Bills

Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill

Recommittal

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I would like to thank all members for their contribution during the committee stage of the bill in the last sitting week. Honourable members have debated at length and have worked hard to make amendments which members generally believe improve the framework, the structures and the processes of the proposed new planning system. Some of the amendments have done this; however, in the government's view, others, such as those dealing with significant trees, early commencement and the assessment framework, for example, have consequences that not only wind back the clock on the planning process but in some cases make them unworkable.

We must reconsider these measures to ensure that we deliver an effective, efficient, enabling planning system for the South Australian community and business and industry needs. Accordingly, the government will now seek to recommit this bill, and there will be debate on a number of clauses.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I am not quite sure where to start. I will perhaps reiterate some words that I used the last time we sat. In closing I said:

If there are new amendments—not just recommitting existing amendments where we supported the Hon. Mark Parnell but now we might change our mind, or the other way round and we did not support him and we might change our mind—if it is not new material, then that is one set of circumstances; however, if there is new material or new amendments proposed we need to be given a reasonable amount of time to consult with industry on them.

I then went on to say:

I am fearful of what we saw last year when the minister did not have any consultation, and we have gone now for 11 or 12 days, about five weeks, of sitting, I think, because the minister failed to go through the normal process of going out to industry and consulting with a draft bill. I just want to put on the record that we will be very happy to progress the recommittal in an orderly fashion, but we ask the minister and the government, if there are new amendments or changes to the amendments we have seen, that we are provided with them in an early enough time frame, with the expectation that we will be given a reasonable amount of time to consult with industry.

Members would also know that the Liberal Party room has a party process that we go through when we are dealing with these types of matters. Minister Rau provided an email copy to the Leader of the Opposition and I think the shadow minister for planning late on 17 March—it is in a tabular format—and they would likely be some of the amendments that we are likely to see. We got an email today from one of the minister's hardworking advisers, Mr Chris Kwong. I know he is sitting over there listening at the moment. He wrote:

Dear Members

Attached to this email are all four sets of amendments filed by the government (my apologies to some who I may have earlier quoted three).

Set 5 deals with various amendments largely set out in the Minister's earlier letter dated 17 March 2016.

I am a little alarmed at that word 'largely'. We do recall that last sitting week it took me a day and a half to get the correct answer out of the minister on infrastructure levies. I am sure they thought they 'largely' had the answer right but, as it turned out, in the end I was certain that what he was telling me was incorrect, and eventually, after they had spoken to industry, he came back and confirmed it was incorrect.

We have then seen today (I have them here) now some 23 pages of amendments that have been filed.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: At 3 o'clock.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Yes. Some of them were filed at 2.33pm, some at 2.24pm, so after we had started sitting. I think the other ones were at 2.21pm, and there was another set at 1.59pm, so basically from the time the House of Assembly sat to about half past two.

I think I made it pretty clear when we last sat that we were happy to progress this. I expect we can probably progress it this week, but it is a bit rich, having already put on the record that we would like some time to consider these things. I know the Hon. Mark Parnell agreed, at the time the Hon. John Darley agreed and, while it is not on the record, I think the Hon. Dennis Hood was of the same view.

We are happy to progress things, we are happy not to be obstructionist, but at the end of the day we have these four sets of amendments. We have only received them since we started sitting. I have my staff, which the government knows is two—and I am lucky in the opposition because I have two; most only have one. I have two up there, although one does not have a particular passion for the planning area.

It just seems to me to be a very arrogant abuse of the parliamentary process. We do our best, we like not to be seen to be obstructionist. We put on the record a fortnight ago that this was what we expected. I did that because I knew that this was what we would get. I had a robust discussion with the Minister for Planning about this. In particular, the area that interested me was their amendments that were, I think, the Hon. John Darley's initiation around the environment and food protection areas and not so much the boundary.

I think everybody understands that there are different points of view, but on the disallowance process we all know here in this place that when you disallow regulation you can give notice and it effectively stops the clock. I have not had a chance to look at the amendments, but my understanding is that we will have a different process of disallowance for this. It will not stop the clock to be a set number of days that parliament has to deal with it and then it extinguishes it; it either lapses or it is disallowed. I actually have not had a chance to look at that.

I know there is a view, 'Let's put all of the urban growth boundary and the environment protection area amendments to one side and deal with the rest.' As I think the Hon. Mark Parnell says, we will end up having recommittal No. 2. We will have to recommit again because we are going to be doing things on the run.

I think other members have some things to say, but I flag now that it would be my intention to give the government some undertaking that we are going to sit tomorrow morning and I think tomorrow night and probably on Thursday morning. I think we all hope that we will be finished by the end of question time on Thursday because it is Easter, and tradition has been that we do not sit during the week leading up to Easter.

We can give a commitment that we will try to finish the bill, but I think it will almost be impossible to do it this afternoon, simply because it is no different from what we did before Christmas—a fistful of amendments as we are sitting. We really have not had a chance to digest them, so I flag that I may well move to report progress, but I will let other members have a say before I do so.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I would like at the outset to say that the process that we went through in the first committee stage of this bill was certainly time consuming, but I think it was well conducted, a new minister having to come to grips with the bill for the first time. I think we did as well as could be expected under a very flawed Westminster system that does not allow for 'genuine' committee debate on bills. I use the word 'genuine' committee. I still think we need a scrutiny of bills process where we can get the various protagonists in the room and we can quiz them; we can ask them questions, get the Local Government Association in the witness box, as it were. That is a debate for another day, but I think that is a better way to do legislation, and I will agitate that in the future.

In terms of what the Hon. David Ridgway has just said, I accept what he is saying and I have been in exactly the same position when I have been given amendments at 2 o'clock and expected to debate them at 3 o'clock. It really is insufficient time to deal with them properly. Having said that, there are a couple of issues that are probably well agitated that we might be able to deal with.

I know from earlier discussions with the Clerk that there is perhaps an intention to deviate from the normal course of practice and to skip vast chunks of the bill and pick some bits off that we think we can deal with today. I am open to trying that, but I am also very open to what the Hon. David Ridgway said: if it is starting to look as if we are being asked to make decisions on things that people have not properly considered, then reporting progress is the way to go. I agree with the Hon. David Ridgway. I do not have any great desire for this to go longer than it needs to. We have agitated most of these issues, so this is a finetuning exercise. Having said that, it behoves us to get it right.

In terms of the issues and to give an overview of the issues, as to the urban growth boundary, certainly we had the position that the committee last reached which was that there is no urban growth boundary. The Hon. John Darley put forward an alternative proposition and now we have a government variation on that theme. I guess that is how I understand it, but I have not been through it in any great detail. I do not fully understand the repercussions of the minister's latest version of the urban growth boundary, so that is one we are going to have to postpone.

It has been mentioned that some of the significant amendments that I secured might not be long for this world. I am disappointed but I will accept the will of the house, and I see that they are included in the government's set No. 5. As to the issue of development assessment panels and who should serve on them, my expectation is that there appears to be a majority of members agreeing that a maximum of one member on the panels is probably where we are going to land.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: Up to one.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Up to one—zero or one. But there is also then the issue of members of parliament, even though it was never really agitated because I do not think any members of parliament were particularly itching to be on these development assessment panels, but I see there are amendments before us now which make it clear that MPs are not to be on panels.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: That's to keep you off.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The Hon. Rob Lucas seems to be insinuating that I have some alternative career aspirations to be a development assessment panel member rather than be in my current important role as a legislator, and I can assure him and other members that I am happy doing what I am doing for the time being.

We may be able to resolve panels today, if we have agreement on that. In terms of development pathways, which was another heading, I have certainly discussed this with the minister and the minister's advisers, and I have accepted some changes that they have proposed which I think satisfy some of the concerns I had. I think there were some drafting ambiguities; I think that is now clarified. We may or may not be able to deal with that.

Certainly, as to the Adelaide Parklands protections measures that are towards the end of the bill, I am keen to hang on to those protections. I have in discussion with the government accepted that there is one potential anomaly in what we have put through and that is that the Adelaide High School sits on the Parklands. It is not my intention to make any expansion to the tuckshop or the science lab a tortuous exercise to get that approval done, so I am happy to add the Adelaide High School to the list of places that are not covered by the protections that I have built in.

However, the issue of a new city high school is an entirely different matter; if any part of that is to be outside of the existing institutional zone and is intended for the Parklands, then I have some serious problems with that. My feeling is that the Parklands measures are probably not something we are going to deal with today.

There is more, but I thought I would just put that on the record at the outset. If we have issues that have been fully agitated and no member can say they are taken by surprise with the details, then I think we can deal with them now, but anything that does not fall into that category we will have to do tomorrow morning. That might mean we get 15 minutes into this bill or we might get an hour into it. We will see how we go but, from a Greens' perspective, we will be supporting the reporting of progress if it looks as if we are starting to get into turf where people have not had sufficient opportunity to look at the detail.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I rise to present Family First's position on whether or not we debate the amendments to the bill. I would like to largely endorse the comments of the Hon. Mr Ridgway and the Hon. Mark Parnell. We see it very similarly. I think the Hon. Mr Parnell is quite sensible in his suggestion that we should seek to debate what we can where members are comfortable to do so and then, if there are moments where even an individual member is not up to speed with a particular issue, then I think Family First would be happy to report progress at that time.

I say this with respect for the minister, because I think, frankly, this minister has done a good job in this debate. It has been a difficult and long debate, the longest since I have been in this place, which is some 10 years now. Can I say that it is a bit rich for the government to put amendments and file them at 2.33pm, I think, which was the last one this afternoon, whilst we were in question time. I left the chamber to try to read them through. Mostly it is finetuning, but not all of it is finetuning and this is very significant legislation.

I suspect that we will end up reporting progress soon. I notice that the minister circulated a note requiring sitting from 11 tomorrow morning and Thursday morning and, sir, I would say we support that. That seems to be a very sensible way forward. That is our position: we are happy to debate what we can this afternoon. I suspect we will support reporting progress after not too long and come back and do it properly tomorrow.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: A quick matter—I am looking at the amendments before us and it may be that the answer is self-evident and I have just missed it. We now have references to page numbers and line numbers and clause numbers. I just want to check what they refer to. They cannot be references to the original bill as tabled because that bill has added material and there are now different page numbers, so I am trying to work it out. I do have a departmental courtesy copy of a 'track changes' version of the bill, colour-coded with the different amendments, and I am trying to work out, as we work through these amendments, what version we are looking at.

The CHAIR: I am advised, the Hon. Mr Parnell, they are to the original bill.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The original bill? All of them? Okay.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Apparently that is the process parliamentary counsel use, notwithstanding that we are debating the bill that—

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: That is fine.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank honourable members for their contribution. In relation to the question just raised by the Hon. Mark Parnell, I am advised by a nod of heads that the line numbers and references in amendments are to the original bill and that is the process that is used, notwithstanding that what we are debating now is the bill as it was chopped and changed and, in some cases, butchered as we went through the process of this house, as it currently stood.

I thank honourable members for their contributions. I take their points and we will obviously submit to the will of this chamber. I think it is sensible that we progress those areas that we can today. A number of things we are doing seek to restore the bill that was passed to the original bill that was introduced, and members will be familiar with the issues that were agitated at the time and the merits of the various arguments in relation to those.

Obviously, if there are individuals and parties who feel they need more time, I am sure that the house will decide to report progress or not deal with those matters and deal with other matters. As members pointed out, we have Wednesday and Thursday morning to sit—and, I suspect, Wednesday night—to go through these things to give everybody enough time, if we are not dealing with them today, to deal with them on Wednesday and Thursday.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Just quickly before I test things perhaps, of the four sets of amendments we have received from the government today, I think one is in relation to the infrastructure levy and some clarification of questions I asked. I think set 7 is to do with the infrastructure levy. I know that that is further into the bill, but this is one of the ones we received at 2.24pm. I think it was done in consultation with the UDIA—certainly there was some discussion with the UDIA—but I do not know whether other industry groups have seen it. Some supported infrastructure levies and some did not.

It is all very well to say that we could start and chop and change, but I think that will be a dog's breakfast. I think we would be far better off to start at 11am tomorrow, having had 24 hours to look at these, and even that is a particularly short period of time. If we start at 11am tomorrow we have some prospect of working for a couple of hours on it and then if we sat until 10 or 11 o'clock as on the last Wednesday that gives us three or four hours.

I do not expect that there is a huge amount of private members' business for Wednesday afternoon, and of course we have Thursday morning. I do not think anybody wants to be here after question time on Thursday, but we do have some time, I suspect, on Thursday afternoon if we have to. With those words, it is the opposition's intention that we will not frustrate the debate this week, but we do wish to move to report progress now so that we have time to consider the matter.

I make the point also that the Hon. Dennis Hood is the spokesman for Family First and then there is the Hon. Mark Parnell. We have a different arrangement: Steven Griffiths, who has done a great job, is up in my office. I actually do not have my bill folders with me because we are trying to make sure that what we have been given in letters and assurances by the government actually matches the amendments. I have no idea whether they do or do not at any stage.

I do not want to continue to labour the point, but last sitting week we had some issues with the answers the minister was giving, so I need to know what I am talking about before I can come here and question the minister to get some answers. Accordingly, I move to report progress.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.