Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill

Recommittal

In committee.

(Continued from 22 March 2016.)

Clause 1.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: While we get ready to get underway, as a matter of housekeeping can we check the amendments so that we are all on the same page and we know what we have? I have government amendment sets Nos 5, 6, 7 and 8. I have an opposition set (No. 9) and I have a Darley set (No. 2), which I think has been supplanted by the government amendment. I just want to check that there are no other amendments that I might have missed. So, four sets from the government, one set from the opposition and the Hon. John Darley is not moving his set.

The CHAIR: We do not have Darley amendments.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I have just clarified that it was a foreshadowed amendment that was not being moved. There is no Darley amendment. There are four government sets and one opposition set; if I could just get the minister's clarification that that is what we are working on.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is right. Four government and one opposition is right; no Darley.

Clause passed.

Clause 2 passed.

Clause 3.

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

Amendment No 1 [Ridgway–9]—

Page 16, line 35—Delete the definition of Greater Adelaide

This amendment, which was part of our original package, is to remove the growth boundary, the environment and food protection area. Given that the government has a whole range of amendments to reinstate that, I certainly do not expect to delay things for very long and I expect that my amendment will not be supported. However, I reaffirm that the opposition does not support an urban growth boundary. There is a whole range of reasons why we do not, and I will elaborate on those when we come to the government amendments.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: For the record, I indicate Family First's opposition to an urban growth boundary as well and, therefore, support for the Hon. Mr Ridgway's amendment.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: If we are talking at 'big principle' level, the Greens supported the original urban growth boundary proposal and we look forward to hearing about the modified version that comes before us but, because we are sympathetic to urban growth boundaries, including statutory urban growth boundaries, we will not be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate that I will not be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Just to reiterate, given that Dignity for Disability did support the original concept for an urban growth boundary, we are inclined to support this amendment.

The CHAIR: You are supporting the amendment?

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Yes, sir.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will take time because I know there is a series of amendments on this issue and this is one of the big issues that we dealt with when the bill originally came before us, so I will speak reasonably broadly. There are strong environmental, economic and public integrity reasons to support the introduction of the environment and food production areas (EFPAs). The strong environmental reasons include the fact that the Greater Adelaide region contains some of the world's best food and wine production areas.

We need to protect these farmlands, environmental areas and character landscapes from the encroachment of urban sprawl. Once developed for residential development, those lands are lost forever. The consequences are being played out now in New South Wales and Victoria. The Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology Sydney estimates that by 2031, Sydney, which lacks an EFPA, stands to lose approximately 60 per cent of its total food production capacity. Similarly, Deakin University predicts that in Melbourne, also without an EFPA, local production of the city's fresh produce, currently at 41 per cent, will fall to 18 per cent by 2050.

The strong environmental reasons for the introduction of the environment and food production areas are about recognising the significant job opportunities and industry diversification in terms of food production and tourism that flow from our Greater Adelaide regions. If we reduce or downgrade our food bowl, we will lose the significant local job opportunities and benefits that flow to our economy from labour-intensive agriculture and food processing. The agribusiness sector is one of South Australia's largest industries. South Australia is one of the world's most competitive areas for agriculture, with one of the world's most sustainable growing environments, a Mediterranean climate and low start-up costs of business.

According to the National Farmers' Federation, each Australian farmer produces enough food to feed 600 people—150 at home and 450 overseas. There are about 134,000 farm businesses in Australia, 99 per cent of which are family owned and which produce about 93 per cent of the domestic food supply. I am also advised that, currently, on rough estimates, in the north we have approximately 1,700 jobs across 3,600 hectares which is a bit over half a job per hectare.

The security that comes from the EFPA with the possibility of a northern irrigation scheme is expected to increase this, in rough terms, to an estimated 5,000 jobs or approximately 1.4 jobs per hectare in the area. When these factors are considered in the context of Sydney and Melbourne's likely food bowl concerns, the growing international demand for quality foods and the tourism opportunities that our pristine regions attract, it makes strong economic sense to support these local industries by ensuring those industries can continue to grow.

Thirdly, from a public integrity perspective, we need the EFPA to enshrine good governance and transparent decision-making. The EFPA in this bill will bring significantly more rigour and transparency to current arrangements under which boundaries set by policy may be established or amended by a minister through a stroke of a pen without any real external review or scrutiny. Transparency, consultation and public debate about such important decisions are necessary and responsible.

The EFPA will encourage building of new homes in our inner and middle ring suburbs, which market research shows is, in fact, where more and more people want to live. Such infill development, compared with greenfield developments, generates more jobs, costs less to service and provides more affordable living options.

Our ageing population and shifts in the way we work and live brought about by technology are reflected in a move towards apartments, semi-detached homes, townhouses, units and retirement villages in middle and inner ring locations. Development at the fringes is costly to all South Australians in terms of the costs attached to servicing such development with roads, infrastructure, public transport and other essential services. These are the hidden costs paid by current and future taxpayers.

I remind members that the EFPA will provide a 15-year supply of land for urban growth within Greater Adelaide. The government is committed to ensuring that as part of the review of the EFPA, which is at least on a five-yearly basis, the commission will ensure that future land supplies are evenly spread across Greater Adelaide, as is practically possible. In undertaking this review, the commission will consider the following matters:

identify available residentially zoned allotments, as well as broadacre land owned by Renewal SA that is suitable for subdivision;

assess private landholdings that can be subdivided based on the expertise of land subdivided from broadacre holdings in the preceding two years; and

the potential for subdivisible allotments, some of which could be acquired by Renewal SA.

I would like to thank in particular the Hon. John Darley for working with the government on amendments to the EFPA to introduce a more prominent role for the commission in proposing to vary or amend an EFPA and ensure timely sharing with the parliament of the commission report as to its reasons for proposing variations or amendments to the EFPA. The EFPA is a vitally important part of good, long-term planning policy and a very important public integrity measure. I commend this plan to members and look forward to the support of the EFPA in this bill.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I may have missed part of that as I was on the phone, but in the definition of the 15-year land supply does that mean that with an application for rezoning, say in the north, the commission would look at the total available land supply for greater metropolitan Adelaide, or would they look more particularly locationally in the general location of their application?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The words I used (and I think this answers your question; if not, I am happy to give further information) were that the government is committed to ensuring that, as part of the review of the EFPA, which is at least on a five-yearly basis, the commission ensures that future land supplies are evenly spread across the Greater Adelaide region as practically as possible.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I am not too concerned about the five-yearly review, but an owner of land in the food production area could make application to the commission within the five-year period, and the question I am asking is: would the commission look at the availability of land in that general location?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that, as you have suggested, they would do both: they would look at the local needs in the area and the supply across Greater Adelaide.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have moved an amendment that is about our position and about not having an urban growth boundary. There is a suite of amendments to come from the government around reinstating the environment and food protection area. If we want to go down the path of having two hours of questions on my amendment, fine, but it is not really relevant, so I think we should vote on mine, move on from that and then actually deal with the amendments and the questions, as I have a large number of questions for the minister.

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: But I mean for other members. The Hon. John Darley is asking questions about something that has nothing to do with this amendment because—

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I think we will be asking them again shortly. I suggest we should deal with this amendment and move on.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 8

Noes 9

Majority 1

Amendment thus negatived.

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

Amendment No 1 [Emp-5]—

Page 20, lines 7 and 8—Delete 'is within the ambit of subsection (1b)' and substitute:

is excluded by regulation from the ambit of this definition

Amendment No 2 [Emp-5]—

Page 20, after line 10—Delete inserted subclauses (1a) and (1b)

These two amendments seek to overturn amendments moved by the Hon. Mark Parnell and passed during the committee stages in relation to regulated trees. The amendments seek to reinstate the current provisions as they relate to the removal of trees in urban areas. These provisions were key parts of changes introduced in 2011 by the Hon. Dennis Hood in response to many concerns raised with members of parliament that the tree controls were not working as intended.

Specifically, amendment No. 1 moved in my name allows the regulations to list those circumstances where tree removal is excluded from the definition of development at present, allowing for trees to be removed without the requirement that a development application be granted where regulated trees are within 10 metres of dwelling or an in-ground pool, except for a eucalypt, willow or myrtle, or if a tree is one of 22 species known to be both common and problematic in urban locations.

Amendment No. 2 I move in my name reverses the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendment that would prevent the regulation from excluding either specific trees or specific circumstances from the operation of tree controls. Government amendment No. 2 also removes the inserted (1b) as listing matters which constitute maintenance pruning, as it is best left to regulators.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the government's amendments. These were amendments we dealt with before Christmas last year, when we were given a great wad of amendments the day before we started debating the bill. It was one those we were uncertain of at the time. We supported it, but it was probably one of the first clauses where we realised at the time that we would have to start to recommit the bill, and that is where we are here today. We will be supporting the government's amendments.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The Greens are opposing the government amendments, but we realise where the numbers lie, so we will not be dividing on this. I am certainly not going to reagitate all the arguments in favour of reforming the significant and protected tree regime. I would make the point that this issue will not go away anytime soon. Ever since the significant tree rules first came in, there has been controversy around them—have they gone too far, do they not go far enough?

I have to say that ultimately, in the battle in the burbs between big trees and the built environment, the built environment is winning, and it is winning hands down. Large trees are being knocked down at an incredible rate, and the rate of replacement, by virtue of the laws of nature, is slow. I am disappointed that the original Greens' amendments will not be supported.

I accept what the minister is saying, that many of the additional protections I seek can be done by regulation. My point is that they have not been done by regulation. The bill is before us and it was an opportunity to reagitate these issues. I am disappointed that my amendments will be struck from the bill today but, as I have said, in the interests of progressing the debate I will not be dividing on it.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I indicate that Family First will be supporting the minister's amendment. It has been our position all along that the existing law with respect to significant trees is about right. I think the Hon. Mr Parnell is quite right, that there is always argy-bargy about these issues, and people have very strongly held views on both sides. Our view is that the law is about right and the minister's amendments seek to take it back to the current situation, so we support them.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate that I will be supporting the government's amendments.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 4 passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I propose to move government amendments Nos 1 to 5, clause 5, as a block, unless anyone has objections to that. I move:

Amendment No 1 [Emp–6]—

Page 22, lines 8 and 9—Insert:

(b) define 1 of the planning regions as constituting Greater Adelaide for the purposes of this Act.

Amendment No 2 [Emp–6]—

Page 22, after line 9—Insert:

(1a) The first proclamation that constitutes Greater Adelaide for the purposes of this Act must be consistent with Greater Adelaide as defined by the plan deposited in the General Registry Office at Adelaide and numbered G16/2015 (being the plan as it existed on 1 December 2015).

Amendment No 3 [Emp–6]—

Page 22, line 14—Insert:

(ii) Greater Adelaide; or

Amendment No 4 [Emp–6]—

Page 22, lines 15 and 16—After 'occur)' insert ', other than Greater Adelaide'

Amendment No 5 [Emp–6]—

Page 23, lines 8 and 9—After 'area' insert:

(either for the purposes of constituting a planning region or Greater Adelaide)

The government amendments are to reinstate the planning region of Greater Adelaide that was deleted from the bill consequential to the defeat of the government's environmental and food production area during the previous committee stage.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have a range of questions in the more general sense around the environment and food protection areas. Early in the public discussions, the minister made some comments that were would be no disadvantage, so anybody who had existing—

The Hon. K.J. Maher: The planning minister.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Beg your pardon? The planning minister, not minister Maher. Minister Rau made some comments that there would be no disadvantage so, wherever the boundary was drawn, there would be no disadvantage to any landowner because of the location of that boundary.

Our recollection is from the Barossa Valley Protection Zone where I think Eden Valley was the town that was quite upset because it wanted some room to expand. I do not know the number of townships inside that boundary, but it is substantial. Some are little hamlets with only a handful of allotments, but some are a lot bigger. Has every landowner in this zone whose property is going to be interfaced with the outer boundary of their property been advised, since the government deposited the plan at the general registry office on 1 December 2015, that there is a boundary that will have some impact on their properties?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The boundary that is being proposed does not affect any existing right. If it is zoned for residential development, no existing rights are disturbed so, in that sense, there is no landholder who will have any existing rights changed by this boundary. I think the question is: is the government informing people that their zoning is going to change? The answer is no because their zoning is not going to change. No existing right is going to be disturbed.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The minister misunderstands my question. There is a boundary proposed that has an outer boundary and every township has a boundary around it, so if you own an allotment in a township—let's say you back onto that new boundary outside of the town limits—that means that for you to be able to develop your back paddock, if you ever wanted to do it, it is now no longer in an area that can be developed. My question is about every landowner who will be impacted by the fact that we have a boundary that was deposited back in December.

The issue we had in the Barossa and McLaren Vale areas is you have actually changed the rules for everybody. You are now seeking to change the rules. Is everybody aware that the rules are going to change?

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: It is not about changing the zonings, but what you are doing, minister Maher, is saying to people that the town's boundaries will now be enshrined in legislation, so the only way to change them will be to go to the planning commission, under this model, for the planning commissioner to recommend to the minister that a township boundary has changed and then, under the proposal we are looking at, the minister will table that in parliament and it can be disallowed. Have all of those landowners who now will have to go through that process been advised?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The answer is no. Not everyone who owns land there has individually been informed about something that may or may not happen in the future. In the example given though, if you have land that is zoned to allow you to do something, if you have approval to do it but even if it is zoned to allow you to do something, that will not be disturbed. None of your existing rights will change, based on your current zoning. None of those will be disturbed.

To inform everyone of what they may or may not want to do in the future would be a difficult and exceptionally speculative thing to do. We do not know what people want to do with their land right across South Australia. I think the important thing is that no existing rights are disturbed. If it is zoned for something, it will remain zoned for something. If you have approval to do something, that does not disturb this at all. A government trying to speculate as to what might be in someone's head and whether they want to change zoning in the future is not something we can do.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Minister, the question is not about what they might speculate about. You mentioned, and it will be a word I will use, transparency. If this legislation passes this week, there will be a statutory boundary in place. Have the landowners who abut that boundary been advised? You are saying they have not been, so you do not know whether everybody is happy with those boundaries.

What level of consultation has there been on that boundary? That is the point I make. We had anomalies in the Barossa and McLaren Vale zones, so it is not about future speculative action or subdivision: it is about just letting people know that 'By the way, Mr Smith, the urban growth boundary now is your back fence,' just to bring a bit of transparency.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for pursuing his thoughts on this, but the fact is no current zoning is going to be disturbed.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: It is not about zoning.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I know we have different views on this, but no current zoning is going to be disturbed. If someone is able to do something under their current zoning, that will not change under this.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Again, I do not want to keep going on, but it is about just letting people know that the boundary of their property now is either in or out of the urban growth boundary or the environment and food production areas. It is very simple. I guess, you have not advised them. My next question is: does the government know how many properties are impacted just by having the boundary, and what level of consultation has there been? We do not support this but, if we are going to have it, and I expect the numbers are that we will get it, I want to know: have the people who could be impacted by it been advised? It is a very simple thing.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If no rights are being disturbed then, no, people have not been advised. As I said earlier, we have not advised everyone across the state that in the future something may change. If there are no rights being disturbed then, no, people have not been informed or written to saying, 'Something is happening and, by the way, none of your rights, none of your zoning is going to be disturbed.' No, we have not done that. If anyone impacted would like to change it, they can make submissions; they can always write to the commissioner who can review the boundary.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Once parliament potentially imposes this boundary, is it the intention to write to landowners to say, 'You are now inside the urban growth boundary or the environment free protection, or you are outside of it. If you choose any change of land use when it comes to housing you will have to apply to the planning commission'?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that we are happy to undertake to let the councils know but it is not the intention to write to every single landowner and say, 'Look, by the way, nothing has changed; your current zoning remains.'

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Have you advised councils of the consultation? I think you gave councils a map not too long before we debated it in December. Have you received any feedback from councils in relation to the boundaries that the councils would have seen?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that there have been discussions with the councils concerned and their views have been taken into account.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: So, some councils have made submissions around the location of the boundary. Have they made submissions and, if so, has the boundary been altered at all as a result of those submissions?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that there have been discussions between government and councils and councils' views have been taken into account.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Does that mean that the boundary has been changed because the one you deposited on 1 December is going to be enshrined in legislation. You have just said the councils' discussions have been taken into consideration.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that discussions with councils have occurred to make sure that the current zoning is correctly reflected at either side of the boundary.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Have any individual landowners who have become aware via media or other sources made any representations to the government around the boundary? What have those discussions delivered to us?