau will take a seat on the judiciary. I think that is highly unlikely. My point is that all these sorts of rumours go around because there is no good reason to pass this bill before the end of the sitting year, so I think some crazy reasons get invented, and that is probably one of the more crazy ones.

I will conclude my remarks shortly. I do not want to delay the chamber unnecessarily, but can I say that we have around 250 amendments for this bill. A substantial number of them are quite substantial amendments to the bill. We should not kid ourselves that these are just minor amendments. The ones I have had an opportunity to go through, which have been filed previously, have created quite significant changes to the bill. Again, as I say, I see no good reason whatsoever for us to pass the bill this week.

Turning to some of the specifics of the bill that I think need addressing as well, I make the general point, as I did in my second reading, that Family First does not oppose this bill. Let's be clear about it: we do not oppose this bill. In fact, there are very positive aspects of this bill that we strongly support, and I have said that to minister Rau myself, but I would like the government to make its position clear on my amendment; no doubt, they will do that when we get to it.

I will just very briefly explain my amendment, as I did not have the opportunity to do so in my second reading, and I will explain it in more detail, obviously, when we get to the relevant clause. Fundamentally, it is to ensure that people living in any designated area within a council boundary cannot have a so-called 'heritage conservation zone' thrust upon them without at least a majority of people living in the affected area agreeing to it. It is as simple as that: without at least a majority of people living in that area agreeing to it.

I gave an account in my second reading speech of what happened at the City of Prospect council, where we own property, when a heritage conservation zone was slapped on, I think, 274 residents in that place, and about 70 per cent disagreed with it actually happening. I think that is disgraceful, and my amendment will deal with that.

On a couple of other specific issues as I reach my conclusion, on the urban growth boundary, the minister raised, in response to a question I think from the Hon. Mr Ridgway, the specifics that Roseworthy was excluded, and she indicated that it was an election commitment to do that. I would like to put on record that I would like to know why specifically Roseworthy was excluded. I do not know if the minister wants to answer that now or take it on notice. I understand it was an election commitment—that much is true—but why was that commitment given? On what basis was a large chunk of that particular area excluded? I do not know if the minister would like to answer that now or take it on notice.

The CHAIR: Do you want the answer now?

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: If the minister is able to, yes, thank you.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the reason we did not proceed with stage 2, I think, in relation to Roseworthy is that our urban growth trends demonstrated that we did not need it, and also we received many submissions raising concerns about primary production in that area. So, we believed it was prudent to give, if you like, early notice and certainty to primary producers that we were not going to proceed with redevelopment.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I thank the minister for her response. I would just like to place on the record that my understanding (and I am quite certain of this, actually) is that the council directly affected was keen for that development to go ahead for a whole variety of reasons, and I think they were surprised when that commitment was given. That area, to my understanding (and, again, I am quite confident of this), is within the seat of Schubert, of course, which the Labor Party did not win, so I am not sure that that policy is right; in fact, I think it is clearly wrong.

There will be different views in the chamber, I accept that, but there was a terrific plan for that area which I have actually seen and which has been on public consultation and strongly supported by the community and strongly supported by local council. Why would you stop that? In an environment where South Australia has the highest unemployment rate in the nation by a substantial margin, why would you stop that sort of investment in an area crying out for it, where the council itself and the actual community consultation were strongly in favour of it? That is a mystery to me, and I think, frankly, it was the wrong decision in the end.

I turn for another few minutes to another couple of issues. The next issue I would like to briefly highlight in my clause 1 contribution is the issue of the infrastructure levies, or the whole handling of infrastructure in this bill. It does not just deal with the levies, of course, in this bill: it is much broader than that. Of course, within that broad heading of infrastructure, there are the two subheadings, what you might call general infrastructure and what I would consider more specific infrastructure.

General infrastructure is the stuff that you generally associate with development—electricity, gas, hot water, sewerage, roads, etc. The more specific infrastructure I think is the really interesting part of this bill which I look forward to exploring in some detail in the committee stage. We have heard examples in the media, for example, of how it might be used to fund a tram down Magill Road or O'Connell Street, or somewhere.

A whole lot of examples have been given; Norwood Parade was one floated in the media as well. All of them are ideas that probably have merit, but there are some really key considerations with respect to this issue that we need to iron out carefully. This is one of the most fundamental changes to how these things will be funded in our state's history, well and truly so in my time in this place.

I will be brief, but let's imagine a scenario where a tram is funded to go to Magill Road, for example. Under this bill, it is possible that the residents surrounding that area would be called upon to fund that tram. At the moment, of course, such infrastructure is funded out of general revenue. The government says, 'We will allocate $300 million,' whatever it is, to pay for that tram out of general revenue, and they raise the money through all the levies and taxes they have.

But this bill may—it is not clear that it may, but it may—substantially alter the way that is funded. We could have a situation where the residents in that general vicinity—and, of course, where you draw the line becomes a very a significant question: who is in, who is out, who pays and who does not—end up funding that tram through increased council rates and other levies. These are really legitimate questions that need to be ironed out by this place.

I can say that the industry representatives I met are quite excited about some these possibilities, to be fair, and that is why I said that Family First is actually quite positive about a lot of aspects of this bill, but they are also concerned about the detail, and I think it is entirely legitimate for them to be concerned about it—as is the LGA. At the end of the day, if these things are funded through local government rates, it is their organisations (the councils they represent) that will be sending out the rate notices and cop the messages of abuse should individuals not agree with what they are receiving in their letterbox in the form of a rate hike.

The second-last category I want to touch on briefly is the composition of the development plans themselves. I think the Hon. Mr Parnell, one of the previous speakers, raised this issue, and this is a very significant issue. We have not seen any detail on this whatsoever. Again, it is something that will need to be carefully worked through in the committee stage.

The final point is the issue with respect to heritage issues. This bill does not largely deal with these issues, but it is an issue I have an individual interest in. Again, I accept there will be different views in this chamber. No doubt, there will be individual members who would like to see further tightening of heritage restrictions. I am at the other end of the scale: I would like to see it loosened substantially. Where there is genuine heritage property—a building that somebody significant lived in for a certain amount of time, whatever it may be—I think there is a case for heritage listing, but I do not support the blanket heritage conservation zones where you encapsulate some genuine heritage properties and others which are nothing like heritage whatsoever.

In summing up, I gave that example previously of the property we own—but there are many other examples: it is not just about us—in the Prospect area. It was designated a 1910-1920 villa by the so-called heritage expert who surveyed the area and proposed this blanket heritage conservation zone. In fact, the house was built in 1941. He also paid tribute to the wonderful verandah on the front that was outstanding—a 'contributory item' is the term used, although it does not appear in the act anywhere. It is contributory item, contributing to the heritage value of the area. Unfortunately for him, the verandah was added in the 1970s, and I know that for a fact because it was done by the previous owners of the property. What a lot of rubbish.

We need to deal with these sorts of issues and we need to fix them once and for all. That is why we need time to consider this bill; that is why we should not be rushing it through this week. There will be different views on these very important issues and I think it is wrong that we are doing it this week, and for that reason I ask the government to reconsider and at least give us time to read the amendments.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have a couple of quick questions broadly in relation to the group of amendments that were filed today, or late yesterday, whichever it may be. I have a briefing note from the LGA talking about the three sets of the minister's amendments of 1 December, then 2 December, and my understanding is that, with the amendments of 2 December, the minister circulated them but did not actually progress them, so they were not ever put on file. Is that what—I am getting a nod from the minister's adviser. And, of course, there are the ones that were put on file yesterday, 7 December, but we only really saw them on 8 December. A question that has been provided to me is that:

While the amendments of 7/12 contemplate a charge being levied under subdivision 2A of the bill, this subdivision is not contemplated in the amendments.

They go on to say:

This suggests that further amendments to proposed subdivision 2A are being prepared by parliamentary counsel.

A question I have, while I was reading this and sitting here thinking, is: have they raised a genuine issue and are you preparing further amendments to a subdivision 2A?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have already indicated in this place that we do not intend to make any further amendments but obviously are willing through debate and further consultation to consider further developments. But I have already indicated that we have no intention at this point in time to table any further amendments.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: So with that particular issue raised by the LGA, if it is something necessary, the minister is saying that you will not be prepared to move any more amendments or have them drafted in this bill, but it will be something that will be picked up in the bill that we are going to see next year some time. Is that what you are saying to us?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: No, I am not saying that at all. We are just repeating ourselves here.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: No, I have already indicated that at this point in time we do not have any intention to file further amendments, and then I went on to say that clearly we are a government that is keen to pass this legislation and, therefore, during the committee stage debate, during the discussions that we continue with key stakeholders, if there is a matter that comes up that is critical to enabling this bill to progress, we will consider any amendments that may fall out of that. But, in terms of particular plans to file amendments, I have already indicated a number of times that I am not aware of any, except the caveats I have put around that in order to progress and expedite this bill as best we can.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I have a few concluding remarks in relation to clause 1, and I want to put on the record the fact that the Greens supported the passage of this bill through the second reading stage. Some members were surprised that I did not divide on the second reading, and the reason for that is I think we do need to get planning law reform and we do need to progress a bill.

I do not think the bill before us, in its present form, is the way to go but it is not beyond redemption. So I said at the conclusion of the debate last week, that I was hoping that the committee stage would be adjourned until February. I also said that the Greens were happy to come back for the optional sitting week to progress other bills on the Notice Paper. Never let it be said that we are not prepared to work the required hours; it is just that, for the reasons that a number of members have said, this is not the bill to be doing in the optional week.

Until the last moment on Thursday last week, I had hoped that sanity would prevail but, clearly, the government, when the question was put that this house do now adjourn, adjourned it to the optional sitting week. That was the first formal indication we had that we would need to come back on Tuesday. So, clearly, the government intends to push on with this bill. I think that their hope is that with endless debate, multiple divisions, that the Legislative Council will crack, that we will basically ask for the pain to stop, and the government will get their way.

I have no intention of letting the government off the hook because this is the longest and the most detailed, and one of the most important bills that we have seen all year. It deserves scrutiny and that is what we are going to give it. However, I also want to put on the record now my appreciation of commitments that have been made to me by the Liberal opposition and by some of my crossbench colleagues. Those commitments are that the opposition will not be gagging debate; in other words, it will not be unreasonably preventing members from speaking.

Mr Chairman, I know this will come as a matter of great interest to you, because in my time here I think only once was the motion put that the honourable member no longer be heard, and that was one of your predecessors, the Hon. Bob Sneath—a most excellent president. He actually ruled that the honourable member no longer be heard. Again, it was in similar circumstances—a bill that was being rushed through—and I objected to the chair's ruling, at which stage there was a flurry of thumbing through the standing orders and it became apparent that my objection needed to be put in writing. The notepad was produced and the sharpened pencils—that the Legislative Council staff so diligently provide us each day—came out and I wrote a note: 'I object to the chair's ruling.' We then proceeded, again with standing orders out, to try to work out: what did this mean?

My understanding is that what it meant was that if the Legislative Council had agreed with me that the chair's ruling was unreasonable, the chair would have had no alternative but to resign. I think in the end sanity prevailed and the then leader of the government, the Hon. Paul Holloway, agreed that looking at the Liberal opposition it seemed keen to support the Greens' right to debate, and I think they thought they might not have the numbers, and a president resigning over a matter such as that was not something the government wanted on its hands. So I just make the point that I am grateful to the opposition and to my crossbench colleagues that they are not going to be gagging debate.

I also want to acknowledge that whilst I have a slight difference with the opposition about how we should proceed from now, they, through the contribution of the Hon. Rob Lucas, have agreed that sensible sitting hours will be observed. We will see what that suggestion is: it might be 6 o'clock tonight but my feeling is that it will probably be a bit later in the evening, but it certainly will not be 2 o'clock in the morning or 3 o'clock in the morning as that is not conducive to good debate.

I also want to acknowledge that the opposition has agreed not to abandon the primacy of private members' time on Wednesday afternoon. That, I think, is precisely the way we should proceed. Also, they have agreed that unscheduled sitting days should not be entertained. I know that the minister's priority letter caused some disquiet, certainly amongst the parliamentary staff, who I think have every right to rely on the schedule of sitting published at the start of each year by the government. That is a negotiated schedule of sitting. While circumstances can arise, unforeseen, where it becomes a matter of some urgency for us to be flexible, this is not such a case. I am glad that the Liberals have seen that this is not going to drag on until Christmas Eve or New Year's Eve or any time like that.

Whilst debate has been quite civil in the hour and a half that we have been going on clause 1 so far, it will get tetchy and, in fact, I can almost read the government's press release to come out maybe today, maybe on Thursday. The press release will read, 'Lazy obstructionist Legislative Council goes on strike.' I am helping the minister here by writing the headline. 'Legislative Council refuses to work. Mike Rann was right: Legislative Council should be abolished. Rex Jory is on the money. Rex Jory made professor of democracy, appointed new Thinker in Residence.'

The government will, as this debate drags on and becomes tetchy, start to try to turn this into some sort of attack on the government's mandate. They say they have a mandate for the reform of the planning system, and I think everyone agrees that the planning system should be reformed, but that does not mean that the government will get every single detail its own way and, of course, if that was the case, we would not need parliament.

Hopefully, serious political commentators and reporters and those who are looking at this debate will see through this and they will recognise that, really, it is the government's contempt for democracy and contempt for the legislative process that is the problem. At this point, having discussed with other members that there are no other contributions on clause 1, I now—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Just before you move it.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Okay.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Once the honourable member moves a motion, there can be no further debate, as I understand it, if it is the sort of motion that I suspect he might be moving. Before he does that, I just wanted to indicate, as one member of the committee, that should there be a motion to report progress at this stage, my position would be that I am prepared to continue to have sensible debate about aspects of the legislation during the committee stage.

However, I say that within the context of understanding that we are not likely to conclude the debate, given that there are over 250 amendments. I have just noticed that one member has just filed another four, so I am not sure what the running total is now—254 or 253 amendments. Amendments continue to be filed on important issues in the legislation.

The point that I am seeking to make is that, whilst we furiously agree that it would be foolishness to conclude the debate by 6 o'clock on Thursday because of all these unanswered questions—and the Hon. Mr Hood has raised a most important issue which we will address in the government's amendment in relation to trams up Magill Road and who pays and those sorts of issues, which I am sure it will take some time to resolve—in my view, it is possible for us to continue to have some reasonable debate about issues within the context that, as I outlined at the second reading, there is support within this committee from the Liberal Party and, at least, opposition and minor party members to agree to recommit particular issues.

As I understand it, a most important and controversial issue is introduced as early as clause 5 of the bill and there may well be some earlier than that, but it is entirely possible for the committee to proceed in a fashion where we conclude that we are going to recommit this particular clause at a later stage, either to consider somebody's new amendment or a compromise amendment or to finalise a particular position. The committee may well be able to resolve to progress certain clauses, ask questions or seek clarification, and there may well be unanimity in relation to particular provisions.

It is possible, with a majority of members, to progress the committee stage of the debate whilst, in essence, leaving difficult and controversial clauses and issues in the too-hard basket to be recommitted when we come back in February but progressing on those where we can either get more answers or seek clarification or, in some cases, actually agree that there is no opposition to a number of clauses.

For those reasons, should any member of the chamber be about to move a motion to report progress, I would flag that, from my viewpoint, I would not be supporting it at this stage, but if that is the case, it is not to be taken as indicative of a view that I am a party to wanting to ram this through before 6 o'clock on Thursday evening. It is just an indication that we are back here for the optional week and we have agreed to progress sensible debate as best we can.

It may well be that, in the next two days, we get to a stage where it becomes impossible to proceed and there might be a different view. The Hon. David Ridgway, handling the bill on behalf of the Liberal Party, may well indicate that we take a different position. Certainly, at this early stage on the Tuesday morning, if that motion were to be moved, I would be indicating that I, as one member, would not be inclined to support it.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I just have a couple of final words on clause 1. As I have already said, back in March the government indicated that it wanted to complete this bill this year, so everyone has been given notice that that was the government's intention. We sought to use the optional sitting week when we realised that we were not going to be able to complete the planning legislation without it. The government has indicated that it is willing and prepared to sit for as long as it takes to complete this bill this year. We have indicated that willingness and our desire to do that in correspondence to other members.

I find it amusing that all of a sudden the Hon. Mark Parnell has sensibilities around the length of sitting days when he held us all to ransom here with the WorkCover bill until, I think, about 5am. It was all right for him to do that when it suited him—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: It is interesting that he has developed a high level of sensibility around that. We have indicated that we want to stay to finish this bill, and I have outlined the reasons why it is important that we complete this bill this year. Obviously this government is bound by the numbers in this house, but I just wanted to put our intention clearly on the record.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: As the shadow minister who is handling this bill for the opposition, we have given a commitment that we are prepared to sit for the optional week. This is repeating some of what has been said, so I will not go on for too long, but we were prepared to sit for the optional week. At this point in time I certainly would not be recommending to my team that we support any reporting of progress, but we may reach a point at some time in the next two and half to three days when we need to do that, and we may on several occasions.

I know that we have new amendments tabled by the Hon. Kelly Vincent, and the industry has not seen them. We need to get them circulated for them to have a look at. I am aware of the evolution of those amendments, but nonetheless we need the industry to look at them. I think the first one of those is at clause 12, so if the industry has not had a chance to look at them and give us some feedback then clearly there may be an opportunity at that point where we will have to report progress so that we can actually talk to people. We simply cannot do it while we are sitting in here.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I rise to briefly state Family First's position should a motion be moved to report progress. To be frank, we would be happy to be here next week and, if necessary, the week after. That is really not a problem; there is no impediment to us doing that. What is a problem for us, and I stated this in my clause 1 contribution, is that we have amendments put upon us with no notice that we are expected to vote on virtually straight away.

That is not the way to proceed, and it results in bad legislation—particularly if they are government amendments, because obviously government amendments are the ones most likely to succeed so they need to be very carefully scrutinised. We simply have not had that opportunity. For that reason, in the interests of good legislation on a very significant bill, should a motion be moved to report progress then we would be inclined to support it. It would not be because we are here late one night or sitting next week or the week after. That does not matter.

What matters is giving legislators the appropriate time to review the material, and to consult with stakeholders as well, as the Hon. Mr Ridgway said. That is critically important. For instance, what does the HIA think of the amendments that were put upon us by the government this morning, or the MBA or the LGA, or any of those other groups? I do not know. I have not read them, and I suspect they have not read them. I certainly have not had an opportunity to consult with them, and for that reason I would be very happy to report progress should a motion be moved to that effect.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I appreciate the comments my colleagues have made, and I partly agree and partly disagree with the Hon. Mr Lucas. He does believe that it would be useful to progress and I think the Hon. David Ridgway is of the same mind, but both seem to agree that it would be folly to conclude, and so the question then becomes: at what point do we interrupt proceedings and go away and do the sort of consultation that the Hon. Dennis Hood and the Hon. David Ridgway have talked about? Out of respect for the stakeholders who have asked us to allow more time for proper consultation on all clauses of this bill and to honour the commitment that I made to them to do my best to try to make this legislative process as fair and thorough and sensible as possible, I move:

That progress be reported.

The committee divided on the motion:

Ayes 3

Noes 13

Majority 10

Motion thus negatived.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I just wanted to put on the record what I think is a changed position from the minister in charge of the bill in relation to what the minister said, on behalf of the government, at the outset of the debate this morning. As I said, I asked some questions of the minister, because my recollection was that the minister had said the government was engaged in negotiations and, should they come to a conclusion, they would be seeking to move amendments.

When we pursued that issue, the minister's position seemed to have evolved to, 'I have indicated that we are not contemplating any amendments at all, other than in the eventuality that something arises.' I want to refer to the Hansard of the debate this morning, where the minister said:

In this respect I also note negotiation on some amendments that are ongoing and, should negotiations be fruitful, we would be willing, with the chamber's agreement, for particular clauses to be recommitted prior to finalising the bill for transmittal to the other place, and I will highlight those limited matters as we proceed through the committee deliberations.

That statement, which was the government's considered position at the start of the clause, was quite clear; that is, there are ongoing negotiations of which the minister and the government are aware, and that if they are fruitful, their intention is to recommit and finalise prior to the bill being transmitted to the other place.

Given that the government wants to transmit the bill to the other place by the end of this week, prior to 'transmittal to the other place' clearly means this week. It does not mean, as the minister has sought to portray her position after further questioning, that there were not any ongoing discussions, there was no current contemplation of amendments being moved, and, in essence, trying to allay any concerns that members might have.

Now, with the benefit of the Hansard pull, it is quite clear what the minister said; that is, there is the contemplation from the government on one of the critical areas to which the Hon. Mr Ridgway has referred and to which I think I referred in my earlier comments in the legislation: if the government does reach agreement with some stakeholders, they do want to try to amend the bill before the bill passes this chamber this week.

The Hansard record is the independent umpire—the referee—in relation to what the government's position was. It is quite clear what the minister said, and the minister, in relation to that, was reading from a statement that had been prepared by the government on her behalf. These were her introductory remarks. It is clear that it was a statement of the government's position, and I think, for those who are following this particular debate, it is a much more accurate reflection of the government's position than the one she subsequently sought to put forward; that is, that there was no contemplation of amendments other than in the limited circumstances.

The minister said, 'Things might happen.' There is clearly negotiation going on in relation to some key issues in this bill, and it is the government's intention, at some stage today, tomorrow or Thursday, to potentially drop another package of amendments on members on one of the key issues, which we suspect relates to the imposition of the levy, and to seek to ram those particular amendments through the committee stage prior to us getting up this week.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I can only reiterate what I have already put on the record this morning. In relation to the negotiations I referred to in my opening remarks, I was referring to those negotiations with members of this house in relation to amendments that had already been filed. A good example of that is in relation to the amendments that have just been filed by the Hon. Kelly Vincent. Obviously, the discussions we have been having with her have resulted in her recommitting her amendments that better consider the government's inputs. I have already well established and put on the record the advice I have received about future amendments and I think we should get on with it.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: While we are not at this clause, can the minister say, just in relation to the second tranche of amendments the Hon. Kelly Vincent has tabled, that they supersede her previous amendments? She will not be moving them, I assume. Is the minister saying that the government now will support them? The reason I ask that is we have not considered them in our party room. We have some capacity to have a look at things if possible—we may not be able to—but we need to know if the government is supporting it, and then obviously we have to talk to industry and other stakeholders. So, if the minister can indicate what the government are doing, that gives us at least a starting position of where we are at.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I thank the member for his comments. Obviously I cannot talk about other people's amendments, but my understanding is that the amendments that the Hon. Kelly Vincent has filed today do supersede her original set of amendments and the government does indeed support the amendments that have been filed by her: [Vincent-2].

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: My question at clause 2, which is the commencement clause, providing that the act will come into operation on a day to be fixed by proclamation: is there any part of the act that the government envisages will come into operation almost immediately? I preface that by saying clearly there are parts of this act that cannot come into operation for a considerable period of time because there are other documents to be prepared, but is there any part of this act that might come in soon or shortly after royal assent?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: So your question is 'can'?

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Is there any part of the bill that the government envisages will be brought into operation almost immediately?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The advice I have received is no.

Clause passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I refer to the contribution that was made by the Hon. Rob Lucas a little bit earlier in terms of the government's commitment to recommit certain clauses at some stage, and I just put on the record that at least my expectation is that clause 3 will be one of them, because clause 3 is basically the definitions section and there are pages and pages of definitions, all of which are referred to in subsequent clauses. So, my expectation would be that, as subsequent clauses are amended or deleted, we will need to go back and revisit clause 3. I move:

Amendment No 1 [Parnell–1]—

Page 13, line 14—After 'land' insert:

but does not include—

(a) a tent, marquee or stall erected on a temporary basis for the purposes of an activity lawfully conducted on land; or

(b) any building, structure or other item excluded from the ambit of this definition by the regulations

The first amendment I have in relation to this clause is one that is actually quite current. I say it is current because, whilst we are here in parliament debating this bill, in a courtroom not far away another debate is underway in relation to the interpretation of the development regulations and in particular, the question of whether farmers' markets—in other words, the trestle table and the marquee—are shops and if so, is a collection of individual stalls a shopping centre? If it is a shopping centre, then clearly it is caught by the planning system and approval needs to be sought, and depending on the location of the farmers' market, it is very likely to be a noncomplying form of development, because the nature of farmers' markets is that they tend to be in car parks, for example, that are not used at other times of the day or the week.

The amendment that I have put forward basically is to exclude from the definition of development a tent, marquee or stall erected on a temporary basis for the purpose of an activity lawfully conducted on the land. In other words, it is saying that the person selling the oranges by the side of the road or the group of stallholders collectively forming themselves into a farmers' market is not something that is captured by the Development Act.

People might think that that is a bridge too far and that you can imagine activity becoming quite large scale and certainly needing some sort of regulation, but I think that that criticism is dealt with in two ways. First of all, the amendment refers to activities 'lawfully conducted on land'. In other words, the range of other laws that apply to people, for example, selling food would continue to apply. Secondly, being lawfully conducted on land certainly presumes the support of the landholder.

The case that I am referring to that is apparently in court today was referred to in the Sunday Mail two days ago under the heading, 'Markets under legal threat'. In fact, in an earlier ABC online article in a similar vein, the headline was, 'Farmers' markets face legal challenge in Adelaide development court'. That was back in October. I will read just the first two lines from the ABC online report:

A legal fight in an Adelaide court might affect the future of popular farmers' markets, where producers can sell direct to the public. Salisbury Council in northern Adelaide is being challenged over its development approval for one such market.

The market concerned goes under the name 'Farm Direct Community Markets'. The one that is apparently being challenged in court at the moment is in the car park of the Old Spot Hotel in Salisbury. It is not a market that I have ever attended, but certainly I will declare for the record that I am a member of a farmers' market, being the Adelaide Showground Farmers' Market—or rather, my wife is a member, but I think I am entitled to use the card, so I declare an interest in farmers' markets.

The question before the court is, as I said, whether a market stall is a shop and whether a collection of market stalls is a shopping centre. I will refer shortly to a letter that the planning minister received from the proprietor of the Farm Direct Community Markets. I will just point out that rather than being a fringe interest for people in Adelaide, these farmers' markets are incredibly popular. In fact, the Farm Direct Community Markets Facebook page has 14,000 people liking it. The Adelaide Showground Farmers' Market has a similar number of people who like it.

I can compare that with the planning minister's popularity. I do not think he is on Facebook, but the planning minister is on Twitter and he has fewer than 3,000 followers. His cat has another 258 followers on Twitter.

An honourable member: Whose cat?

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: John Rau's cat is an identity on Twitter. I have about 4,500 and I do not have a cat. The point I am making here is that these farmers' markets are popular and they help to break the duopoly—the Coles/Woolworths duopoly—that controls most of the food and grocery supplies in this country.

In terms of how these farmers' markets should be regulated, I refer members to obligations under the Food Act 2001, and that incorporates an obligation to comply with food safety standards. That obligation includes notifying your local council if you are selling food. It is not that these markets will be unregulated if we remove them from the Development Act, they will still be regulated under the Food Act. If you handle food intended for sale or you sell food, you are by definition a food business, and whether or not you need to notify the local council depends on whether there is any hazard involved.

When you download the form off the SA Health website, you will see that you are obliged to notify the sort of food you are selling—dairy products, raw meat and poultry, processed meats and poultry, or is it just fresh fruit or seafood or water, alcoholic drinks, whatever it might be. Of course, different foods have different levels of risk. By removing these farmers' markets from the definition of development under this bill, we are not leaving a regulatory vacuum. The penalties for failing to comply with the Food Act for body corporates are $120,000 and for individuals $25,000, so clearly it is a regime that is rigorous.

The question may well be asked as to whether this is the appropriate place. I mentioned before that the development regulations are where most definitions are contained, including the definition of 'shop' and 'shopping centre', but the regulations are not before us. We do not have any indication or an advanced copy of what the government has in mind in terms of regulations, so really the only way to deal with this problem of what effectively is bricks and mortar businesses challenging farmers' markets is to deal with it in the act that is before us.

In this whole debate about disruptive economies, disruptive technologies, in some ways the farmers' market versus bricks and mortar is the same debate as the food van versus the bricks and mortar café or the Uber ride share scheme versus taxis. One of the things that I think we have to grapple with in this parliament is whether our job is to prop up often outdated business models or whether in fact we can promote innovation and competition.

Certainly, for me, activities such as farmers' markets promote competition. They actually provide a direct outlet for primary producers to cut out the middle person as it were and deal directly with the public and I think they are things we should encourage. What is concerning about the case that is before the environment court at the moment is that the way these temporary stalls—and in saying temporary two mornings a week, I understand, is the extent of this market—are defined under the current system, and that is that a bricks and mortar business can legally challenge the farmers' market and could effectively shut it down. I think that is a bad outcome for South Australia and I think it is perhaps an unintended consequence of the legislation. That is the explanation for the amendment that is before us to clause 3.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government rises to oppose this amendment. The amendment will change the definition of 'building' to exclude tents and marquees and the like. The government understands the intent of this amendment, and is quite sympathetic about its intention as well I have to say, but does not believe it will be achieved through this amendment and, in fact, does not believe that using a legislative means is not the best way to resolve this. The definition of 'building' is a longstanding one and it has quite well established case law associated with it. Moreover, it is linked to the regulatory scheme embodied in the national building code. So, we should not change this definition lightly.

Therefore, given the potential unforeseen implications of this change, we would prefer to look at this question as part of regulations. I am quite happy to undertake that with the Hon. Mark Parnell, in fact it is something we could probably initiate straight away. It would be quite an easy thing to progress, and far quicker than using the bill. So, we would certainly be willing to work with the Hon. Mark Parnell to look at a regulatory solution to what is an issue that we are very sympathetic to.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have a couple of questions for the mover. It has been put to the opposition that what he is doing by excluding these from the bill, is that you do not have to get planning approval for a tent or a marquee. We have farmers markets in a range of communities around the state that seem to operate quite easily and profitably without being subject to legal action. So, I am intrigued. It may be that that is the nature of the court case and you may not be at liberty to explain why that legal action is taking place.

It has also been put to the opposition that this amendment will allow a roadside seller anywhere to pop up and sell some produce. While I am supportive of farmers markets in a broad sense, in the sense that the honourable member's wife is a member and I have attended the Adelaide Farmers Market before where you have to be a producer to sell your product, some of the roadside sellers that we see around the place are not under the banner of a farmers market and are not subject to the same sort of rules or interpretation of rules as producers are and where there is some traceability to the products they are selling.

The opposition is a bit like the government, we are sympathetic to what the mover is trying to do, but at the same time we are intrigued as to why this particular issue is before the courts, and also the impact it will have on other roadside sellers of fresh produce around the state.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the member for his questions. I will say that they are questions that agitated me as well because by removing from the definition of 'building' and therefore from the definition of 'development' tents, marquees and stalls, somehow along every roadside and at every opportunity individuals might set up their stalls. I do not see that as being a likely consequence because there are other regulatory regimes. Council by-laws spring to mind. There are prohibitions in most council by-laws against selling things from the street without a permit. So, that would be the first thing.

Secondly, I mentioned the Food Act. I also said, though, that the Food Act does not apply to everything. It probably would not apply to fresh oranges, for example, but it would apply to someone who is selling cooked chicken. So, I think there are other ways the community can regulate the sale of goods from temporary stores and I think they can be regulated in those ways rather than through the Development Act.

In terms of the question about: why does something like this end up in court? My understanding is that if you have a farmers market and they set up in a hotel car park and they set up at a time when the hotel does not have any patrons, it is actually very good use of that land. It is vacant bitumenised land. The point is that the hotel is probably zoned in a way that is suitable for a hotel but is not zoned for shops or shopping centres. As a result, for the council to approve, as they did, the farmers market at the Old Spot Hotel, it had to be regarded as a non-complying development.

Non-complying development basically means that any person can challenge it. I am usually a big fan of people being able to challenge inappropriate developments, but it strikes me that there are broader issues at work here in terms of the future of our economy, the way people buy food, the way people sell food and the rights people have to negotiate directly with farmers. It ties in to the duopoly, as I mentioned. While I do accept what the minister has said: is the method that I have put in this bill the best method of achieving the result that I want, which is some level of protection for farmers markets? Whether I have admitted it in so many words, no, it is not the best mechanism.

My point was that it is the only mechanism available to us because we are dealing with the bill. But what I take some comfort from is that the minister gets it, the government understands that disputes like this will become more frequent and not less frequent, and as a community we need to deal with how we strike the balance between farmers' markets and bricks and mortar stalls, just the way we are having a debate about food vans versus bricks and mortar cafes and restaurants. So it is part of a broader debate. I certainly have moved to put it on the agenda. I am heartened the government is interested in pursuing dialogue on this. I have moved the amendment, and I am interested to hear any other contributions, but it is not my intention to divide on it.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: From the opposition's point of view we will not be supporting the amendment, but I make the comment that the minister had made the comment that it might be quicker to do it by regulation or other means, and the government is willing to have that dialogue. Certainly we support that. Given that there is a good prospect that this bill will not be completed this year, potentially—and, of course, we have the other enabling legislation, or whatever the other bill we will get next year will be called—clearly if we were to support it and pass this amendment this year, next year, some time, never, when will we see it come into operation? If it is a genuine concern—and the mover says the minister gets it and is heartened by that, which is generous, unusual perhaps, too, but at least there is some goodwill there that there is an issue that needs to be addressed. So at this point I indicate that the opposition will not be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: It gets more interesting every moment, doesn't it? This particular amendment from the Hon. Mr Parnell opens up a whole lot of issues, of course, that he has canvassed briefly in his contribution. I would like to canvass a couple of examples that members may or may not be aware of that touch on this issue before I explain our final position on the amendment. I think parallels can be drawn from the amendment as to what the Hon. Mr Parnell is attempting to do here. We are over-regulated, in my view. Many of these sorts of situations I think are unnecessary. I am heartened to see the Greens moving to reduce red tape, which is quite exciting for some of us. Anyway, that is said in jest, sir.

It reminds me of a situation of a Burnside councillor, who was a member of the council himself and had an umbrella—you might called it erected, but placed is probably a better way of describing an umbrella—on his property shielding his car from the sun. The Burnside council objected to this, because they considered the umbrella was a development, and took him to court, one of their own councillors. He is a man of some means, I understand, and decided to defend the matter in court. Most people, of course, would cave in just simply because of the costs involved. But he decided on principle (and I applaud him) that he was going to defend the matter and he won. He won because it was ridiculous red tape and absolutely unnecessary, and my credit to the courts for getting that 100 per cent correct.

In that situation I understand that many tens of thousands of dollars were involved. I have been given a figure, which I will not disclose because I am not absolutely certain of its accuracy, but let us say it was north of $50,000, so a man can have an umbrella over his car in his own front yard. Utterly ridiculous! Another thing that can be put in that basket as well is that I have heard some councils making noises of displeasure about the advertising of cars on roadsides, that is, you will have a car on the side of a road, it is a private vehicle, and they will put on the back of it: 'For sale $5,000', or $10,000, or whatever it is, and I understand that some councillors are kicking up about that because it creates a traffic distraction.

Well, every road you drive down has advertising screaming out at you from every single possible direction, designed to distract you, actually, designed to get your attention so that you look at that particular advertisement and then go and purchase their product or remember to purchase it next time you drive by, or whatever it may be. The Hon. Mr Parnell, to tie it back to his amendment, is drawing on that issue in this amendment, and that is that some of this regulation is just absolutely unnecessary and silly. In the case of farmers' markets, why should people not be able to sell their produce, if it is not necessarily offending anyone? Why should we have regulations designed specifically to make that harder for them?

I think I will please the Hon. Mr Parnell by saying that Family First will support his amendment. I hope that does not get his hopes up for the rest of his amendments, because some of them are to be questioned, but, certainly in this case, we will be happy to support the amendment. I think it is actually a very positive step in the right direction. Before I take my seat, I would say I am heartened by the minister's comments as well that, even if this amendment does not succeed—it looks like it will not—the government is prepared to look at this, because it really has got to a situation of being a little bit absurd.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be supporting the Greens' amendment.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I said most of what I wanted to say, but I alluded to the fact that the operator of the market had written to the minister. I will not read the whole of the letter, but I would just make a couple of observations. The case I referred to is in the Environment, Resources and Development Court, and it is under the name Johnson v City of Salisbury & Mark Aldridge, who is the proprietor of the farmers' markets and, actually, well known to people in this place as a serial candidate for state parliament and other elected positions.

I just want to put on the record that this amendment in no way should be seen as an attempt to influence the outcome of a matter currently before the courts. I think it is probably stating the obvious that this bill will not come into operation for some considerable period of time so, even if the amendment were to succeed, which, on the numbers indicated so far, it will not, it in no way will affect the outcome of the case that is before the court. I will just give you one paragraph from Mark Aldridge's letter to the Minister for Planning, John Rau:

We pride ourselves in the promotion of healthy eating and investment in local jobs, something that ought to be respected and supported by the current legislative agenda. In a time where low income families and our retirees are struggling to make ends meet, markets like ours are a godsend to these struggling people, and with the big duopoly opting to deal only with the larger farms and producers, we are the last bastion for the smaller farmers and producers to stay on the land and in business.

He then goes on to urge amendments to the Development Act. I should say that he wrote that letter long before I devised the amendments that I have put before the council, but I think it does give effect to what he is trying to achieve. I thank Family First and the Hon. John Darley for their support but, as I have said, I can see where the numbers are on this and I will not be dividing.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Parnell–1]—

Page 16, line 30—Delete subparagraph (i)

People might be wondering why I am removing this particular provision, and the answer is quite clear: this mechanism, if unamended, allows the government, using the device of the planning and design code, to effectively include anything that it wants in the definition of 'essential infrastructure'. Parliamentary counsel, I guess, is still there, but they might say—what was it that we learned in law school, the ejusdem generis rule, I think it was, 'birds of a feather flocking together'. But I maintain that it is an unfettered discretion. Anything the minister wants to put in the planning and design code as part of the definition of 'essential infrastructure', they will get away with. I already think that the definition of 'essential infrastructure' is too broad, but I do not want to see it added to by the planning and design code.

In fact, it has just occurred to me that I think I have two amendments which are both (i). I had better check that we have them both in, because I think I was also removing the definition of 'health, education or community facilities' as well. I might just check with parliamentary counsel whether, in fact, I have both those amendments in there, if I can have a quick consultation. Thank you, Mr Chair. I have just checked that there is not an amendment that relates to paragraph (i), health, education or community facilities, but that is one that I think is too broad.

People are wondering: what does the definition of 'essential infrastructure' matter? You have to look at what work that definition does later in the bill. In fact, if you go to clause 124 of the bill, you will find that the regime for assessing essential infrastructure projects effectively precludes public participation for developments that are worth less than $10 million. The minister becomes the decision maker and, on any essential infrastructure worth less than $10 million, the public does not get to have its say.

My point is that, if we are going to have such a provision, we need to have a fairly certain list in the legislation. We cannot have the minister just adding to it. It might seem ridiculous but you could think: is a fish and chip shop essential infrastructure? There is nothing in this bill that stops the minister adding any nature of development to the definition of essential infrastructure. This amendment that I have moved is consistent with other amendments that we will consider later on, and that is to maximise opportunities for public participation in relation to having their say on important developments.

Let me say at the outset that I have no particular problem with genuine public sector projects going through a different process from private sector projects. Most of the things that are on this list of essential infrastructure I think are fair enough and I am happy for them to go through a process that is currently called crown development. I think it is appropriate. You do not want the state government having to go to the City of Burnside to get the council's permission for some important piece of state infrastructure, but what I do not want is for the government to be given a blank cheque to add any form of development that it wants into this definition simply by bringing it in within the planning and design code.

The point is that the planning and design code is not going to be a disallowable instrument so, therefore, there will not be anything the parliament can really do about it. The government might refer to the parliamentary scrutiny provisions, but I would make the point that it is not going to be a disallowable instrument to the extent that we understand that term, especially in relation to, say, disallowing regulations. The question is not whether the government might not have a meritorious form of development to add to the list of essential infrastructure. I just do not want them to add it through the back door. I want them to come back to parliament and add to this list.

I have another amendment which I will not agitate now: it comes up later, but it relates to this definition. Traditionally, crown development was government projects but, of course, in recent times, and it is further exacerbated in this bill, the government is allowing private sector developers to hang off the government's coat-tails for the private sector to have the benefit of fast-track development assessment processes that previously had only applied to government projects. It is broader than just this particular amendment but, as I have said, it is important in terms of the integrity of this list to make sure that any changes will come back to parliament.

The point is that once something has been approved, then it attracts existing use rights, and it is effectively there forever. So we only get one chance to get this right, and I do not want to see projects using a backdoor method of approval, when the parliament could just as easily delete this subparagraph and ensure that the government comes back to parliament with any additions to the essential infrastructure list.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government rises to oppose this amendment. The amendment would limit the definition of 'essential infrastructure' by removing the flexibility to identify further categories of essential infrastructure in the Planning and Design Code. In this bill we are designing a legislative framework which the government hopes will last for several decades, and it is therefore critical that flexibility to adapt to change is incorporated. Removing such flexibility is an inherently poor approach to legislation.

The Hon. Mark Parnell says that without his amendment, the government could seek to put anything in under essential infrastructure. He knows that that is not actually correct. He knows that that is not correct, because we know that he has some degree of expertise in this area. I know that he knows that the essential infrastructure has to be compliant with the Planning and Design Code, and that the Planning and Design Code is subject to the ERD Committee, it is subject to consultation required through the charter, and it is subject to the planning commissioner, who is a key independent adviser. If the essential infrastructure is not compliant with the code, then it cannot gain the benefits of that fast tracking and those other elements that are part of the essential infrastructure entitlement.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: A quick question of the mover—not that the minister would want to be answering questions on behalf of the mover—but with the infrastructure levy that we are talking about later in the bill, and the definition of 'essential infrastructure', can you clarify for me, will the honourable member's amendment to this clause have an impact on the types of infrastructure that might be funded under the infrastructure levy?

I highlight the point that this is the second amendment of the Greens, and we received these on late Thursday or Friday, whenever it was, and for the opposition to get out and talk and listen—we have heard the government's explanation, but to talk to industry has been impossible in the last two or three days to get that done.

I will be asking a whole range of questions of the Hon. Mark Parnell and the other movers and may also indicate, when we get to our final position of support, that this may well be a clause that we would like to recommit if, once we have had more feedback from stakeholders, we may wish to adopt a different position. I would like to get some clarity from the mover if you could give it to me please.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the honourable member for his most excellent question. The main job of work that I was interested in, where the essential infrastructure provision is referred to elsewhere, was the provision I mentioned—the old crown development provisions—which effectively is a fast-tracking mechanism for government projects. Whether this same definition is cross-referenced in the infrastructure levy-type arrangements that are elsewhere in the bill, that is something that I have not put my mind to.

But let's say it is relevant, then the issue for the Hon. David Ridgway (who I know has some concerns with the recovery of infrastructure costs) and I mentioned an open cheque, well this is an open cheque because this basically says, 'You don't know what the gamut of essential infrastructure is, because, yes, it might be this list of things—causeways, bridges, culverts, health education community facilities, police, justice. These things are all in here but there is this catchall.'

The minister used the word 'flexibility' and that is exactly what it is; it is the government being flexible to come up with new things that would be included within the definition of 'essential infrastructure' that—and I cannot answer this definitively but, perhaps—other people would then have to pay for, and developers might have to pay for.

There may be that link but, like I say, I have not put my mind to the infrastructure levy components of this bill, because they are the subject of all the amendments that we have received and, for exactly the same reasons that you have not had the opportunity to go through this in as much detail as you would like, I have not actually seen how this definition ties into that infrastructure levy arrangement either. So you may be right.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: It may be an unintended consequence.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: It may be an unintended consequence, as the Hon. Rob Lucas points out. As I say, the main evil to overcome, from my point of view for now, is not having an open-ended list that is guaranteed a fast-track process for development assessment without community consultation and without the right for people to have their say.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have a further question for the mover. The minister, in her response, spoke about the planning and design code and the interaction with the planning commissioner and the minister and offered what I thought was a reasonable explanation of how that might work. Again, for the reasons outlined, I have not had a chance to explore that. Are you able to enlighten me?

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I again thank the honourable member, and he is on the ball in coming up with the hardest of questions. At the heart of what the minister said was that she knows that I know that what I said was wrong. I do need to correct that because it goes to the honourable member's question. The minister pointed out that technically the planning and design code goes through a certain process and that ultimately the right of parliamentary disallowance, through the Environment, Resources and Development Committee, is still there.

The point I have made for the last 20 years under the current bill, and I am making under this bill, is that the right of parliamentary scrutiny is illusory. It does not work: it has not worked in the past and it is not going to work in the future. I will agitate that in detail later on. When you have a gatekeeper between the Legislative Council and the decision the minister has made, the gatekeeper being a government-controlled committee, it does not take a rocket scientist to work out that disallowance is not going to happen. It has never happened since 1993. It is not going to happen under this new bill while you keep a government-controlled committee as the gatekeeper.

Minister, yes, technically it falls within the regime of parliamentary scrutiny and potential parliamentary disallowance, but at a practical level it is just not going to happen. The minister is correct in what she is saying, that, 'Yes, the planning and design code will go through consultation; the Citizen's Charter will determine that the public get to have their say,' but at the pointy end, if the government wants to push through an additional item to be added to the list of essential infrastructure in the definition, they can do it and there is nothing we can do to stop them.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am not familiar with the legislative provisions around the planning and design code. Can a motion of the Legislative Council be moved by the Hon. Mr Parnell or any other member and, if passed by the chamber, disallow the planning and design code?

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The most excellent question we have had today because I have a further amendment, which we will get to later on, which achieves exactly the result that the Hon. Rob Lucas referred to. The answer at present is no. Again, I will agitate it in more detail later on, but that is why I am keen to get as many of these important planning documents into the realm of what I call 'direct' parliamentary scrutiny rather than via the gatekeeper of the ERD Committee. In other words, what I am trying to do in later amendments to this bill is, rather than have the gatekeeper, I want direct disallowance.

In other words, I want exactly what the Hon. Rob Lucas just said. I want any member of parliament to be able to stand up and say, 'I move that this planning instrument be disallowed,' and for that to go to a vote of the chamber. That is what we do with other delegated legislation. That is the regime under the Subordinate Legislation Act. We do it for regs, we do it for council by-laws and I think we should do it for these important planning documents as well. It is an excellent question, and the honourable member has gone to the heart of the problem with the current system—that is, a government-controlled committee as gatekeeper.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Can I clarify the comments of the Hon. Mr Parnell because I am not absolutely familiar with some of the terminology. Is he suggesting for his subsequent amendment that he would like to see the ability of individual members of this chamber to be able to disallow development plans as such?

The Hon. M.C. Parnell: Yes.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: He is, thank you. I have a further question for the Hon. Mr Parnell. Often when a member moves an amendment to a government bill, they are thinking of a particular thing or a particular example, a worst-case outcome—something they are particularly concerned about—or, indeed, a best-case outcome, as the case may be. I understand the Hon. Mr Parnell's theoretical argument about unfettered control but, in drafting this amendment and presenting it to us today, is there a specific instance he is particularly concerned about that would assist us in understanding the risk that he is concerned about?

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the honourable member for his question. The answer is that there is no particular thing I have in mind that I am suspicious the government might try and add to this list. To be honest, that was not what I was thinking. I was really thinking—and the honourable member has put his finger on it—that, as legislators, do we look at legislation with a generosity of spirit that says, 'In the hands of a good and benevolent government, no harm would be done by this clause'? I have to say that I tend not to look at the law like that. I tend to look at how, in the hands of a dictator or in the hands of a thug, legislation might be interpreted.

In case people are worried that this is a significant amendment, I have to tell you that it is not. What I am removing is subparagraph (i) which basically prevents the government using the planning and design code to add to the list of essential infrastructure, but—and this is important—what I am not removing is subparagraph (ii) which says 'by the regulations'. If the government comes up with another form of essential infrastructure that they really think needs to be added to the list, then they do it through a regulation and the regulation is therefore directly disallowable by parliament.

I do not know what the government has in mind. It may be that it has nothing sinister in mind, but I am just keen, as a legislator, to remove the ability for what I think are fairly unaccountable decisions to be made, and I want the government to insist on using the normal regulation process if they want to add to this definition of essential infrastructure.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended from 13:02 to 14:15.