Bills

Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 10 December 2015.)

Clause 54.

The CHAIR: Last time we met on this bill we had got up to clause 54, which was being opposed.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Thank you, Chair. You are correct in that we had, I think, probably put most of the arguments in relation to this clause on the record, and I am certainly not going to revisit all of them. However, at the outset what I want to do is acknowledge that we have a new minister leading the debate for the government on this bill and also acknowledge the contribution made by the Hon. Gail Gago.

This was a difficult bill in the last couple of weeks of last year, and she managed to make substantial inroads into it with good humour and kept us more civil than many of us expected would be the case, given the contentious nature of the bill. So I want to put on the record my thanks to the Hon. Gail Gago for how she handled this, and I look forward to working with the new minister on it.

I think one of the reasons we reported progress at clause 54, and my strong recollection, is that the opposition was about to support my amendment, and the government therefore thought that might be good time to bail. We did have a fairly extensive debate on it; removing the clause is effectively removing the prohibition on the use of the Freedom of Information Act to obtain documents.

The point I made was that we already have provisions in the Freedom of Information Act which effectively say that if you can get information somewhere else then the FOI act does not apply. The government is saying that the information will be on the portal, so my position was that while, hopefully, the Freedom of Information Act will have very little work to do, there are circumstances where the government makes a conscious choice not to put information on the portal. In those circumstances I think the community should be able to use the Freedom of Information Act.

As I say, I hope that the use of the Freedom of Information Act is rare; I hope we do not need to use it because I hope that the government will be true to its word and will put all the relevant documentation up on the planning portal. In a nutshell, that is reason I moved to delete this clause.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the member for his contribution. I might just make some general remarks before getting onto some specifics on clause 54. As the honourable member has commented, this was a difficult process as we wound down in December last year to the end of parliamentary sitting, and I indicate that to facilitate the committee's deliberations on this and future clauses the government will continue to treat certain amendments as test votes for wider propositions. I will explain each of those as we go through that process.

In respect of the time frame, members will know that the government is keen to get this legislation passed as soon as possible. That has been the case for some time, and the bill has been supported by various groups within the public domain for some time now. I will not repeat all the reasons outlined in former minister Gago's second reading closing, but I do reiterate that the sooner we get this bill through the sooner we can start on its implementation tasks and its benefits can be delivered to South Australians. Its elements are supported by many different groups.

As foreshadowed last year, the government has been closely engaged with groups over the Christmas break and since we met last year, with particular focus on clauses relating to the proposed infrastructure delivery schemes, and I will detail some of those later on. I am pleased to say that due largely to the willingness of these groups to engage in dialogue, and the willingness of the government to address outstanding matters via negotiation on further proposed amendments to the infrastructure scheme provisions in this bill, we have now reached an outcome satisfactory to both the Property Council of Australia and the Urban Development Institute of Australia, and I would like to put on record the government's thanks to those organisations as well as to the Master Builders Association for their participation and consultations.

By way of housekeeping, and for members' benefit, I might explain that the government's amendments have been filed this morning. This set 4 of the government's amendments is a consolidated set. It comprises, and in some cases revises and adds to, the remaining amendments in sets 1 and 3 of the government amendments that were before the house last year. Minister Gago's amendments from sets 1 and 3 are now obsolete as a result, and therefore the remaining set 1 and 3 amendments will not be moved but will be considered only in set 4.

I should make it clear to members that set 4 does not comprise 97 new amendments, that is new amendments since last December. Indeed, most of set 4 is old, comprising amendments from sets 1 and 3 to clauses in the bill that were not reached by the committee last year. We look forward to discussing these largely existing or revised amendments that after consultation we feel will improve the bill, and addressing matters that have been raised during the consultation.

Also, I note there are a number of government amendments, amendments moved by the opposition and amendments moved by crossbenchers, and I indicate that we wish to facilitate the committee's deliberations. As I said, the government will continue to treat certain amendments as test votes for wider propositions, but again, as I said, I will explain those when we get to them.

In relation to the honourable member's comments on clause 54, the reasons for including this clause are well documented in the second reading summation and in the detailed committee deliberations in the other place. As the honourable member has stated previously during debate on this clause, it merely restates what is already the existing law under the Development Act and under the Freedom of Information Act, whereby the regime of FOIs is effectively displaced from the planning system already.

Clause 54 will clarify for practitioners, councils and system users that information held and published on the portal is not subject to FOI as would already be the case under sections 20B and 20C of the FOI Act. Providing this in express terms is aimed at preventing the above parties from wasting time and resources on unnecessary FOI applications when the material requested—that is, policy documents, legislative instruments and the register of applications and decisions—is already publicly available online through the portal.

The exclusion only applies to materials held on the portal, so would not apply to things like individual plans showing where bank vaults would be situated and other sensitive information. Such information would be protected by the equivalent to the current development regulation 34 for exemption, so as not to jeopardise the current or future security of the building. In short, this is a no change clause in reality.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the minister for his answer. He has gone to the heart of where we disagree. The wording of this clause says that the Freedom of Information Act does not apply to, or in relation to, a document within the meaning of that act that is received, created or held under this division. The division referred to is division 2, online planning services and information. That includes the planning website, the planning database, the portal, if you like. What the government is saying is that the only thing we are precluding from freedom of information are documents that are going to be online anyway.

I think the way this clause 54 is worded—'documents that are received, created or held'—if the government makes a conscious choice not to include a particular document on the portal, I do not think it is caught within that definition. What I want to make sure of is that if a document that should be on the portal is not on the portal there is an avenue of redress.

There is no avenue for redress under the bill; there is no information commissioner under the planning commission that you can go to and say, 'Hang on, the government should have put this information on the portal and they didn't do it.' The only avenue for redress is to use the Freedom of Information Act to potentially go to the Ombudsman and say, 'This document was legitimately something that should have been on the web or on the portal and therefore we want a ruling that we can get it under freedom of information.' The blanket prohibition I think is unnecessary.

I know it may well be that we are in the realms of semantics, and my interpretation might be different from the government's interpretation, but I fall back on the position that if there is no harm in removing this clause, if there is no harm in keeping the Freedom of Information Act potentially as the vehicle to be used in rare cases, then let's keep that door open. I do not think there will be a lot of time wasting where people put in unnecessary applications, because once the portal is up and running everyone will know that that is the place you go to get information. It is only information that should but is not included on that portal that I think will be subject to FOI applications.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I want to clarify our position that we will be supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendment to basically refuse this prohibition on FOI, as mentioned in clause 54. We raised some questions, and my colleague the Hon. Rob Lucas raised a number of questions towards the end of the debate last year, to which direct questions I do not believe we got an answer, but nonetheless I suspect we may go close to having the numbers to defeat this clause in any case. With those few words, I indicate that we will be supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: We are also inclined to support the amendment. I think the Hon. Mr Parnell said that it may come back to semantics. I suspect, frankly, that it does. As we have discussed, the various provisions of the FOI legislation probably already deal with these matters, given that it would not apply to publicly available information, because such information would be on the portal anyway. That said, the Hon. Mr Parnell's reasoning is logical, that is, that if it does no harm it is good to have it as a fall-back or safety position, so we will support the amendment.

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

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I indicate that when we last discussed it, I made an invitation to the government that, if the government could convince us during the intervening period between the end of debate last year and this year as to why the existing confidentiality provisions of the FOI Act were not sufficient, the opposition members were prepared to receive that evidence or submissions from the minister and the government. As the Hon. Mr Ridgway has indicated, in the intervening two months we have received nothing from minister Rau (or his officers who have represented him) to indicate why the existing arrangements were not sufficiently robust to protect the confidentiality of documents, if that was what was required. On that basis, I obviously support the position the Hon. Mr Ridgway has put.

Clause negatived.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Given that the minister has made some general comments, with your concurrence and the concurrence of the committee I plead indulgence. For those members who are following this debate but who are not actually leading the debate for their respective parties and therefore have advisers, it is possible for the members to indicate which of the amendments currently on file are still active?

The Hon. D.G.E. Hood: Hear, hear!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Hon. Mr Hood says 'Hear, hear!' I think a number of us would be interested in hearing. As I understand the government's position, we are now to ignore everything that has been previously filed, that is, [Emp-1], [Emp-2] and [Emp-3], and we should only be working off [Emp-4]?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, that is correct, just set 4 and, as I am advised, set 4 incorporates those things we still want in there, which were largely from sets 1 and 3. I am getting lots of nods.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Thank you. And I guess if I could just direct the question to my leader and then to the Hon. Mr Parnell. The Hon. Mr Ridgway has I think six separate sets of amendments (from 1 through to 6, obviously). I am just wondering whether all six are still operational and whether we as members of the committee need to have them all ready as we go through. Similarly, whilst he thinks about that, the Hon. Mr Parnell has amendments filed 1 and 2, I think, but I have for some strange reason two versions of [Parnell-1].

One was prepared by parliamentary counsel at 9.49am on 3 December and one was prepared by parliamentary counsel at 5.29pm on 2 December, the day before. That appears to be the one I was using during the debate because I have ticks and crosses on it. I am just wondering whether the new set that parliamentary counsel prepared—[Parnell-1] dated 3 December 9.49am—supersedes the one prepared the day before?

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I do not recall exactly how things turned out, but I am working on the one that was prepared at 9.49am on the third. I am hoping that they are exactly the same as the ones from the evening before. They are fairly close in time. I imagine that they are identical.

While I am on my feet, there are 95 amendments in that set [Parnell-1], and I have tabled [Parnell-2] which has 12 amendments. Both of them are live; neither replaces the other. They are interleaved, if you like, so we are dealing with both of those.

Given that we had the minister's commitment last year that we will of necessity have to recommit certain clauses, I expect that as we proceed there will be some revisiting and probably some redrafting of earlier amendments—ones that failed, people might want to have another go at them and we can redraft them. I have not provided any amendments that take us backwards. All the amendments I have take us from clause 54 onwards, but I am just letting people know that I expect we will be revisiting some earlier clauses later.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Can I clarify that the Hon. Mr Parnell is working from the one dated 3 December 9.49am, rather than the one from the previous night. He said that there were 95 amendments, but there are actually 96 amendments on this particular one.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Yes, it is 96, sorry.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My question then is: I assume we are still working off the ones that were previously tabled in relation to the Hon. Mr Hood and the Hon. Mr Darley? Ms Vincent has two sets of amendments, labelled 1 and 2. Are they still going to be considered by the committee?

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: We only have one of mine left to do, which is the one at clause 58; [Vincent-2] 4 is the only one of ours left. The rest have passed.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Could we just have some clarity from the Hon. Mr Ridgway as well. He has six sets of amendments; what is happening with those?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Looking through the amendments, as members would be aware the shadow minister in the other place has been negotiating with some of the industry sectors. I am struggling to find my set No. 3.

The Hon. M.C. Parnell: Set 3 starts at clause 156.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: That is why I am struggling to find it. All the amendments, to my understanding, that were filed in my name have not been grouped together. They are still in sequential order. Obviously, prior to our getting up at the end of last year, the urban growth boundary was supported, the removal of that, and we are working our way through. We did the adaptive re-use ones, and we are still to deal with elected councillors on panels and some others in relation to powers of the commission.

As far as I understand it—and I will clarify if there is any change—we have not grouped them together, whereas the government has come back with a totally new set which encompasses ones that have already been on file and supersedes what they had before. My understanding is that I have not superseded anything. I may have to come back and correct that, but I will give members plenty of time if we have.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: While we are clarifying (and we will deal with it shortly), there is one typographical mistake in my amendments. In my amendment [Parnell-1] 33, the reference should be to clause 60 rather than to clause 56, but that is the only error I have found. If you actually have a look at the page number and the line number, you will see that it makes no sense for it to be clause 56. It is clearly clause 60. I guess people have picked that up, but we will get to that shortly.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I am grateful for the shadow minister's list in his office. With all six sets there has been no amalgamation. They are all sequential for the issues that they deal with.

Clause 55.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Emp–4]—

Page 51, after line 32—Insert:

(3a) The Chief Executive must take reasonable steps to consult with the LGA before setting or varying a contribution to be paid by a council under subsection (2).

This amendment has been inserted after discussions with the Local Government Association. It ensures that the state government will consult with local government in the setting and variation of contributions to be paid by a council towards the cost of establishing or maintaining the SA planning portal, SA planning database, and any online atlas or search facility.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have a question for the minister. It says that they have taken reasonable steps to consult with the LGA. From an opposition point of view, costs and cost shifting are always of interest. Maybe it is too early, but surely the minister or his advisers will have some idea of the actual costs or dollar value that we are talking about. Clause 55(4) states:

If a council fails to comply with a requirement under subsection (2), the contribution payable by the council will be recoverable by the Chief Executive as a debt.

It is obviously seen to be a reasonable amount of money, I assume. I have to say that the opposition is happy to support the government's amendment, but we think there needs to be some clarity. What are the fees and charges likely to be?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. I can assure him that the government is not going to put councils in the position where they are suddenly hit with massive unbudgeted costs in the forthcoming year. This provision enables charges or contributions to be set on a differential basis and, although the practical details of exactly how this will work will be the subject of conversations with local government, I am advised that it is contemplated that this rate may be based on, for example, the number or volume of transactions. There is not an exact number, but the government will work with councils on this.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I am just recalling some of our questions from late last year about the electronic planning system. I cannot remember the exact name of the e-planning. My recollection is that that will require quite a significant investment from government over a period of time to have that up and running. I cannot remember the exact time frame.

We know that all the regs and planning modules will have to be drafted to make them come into effect after we pass this legislation, but my understanding of the sort of e-planning process—for want of a better word and, minister, you may have the technical term to refresh my memory—is that it will have to be a figure put in the forward estimates over a period of time to make sure that, when all the regs are drafted and the bill is operational, you have the electronic infrastructure, the IT infrastructure, to support it.

I guess what I am concerned about is whether the costs we are looking at here, the fees and charges, are in some way going to be recovering costs that the government has incurred by way of imposing this bill and the new e-planning system on the community.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There are basically two components to the costs associated with the e-planning system: the first is the initial establishment, which is basically investment costs and, as such, a state budget issue; the second is the ongoing maintenance system once it is established and functioning.

The system, once it is ongoing, will be of great benefit to councils in terms of compliance and their costs. I do note that there is a minimum three-year implementation phase as we move towards this. The initial establishment investment costs are a state budget issue, but we will work with councils. We do not know yet what the exact costs will be, but we will work with councils on that.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Over what time frame? You said that is an initial budget state government investment, so over what time frame? Surely you must have some idea of whether it is $10 million, $20 million, $100 million? Surely there must be some indicative cost and over how many years? Is it three years or four years?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There are no detailed estimates yet, and to work out how those costs will be shared and apportioned is still work that is to be done, so that has not occurred yet.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Minister, I think you are missing the point. I am talking about how they are going to be shared. It is actually the capital investment, the up-front state government one. I assume there are other systems operating somewhere else in the world or other states, or maybe we are going to invent one of our own. Nonetheless, I am sure Treasurer Koutsantonis and his team of bean counters will want to know, if this passes in the next few sitting days, what the expectation is for funding it over the next period of time—whether it is one year, three years, four years, and what that capital cost is.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have that figure. I can go back and check if work has been done and bring back what potential up-front costs there might be. But no, we do not have that figure if it has, in fact, been completely worked out as yet.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I would appreciate it if the minister could bring back some answers because I think minister Rau would describe this as probably one of the most important pieces of legislation in his parliamentary career, and I know industry sectors say this is the most important bit of legislation for this term.

I am a bit surprised that the minister is saying to me, 'Well, we actually don't know what it's going to cost; we are not sure over what time frame.' I am sure if Treasurer Koutsantonis is happy with that, it is no wonder the state's finances are in the state they are in that we do things but we have no idea what they are going to cost and over what time frame. Surely, the minister must be able to say, 'An estimate is $20 million, $50 million, $100 million, $30 million a year'. I do not know, and that is why I am asking the question. I will be staggered if the minister is not able to bring back an answer that gives us some indicative cost of what this system would cost us.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The government amendment does, to a certain extent, satisfy some of the concerns of the Local Government Association because it requires the chief executive to take reasonable steps to consult with the LGA before setting or varying a contribution that has to be paid by the council. My amendment to this same clause is basically to delete the clause, but I appreciate that we are dealing with the government's amendment first. The reason I thought deleting the clause would make more sense was that my feeling about this planning portal and the website and the planning database was that it was a state government project and that the state government should pay for it, and I know local councils were concerned about cost shifting.

I take a little bit of comfort from what the minister said in the other place when he was asked questions along a similar line to what the Hon. David Ridgway is asking, and the minister in that place basically said that he expected the state government would pay the up-front establishment costs, but I think what he was nervous about was that there will be thousands upon thousands of development applications that will be lodged with local councils that will have to be uploaded in some way onto the portal and he wants councils to share the cost of that ongoing process.

My feeling in relation to why there was no danger in deleting the entire clause is that there is always the fallback of the regulation-making power and the ability to establish fees for any purpose necessary for the administration of the act; there is always that power. In fact, the bill itself acknowledges that power because it states in subclause (5):

Nothing in this section limits or derogates from the power to set or impose a fee or charge by regulation under this Act (and vice versa).

My thinking was: make them use the regulation-making power because if the government does exceed itself and pushes too hard, then at least the parliament can disallow it. So, I figured that deleting the whole of this section would be a start.

Now, I will not die in a ditch over this. If the opposition has already agreed that the consultation mechanism proposed in the government amendment is enough, then clearly that is where the numbers lie, but I thought I would at least get on the record for now that my preference was not to have formalised cost shifting in the act itself, but allow the government to use a regulation-making power and then we could have a look at it then.

As the Hon. David Ridgway says, we do not have the numbers yet, we could see the actual numbers when they come to us as a regulation. So my preferred option, is still to delete clause 55, but I would be interested in whether that course of action has the support of the rest of the council.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In response to the honourable member's speaking effectively to his clause, we will hear his deletion of clause 55. It is the case that almost certainly that an e-planning system will be cheaper for everyone, including councils, and cost less to run. As I said earlier, those establishment costs are a state government issue, and in terms of the ongoing cost, yes, we need and intend to negotiate a fair cost-sharing system model before developing and implementing the system. It is only fair that councils, government agencies and end users who will benefit—and councils will be a significant beneficiary in terms of efficiencies and lower costs once we move to an e-planning system—should contribute to the cost of running it and the service improvements they will gain out of it.

The government amendment does address the LGA's concerns that they might not be consulted with regard to those ongoing contributions to the system, and the government amendment will expressly require the government to consult as it works through the implementation issues closely with the LGA as a representative of the council on the matters.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have said we will be supporting the government's amendment.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: But you are not supporting mine?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: No, well, yours comes after theirs so we are not going to amend it, I suspect, and then delete it. I indicated that we have spoken to the LGA and that they are comfortable that they will have an opportunity to be consulted by the government in relation to these fees and charges. As I said earlier, I would like to have known—actually I would love to know the potential up-front costs of what we are passing in this legislation. I am aware that there will be ongoing costs and somebody has to pay for them and if they relate to a local council, I suspect with development applications, there will be a fee flow back to those who make those applications.

Hopefully, as the minister says, it will be cheaper, and with a cost saving it will be good for business, although not that we have seen anything in the last 14 years—and I will just add that today the Hon. John Gazzola, the Hon. Gail Gago, the Hon. Terry Stephens and myself celebrate 14 years in this chamber.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Fourteen more long years on those benches.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Well, a very arrogant interjection from the Leader of the Government, saying that we will have another 14 years on this side of the chamber. But, nonetheless, we take in good faith the LGA's good faith that the government will consult and we support the government's amendment; and we will not be supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendment to delete the clause.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 56.

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

Amendment No 32 [Parnell–1]—

Page 52, after line 14—Insert:

(ca) rules should aim to achieve consistency while providing for local variations that reflect special or unique character at the local level;

(cb) rules and standards must seek to protect the environment and the pursuit or ecologically sustainable development;

We have now reached the milestone in this bill. We are up to part 5—Statutory instruments. This is the part of the bill which sets out all of the different documents that go to making up, I guess, the library of our planning policy and planning laws, so a lot of the criticism about this legislation has been that people do not have the detail about what planning rules are going to look like. Well, I do not share all of those criticisms because that is a body of work to be done. Some of it will migrate over from the current system but a lot of it will need to be new.

Part 5 deals with statutory instruments. The first division deals with principles, the principles that have to be taken into account when these different planning documents are written. So this is the high-level principles. It is not talking about the detail; it is high level.

The government basically has three high-level principles: avoiding duplication, an emphasis on what they call performance outcomes, and rules and standards that are proportionate and suitable. What I am proposing in my amendment is the addition of two other high-level principles. The first of those principles goes to the fact that Adelaide is not a uniform environment. You have character that exists in some places that is different to other places.

Whilst the development industry has a lot to say about consistency and uniformity, they want exactly the same rules to apply in one part of Adelaide as another. There are very often local variations that need to be taken into account. The first of my additional core principles is to insert a paragraph that provides:

rules should aim to achieve consistency while providing for local variations that reflect special or unique character at the local level;

I think that putting that in as a high-level principle does not directly inform any particular outcome but it does acknowledge that we are not aiming for a uniform city. We are not aiming for exactly the same outcomes in McLaren Vale as the Barossa, in Aldinga or in Gawler. We have to take into account local variations. The second high level principle that I seek to insert provides:

rules and standards must seek to protect the environment and the pursuit of ecologically sustainable development.

Basically, that is to try to redress one of the problems that has been identified in this bill in terms of the objects of the bill where the development and economic objectives are ranked much higher than environmental objectives.

In fact, this really is a continuation of a discussion that we have had already, and we have incorporated some new high level principles in terms of the act itself, but I wanted to reflect on the need to incorporate the environment as a high level objective here. I want to refer quickly to a letter we all got yesterday from the Property Council and UDIA. Whilst that letter primarily relates to infrastructure schemes, which I do not want to talk about now as no doubt we will do that in great detail later on. There was a quote from that letter which stuck in my craw a little bit. It states:

The over-arching objective of this legislation is to make South Australia the most attractive destination for investment of capital and make life easier for residents and businesses wanting to build or develop.

I take a bit of umbrage at that. That is an objective—absolutely, it is an objective to have an efficient planning system to encourage investment—but is it the overarching objective of planning legislation, attracting capital? No, it is not. It is about creating an environment where we live, where our kids grow up and play, where we work, where they go to school. It is about treading a bit more lightly on the environment. There is a whole range of factors. It is not just about attracting capital and about attracting investment.

I understand that that is certainly the angle that the Property Council and the Urban Development Institute take, and that is their right, but I think that at every opportunity we need to remind decision-makers under this legislation that the bill is more than just making money. It is about making communities and it is about protecting the environment. These two new high level principles, I think, go some of the way to redressing some of the balance and to make sure that documents that are prepared will take into account regional variations, and they will take into account the fact that we all depend on a healthy environment to sustain us into the future.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. The government opposes this amendment. It is our view that this is not the location for the issues of ecological sustainability and ecologically sustainable development. The relevant place for that would be the objects of the act and when we canvass these much earlier in relation to this bill. In relation to issues such as local character, the government's view is that the amendment that the Hon. Mark Parnell has moved is better addressed in clause 63(4) of the bill. Things like content and planning and design code are best left to that particular provision. The government will not be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the Greens' amendment. We do believe that we should aim to achieve some consistency while providing for local variations to reflect local character and local heritage. The minister says it might be better in clause 63(4), and we know that we have a big portion of this bill that will be recommitted, but we are happy to support it. We are indicating that we want that included in the bill; if it is more appropriate at 63(4)—and I will let the mover make that decision at some point in the future—we may look at that then. For today's debate we will be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Family First will not be supporting this one.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will not be supporting the Greens' amendment.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: For the record, Dignity for Disability will be supporting this amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Subclause (3), just from an explanation point of view, provides:

If an inconsistency exists between the planning rules and the building rules, the building rules prevail and the planning rules do not apply to the extent of the inconsistency.

It then goes on in subclause (4):

Subsection (3) does not apply—

(a) in relation to a state heritage place or local heritage place; or

(b) in relation to a matter excluded from the operation of that subsection by the regulations; or

(c) in any case, so as to negate the need to obtain planning consent for a change of the use of land under the terms of the relevant provisions of the planning rules (insofar as may be required under the other provisions of this act).

Could the minister have his adviser explain that to me and the Hon. Mark Parnell, as a planning lawyer? I am not even a bush lawyer, and I would be grateful if you could explain it in more simple detail.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that if, in a particular local council in a particular area, there are things that go beyond the requirements of building rules that the planning rules purport to apply to, it will be the building rules that will prevail so that there are no additional costs and regulatory burdens to be borne because of particular planning provisions that go beyond the building rules.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Could you give an example of the type of inconsistency that might exist?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: For example, if a planning rule purports to have a requirement for something like a larger rainwater tank than the building rules require, it will be the building rules that will prevail.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: My question is in respect to subclause (4) of clause 56. Paragraph (a) talks about 'local heritage place', and I just want to be clear about the language being used there. We have local heritage places, we have state heritage places, and we also have so-called heritage conservation zones. In this context does that include a heritage conservation zone or is it specific to an individual place?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Paragraph (a) refers to just the place. If it was more than just the place, it would say so.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I was not going to ask a question, but the minister's answer to the Hon. David Ridgway's question has triggered one for me. He used the rainwater tank example. It strikes me that one of the reasons for not allowing urban development in certain locations is that they are not able to be serviced by water supply or sewerage. In fact, as people know, the original definition of the Hills Face Zone was actually that part of Adelaide which was too difficult for E&WS to service. It was never the scenic backdrop to Adelaide. That is how we regard it now, but originally it could not be serviced and so therefore, 'Don't build there.'

Now we have different technologies at work. I have seen a number of developers who have come along and said, 'I know that this area isn't serviced by mains water, but we are going to put in the biggest rainwater tanks you have ever seen for each house and therefore that will overcome the fact that there is no reticulated mains supply.'

That requirement would, I presume, be included in the planning scheme; that would be under the Planning Act. The building rules do not, I would have thought, speak at all to how big the rainwater tank should be. What you would not want is someone to be able to develop an area on the assumption that they were going to be self-sufficient with water and then find out that that provision is inconsistent with the building rules and gets knocked out and they put a tiny rainwater tank in. Maybe the minister can explain whether I have got that wrong.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that the building rules do cover that type of example given for rainwater tanks. This is about the regulatory burden, making sure that it is not a ridiculous burden that goes over the top of what building rules require. I do not think there is inconsistency between them.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 57.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Emp–4]—

Page 52, line 32—Delete 'Minister' and substitute 'Commission'

Amendment No 3 [Emp–4]—

Page 53, line 6—Delete 'Minister' and substitute 'Commission'

Amendment No 4 [Emp–4]—

Page 53, line 9—Delete 'Minister' and substitute 'Commission'

These amendments have been inserted after discussion with interested parties, including industry groups, during the break over Christmas, as well as in earlier conversations with the LGA and other interested parties.

The government is responding to requests to clarify its intent to empower the state planning commission role in decision-making and shaping planning policy in South Australia. If these amendments are passed, the outcome will be that the commission, rather than the minister, will prepare state planning policies to cover matters relevant to planning or development within the state and any other matters considered appropriate by the commission.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate that the opposition is very happy to support amendments that take the minister out of the equation and give more responsibility and powers to the planning commission. As members would recall, we did have, from an opposition perspective, a discussion three or four years ago about an independent planning commission similar to the Western Australian model. I think that Brian Hayes QC and his expert panel did look closely at that and recommended this independent planning commission.

We are happy to support any amendments that take the minister out of the equation and give more power, and hopefully more independence, to the commission to implement and prepare state planning. The government can set a policy around population growth and some of the other bigger, broader issues, but then the planning commission can actually do the work to make it happen, to implement government policy. We are very happy to support the three amendments to clause 51, those being amendments Nos 2, 3 and 4 of the minister's fourth group of amendments.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My question is to the minister, given these amendments, which the opposition is supporting. If they are passed, what would then be the role, if any, for the minister and staff working for the minister in terms of a state planning policy?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Under clause 70, and also under clause 70(5), there is approval by the minister for the preparation amendment of plans. It is probably even more helpful to consider clause 70(9) for the role of the minister.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: If I could tease this out a little bit, whilst these amendments we are just about to pass say that the commission will prepare any new state planning policy, is the minister saying that under these provisions of clause 70 the power of the commission is restricted to the extent that under subclause (5) the minister has to give approval before the commission can approve a new state planning policy?

My question is that, given that the minister has pointed me to clause 70(5) as to the role of the minister, should we interpret that as meaning that, before the state planning commission can approve a new state planning policy, the minister under 70(5) actually has to approve whatever it is that the commission is going release as a new state planning policy?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The answer is yes—but under (7a) there is a requirement of consultation and also under clause 71 is the requirement for parliamentary scrutiny.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: When you say (7a), I do not have a (7a).

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Sorry, that is the subject of government amendment No. 30 in that consolidated [Emp-4] tranche.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Amendment No. 30.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: If you can help us, we are struggling to keep up with this. There is a new (7a).

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Preceding amendment No. 30, which creates a new (7a), if one goes back to subclause (6), that sets out the requirement for the consultation and (7a) talks about what is required after the consultation occurs, and in addition to that, the further layer is clause 71 which contemplates parliamentary scrutiny.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Those of us who have not followed this closely were being led to believe that, under whatever amendment to clause 57 of the bill we are currently considering, instead of the minister preparing state planning policy, it is now going to be the commission, and this independent commission is going to prepare all these state planning policies. But under clause 70, both as proposed in the bill and also with the further amendment, what this minister appears to be saying is that the commission will be constrained in a number of ways.

Under subclause (5), the minister has to approve it and then he says 'but he has to follow subclause (7) and also subclause (9), which I think the minister is referring to. If you look at that, it seems to be saying that if the minister receives a report under subclause (7) and the minister thinks the matter is significant, the minister may consult with the commission.

That basically says that, if the minister is disagreeing with something the commission is just about to do, he can then consult with the commission and then under (c), (d) and (e), it seems to say that the minister may adopt a designated instrument or the amendment or make alterations to what is outlined in the report and then proceed to adopt the designated instrument.

Is it clear that what the government is proposing is that, whilst the commission is going to approve a new state planning policy, in essence, under clause 70, if the minister disagrees, the minister can, following these subclauses, eventually direct that a change to the state planning policy be approved and the minister's version of the state planning policy is what would eventually be released by the state planning commission as their state planning policy?

It would appear that what the minister is directing us to is that the minister has the power to amend a proposed state planning policy from the commission when one gets down to the bottom line. If you follow subclauses (5), (7), (9), etc., is the bottom line that eventually the minister can direct and amend a state planning policy and it would be the minister's state planning policy that ultimately is released by the independent commission and not the independent commission's position?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that there are some elements of the same responsibility as the minister has now, but there are increased checks and balances that clause 70 envisages and, further, that there is still referral to the ERD Committee in clause 71.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It is a pretty simple question and I still do not believe the minister has responded to it and I think it is important for us to be aware. The minister has directed us to clause 70. It is a simple question. The independent state planning commission has this new whiz-bang state planning policy on—

The Hon. M.C. Parnell: Integrated planning or something.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —integrated planning something, or whatever it is, or use or whatever it happens to be, but there is a new policy. The minister, through clause 70, just disagrees violently with certain provisions of that proposed planning policy from the commission. It appears under clause 70 that the minister can make changes and amendments etc. What I want to know is: if the minister disagrees with the proposed state planning policy, it would appear that the final policy that is released by the commission is the minister's version of it rather than the commission's.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Who prevails basically.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, who wins the battle in the end. That is all I am trying to find out.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As it currently stands, and after all these checks and balances and the consultation and the publication requirements that go along with that, it is the minister who prevails under the Westminster system with the responsibility, but still there are those checks and balances with parliamentary scrutiny in clause 71.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the Hon. Rob Lucas for chasing that rabbit down that burrow because it is an important one. The clause that we are up to is in relation to state planning policy (clause 57) and then you have special types of state planning policies which follow, but these state planning policies are also known as designated instruments and that is the effect of clause 67 where it says:

designated instrument means—

(a) a state planning policy;

And then there is another list of things and then you go through these common provisions in clause 70, which we have been discussing, which is how these state planning policies are prepared and effectively wherever the word 'minister' occurs it has sort of been crossed out and 'the Commission' has been written in. I think the minister is correct that when you get to the bottom of the process, the end of the line, the minister has the final decision to adopt it or to change it and there is that power under clause 70(9)(d) where the minister can make alterations and then proceed to adopt the designated instrument or the minister can split it into different parts and abandon some and proceed with others or the minister can abandon the whole lot.

I think the effect of these amendments the government is putting forward is to give, if you like, the drafting primacy to the commission, but at the end of the day the government has reserved for itself the ability to change anything that the commission comes up with and to, in effect, insert what the minister wanted in the first place and that, unless I am mistaken, is the effect of 70(9)(d).

To a certain extent, the minister can sit back and allow the commission to do whatever the commission wants to do and at the end of the day the minister can ride in on a white horse and impose his or her will over the commission and, in fact, gazette something that was entirely different to what the commission had come up with, and I would just invite the minister to tell me whether I am wrong.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, the minister can make those decisions; however, what the minister does is transparent and open to scrutiny. What was originally envisaged by the commission will be published and it will be there for the world and electors to see any changes should a minister make them.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: In relation to that—and I do not want to harp on the Western Australian model for too long—my recollection of that independent commission was that if the minister changed a decision made by the Western Australian Planning Commission, they had to table their reasons for changing it in parliament. It was not just necessarily making public what the commission had decided and then the minister doing something else. The actual reasons for changing the commission's decision were tabled in parliament.

The minister says it will all be transparent, and I might have missed something in quickly reading clause 70, but the minister may be able to point us to where the minister makes public what he or she has done.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. Clause 71(3) envisages:

(3) A designated instrument referred under this section must be accompanied by a report prepared by the Commission…

That is the section on parliamentary scrutiny that sets out a number of matters, namely:

(a) the reason for the designated instrument; and

(b) information about the consultation that was undertaken in the preparation of the designated instrument; and

(c) any other material considered relevant by the Commission;

In that report, those things can be considered and set out.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: This refers to actions taken by the commission. When the minister has something they want to change, what you have mentioned here is:

(3) A designated instrument referred under this section must be accompanied by a report prepared by the Commission that sets out—

(a) the reason for the designated instrument; and

(b) information about the consultation that was undertaken in the preparation of the designated instrument; and

(c) any other material considered relevant by the Commission; and

(d) any other information or material prescribed by the regulations.

It does not mention what the minister's responsibility is if the minister chooses not to accept a recommendation made by the commission.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think that is to a large extent addressed in the fact that the designated instrument must go to the ERD Committee, and the ERD Committee could, in their inquiry, ask questions as to how it was formulated and anything that the minister did or did not agree to.

Going back to clause 70, what originally came from the commission needs to be published. It will not just be the ERD Committee: it will be the committee as a whole that will see any differences between that and what is finally presented. It is not just transparent to members of parliament, as I think the WA model is that the Leader of the Opposition is talking about. It is transparent to everyone in the community who takes an interest in it, but there is that added layer in the ERD's deliberations where they could well seek further information about that.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: We are talking about the final action of a minister, and I think the Hon. Mark Parnell pointed that out. At the last step, in clause 70(9)(f), the minister can determine that a matter should not proceed, so I assume that that is the final, 'We are not going to do that.'

What I want to know about is if a minister determines that a matter should not proceed—and all the commission's information is published on the website. It might go to the ERD Committee, and I am sure the Hon. Mark Parnell, who is a lifelong member of the ERD Committee would love to have the minister there as a witness. I am sure that it is probably highly unlikely that the intention of the minister here is to say that the minister will be happy to appear as a witness at the ERD Committee.

It is really about that final transparency. If a minister makes a decision, 'Yes, I've made a decision,' and cabinet ratifies it, 'Bad luck, get lost. We're are not going to tell you any reasons why,' or are you going to give the reason? Subclause (9)(f) states that the minister may then determine that the matter should not proceed, so what process is there for the minister to report to the community why they have decided that that matter should not proceed?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I guess the simple answer is that it is like any decision that is made: if a minister makes a decision, they are responsible to the community and to the electors for that decision and for those reasons. They will be judged upon the satisfactory response as to why that decision was made.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: So there is no requirement in the bill for a minister to make a statement to the parliament—as in WA, where I think their reasons are tabled in parliament—for making a decision that a matter should not proceed? There is no formal mechanism envisaged in this bill that, if you like, forces the minister to report to the public, other than whatever they might choose as an individual minister to do so?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As the honourable member points out, there is no formal requirement under the bill to give reasons, so it relies on—like every other decision ministers or other people make—being judged by the community on those actions. But, no, there is not a formal way under the bill for a requirement that for every action, the minister has to give reasons to parliament or elsewhere.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I would like to thank the Hon. Mr Parnell and the Hon. Mr Lucas for stimulating this discussion. It is interesting. Perhaps if I could continue with the Hon. Mr Parnell's analogy, I thank him for ferreting out the details here. If we go back to the amendments the minister is moving here, and it looks like they will be carried, amendments Nos 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 really just change the word 'minister' to 'commission'. It is not changing in any way the powers necessarily that the minister may or may not have.

For instance, clause 57(1) would now read (should this amendment pass, of course), 'The Commission may prepare state planning policies,' rather than what it currently says, that is, 'The Minister may prepare state planning policies.' To some extent, the debate here is getting a little ahead of where we really are because it is dealing more with a different clause. I would like to say that our view on this issue (and we will support the amendment) is that it is ultimately appropriate, looking ahead to the subsequent clauses that the debate has now turned to (clause 70, I think it is) that the minister has the final say.

They will answer to the electorate. They will ultimately cop the heat, if I can put it that way, from the media and whoever else, should the planning decision ultimately not be in line with public expectations. I for one am very wary about giving too much direct power—certainly influence, certainly jurisdiction, certainly significant—input into final decisions. I for one am very cautious about giving too much final say or power, for want of a better word, to unelected bodies.

I think in the case of the commission that would be a risk. I am not saying that it is necessarily going to be the case but it is possible and I think it is entirely appropriate the minister has the final say on these very significant decisions. We are happy to support the amendment. I do not see it makes a lot of difference but we are happy to support the amendment. In our view, it is important that we understand the minister should have the final say.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: We will get to these amendments as we get to them, but the Greens will certainly be supporting the replacement of the word 'minister' with 'commission' in those various locations. To put this into perspective for people, often with a brand-new system with a new system of naming the hierarchy of documents, it can be tricky to work out where things are but these state planning policies, in my mind, are at the same level as what we currently call the Planning Strategy. It is a high level, effectively government, document. I am seeing some nods so I think that is right.

Most people have never heard of the Planning Strategy but they have heard of the 30-year plan because there was so much media around the 30-Year Plan, so what we are effectively talking about with these state planning policies is documents that sit at that level, that they have historically been a statement of the government of the day's intention in relation to planning—big picture planning, where should the housing areas be, which areas should we protect for farming, how many people should we encourage to go north or south, how much infill should we have? It is that high level government policy, which is why it is quite interesting now that the minister said early on in this debate that he was going to back away from having as much control and the commission would be leading the charge.

These amendments lend some support to that. The commission will be in the driving seat in terms of drawing up documents like a 30-Year Plan for Adelaide but the point that has been made—the Hon. Dennis Hood just made it—is that at the end of the day the buck stops with the minister and the minister is going to decide whether any of this stuff gets through or not and, if the minister is struggling with the planning commission that is not coming up with the right sorts of documents, then I think it is, 'Bye-bye planning commission,' and we should appoint some new people who will make the sorts of decisions and write the sorts of documents that the government wants to see.

I guess it is really stating the obvious that at the end of the day the minister will make the final decision, and a lot of what we are doing here now is we are incorporating the checks and balances. We will get up very soon to clause 71 which is on parliamentary scrutiny. We will have to consider whether the parliament is a rubber stamp, or is it going to be genuine scrutiny? That is really where this debate is going.

In terms of moving on and in terms of the present clause, yes, giving the commission a greater role makes sense, but I just think people should realise that these are high level documents. The lower level ones will need to be consistent with it. The way it currently works is the top level is the Planning Strategy and, below that, are individual development plans. It says in the current act they have to be consistent with the top level document. It is pretty much the same philosophy here. You are going to have lower level documents which have to be consistent with the overall vision, and this is the overall vision clause that we are considering now.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 58.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Page 53, line 15—Delete 'Minister' and substitute: Commission

This amendment has been newly inserted by the government in response to requests to clarify its intent to empower the state planning commission in decision-making and shaping the state policy. The amendment, if passed, will place responsibility for the development of a state-designed quality policy with the commission rather than the minister in the first instance and to specify design policies and principles to be applied in other planning instruments including the Planning and Design Code.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I move:

Amendment No. 4 [Vincent–2]—

Page 53, after line 17—Insert:

(2) The design quality policy must include specific policies and principles with respect to the universal design of buildings and places to promote best practice in access and inclusion planning.

Given that Dignity for Disability's previous three amendments, also to do with universal design, have already successfully passed through this committee—and we certainly thank honourable members for that—we are more or less inclined to see this amendment as consequential.

Again, this amendment is purely about giving increased consideration to the importance of universal design in allowing increased access to buildings and public places for people with disabilities, but not only people with disabilities but also people with any condition or experience that may mean they need easy access to buildings including, once again, elderly people and people with prams and so on. This is really about wanting increased consideration of the benefits of inclusive design, and the fact that we should see this as a matter of quality when designing buildings that will last and meet our needs far into the future.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the Hon. Kelly Vincent's amendment.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The Greens will also be supporting the amendment. I think it is consequential and I think the honourable member has done well to get this set of amendments up.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The government supports the amendment, which will encourage best practice.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 59.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No. 6 (Emp-4)—

Page 53, line 19—Delete 'Minister' and substitute: Commission

This amendment is also inserted in response to a request to clarify the intent and power of the State Planning Commission, which will place responsibility for the development of a state-integrated planning policy with the commission rather than the minister to specify policies and principles to be applied with respect to integrated land use, transport and infrastructure planning.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: As you are aware, Chair, the opposition is happy to support this amendment. I have indicated that we will be supporting all the government's amendments where they are removing the word 'minister' and inserting the word 'commission'.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

New clause 59A.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Ridgway–2]—

New clause, page 53, after line 21—Insert:

59A—Adaptive re-use

The Minister must ensure that there is a specific state planning policy (to be called the adaptive re-use policy) that specifies policies and principles that are to be applied to encourage and support the adaptive re-use of buildings and places.

The reason I am moving this amendment is that dozens of buildings in the city—and you could probably find 100 or so—and other parts of the state, although especially in Adelaide in the CBD, are lying idle and not being activated because of constraints around heritage or access or some other inhibiting or limiting issues when it comes to reactivating those buildings. The opposition believes if we have a policy called an adaptive re-use policy that, again, specifies policies and principles that are to be applied to encourage and support the adaptive reuse of buildings and places, we might see some activation of those older buildings.

Certainly, the government has gone down this path of a vibrant city, trying to activate the laneways and some of the little bars and things, which I think has met with some success, but there are still parts of the city that just lie idle because of the problems around reactivating those buildings. I would urge members to support the opposition's intention to at least try to activate those buildings with this new amendment.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: This is the first of several amendments proposed by the opposition that will strengthen the legislation for building to deal with adaptive re-use issues. On behalf of the government, I indicate that we will be supporting these changes and thank the opposition for raising them. I also make the point, as the minister did in the other place, that a significant impediment to adaptive re-use lies in the jurisdiction of some of the national building code laws, but they are federal issues and not for us to consider here. Certainly, the government has raised these issues at COAG and standing ministerial councils. I thank the member for the amendments here and indicate that we will be supporting them.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I do not normally speak when the government and the opposition agree on an amendment—or disagree, for that matter—but I would like to place on record that we do support this amendment. I think it is a good initiative, a very good initiative, and could be quite exciting. Who knows what could become of it. We support it strongly.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I also add my congratulations to the government for supporting this sensible amendment. We know that sometimes the bulldozer is the best treatment, but very often adaptively re-using existing built form is good at a social level; it is certainly good environmentally, with the embedded carbon, for example, that is often in large structures, where it can be incredibly wasteful to simply bulldoze and build something else. If we can re-use the built fabric that we have—add to it, extend it if we need to, but not waste it—then that sits very comfortably with the Greens' philosophy.

New clause inserted.

New clause 59B.

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

Amendment No 1 [Parnell–2]—

Page 53, after line 21—Insert:

59B—Climate change policy

The Minister must ensure that there is a specific state planning policy (to be called the climate change policy) that specifies policies and principles that are to be applied with respect to minimising adverse effects of decisions made under the Act on the climate and promoting development that is resilient to climate change.

Just to make it clear for members, what we are doing in the amendment that has just passed and the amendment that I am putting forward now is identifying some particularly important issues that we think the planning commission needs to have front and centre in a state planning policy.

We have the design quality policy, which the Hon. Kelly Vincent amended. That is a good policy, but there is also a thing called an integrated planning policy, which I will come to in a second. Then we have the policy that I am seeking to incorporate through my amendment, which is a climate change policy. I know that we are fortunate to have the Minister for Climate Change in our chamber, and I know he is keen to see that his portfolio is incorporated into government policy documents at the very highest level. Well, this is a high level.

This amendment proposes that the climate change policy will specify policies and principles that are to be applied with respect to minimising the adverse effects of decisions made under this act on the climate and promoting development that is resilient to climate change. It is pretty much ho-hum business as usual in terms of government climate change policies. We need measures to try to prevent climate change becoming worse, but we need to recognise that it is happening and we need to deal with it. This, I think, is a core part of government business.

In anticipation, if there was any objection, the government may have said, 'Hang on, we don't need this, because we actually have an integrated planning policy.' But if you go back to the debate in the other place and look at what the minister said in relation to the integrated planning policy, he did as I expected most of us would have thought and referred to an existing government policy called the Integrated Transport and Land Use Policy. That document came out in 2013.

If you look at that document and do a bit of a global word search for things like 'climate change' or 'greenhouse gases', or whatever, there is almost nothing in it. In fact, the document is 150 pages long and it has one vague reference to climate change on page 86, which basically refers to the land use planning system needing to be more resilient to climate change, which I think means you do not build roads on the beach (I think that is what that means). That whole policy does ignore the elephant in the room, which is that decisions made in the planning system can have an impact on climate change. The classic example would be that, if you allow urban development in areas where there are no services and where everybody has to have two or three cars and has to drive absolutely everywhere, that has a climate change impact.

My amendment seeks to add to the portfolio of state planning policies a particular policy dealing with climate change. I do it deliberately, knowing that the existing suite of policies is not adequate. The government has made a lot over the last several years about the importance of climate change; this is a really good test of how serious is the government because incorporating it at this high level as a state planning policy would give a great indication to the people of South Australia that the government is serious about climate change.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I indicate that the government supports the amendment proposed by the honourable member.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate that the opposition thinks that maybe this is almost a duplication, and is inclined not to support it. We have a whole range of acceptance around energy ratings, building codes and building design to deal with the variables we have in climate, the expectations now of rainwater and rainwater tanks and a whole range of new things people do in their own environments to mitigate against a range of impacts that we see as extreme weather conditions we have potentially. Maybe it is something that has come from climate change.

The opposition sees that this probably is not the right place to put this in, but at the end of the day if the government supports the Greens and the Greens get enough support we will not make a song and dance about it, but we think it is probably catered for already in a lot of the things we do in relation to state planning, but we are not inclined to support it today.

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

New clause inserted.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.