Bills

Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill

Recommittal

In committee.

(Continued from 23 March 2016.)

New schedule 7.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In relation to schedule 7, which we are now speaking about, firstly, I would like to put on the record that schedule 7 was originally filed by the Minister for Employment in set 1 on 1 December 2015. It was refiled without changes as amendment No. 97 of the minister's consolidated set 4 of amendments on 9 February 2016. The only change in the schedule that the government seeks to insert by this current amendment is the same as those previously filed, save for the addition of the sunset clause in schedule 7, subclause (3).

I also note that all rural living areas were identified on the map of the EFPA lodged with the General Registry Office on 1 December 2015. The purpose of schedule 7 is to ensure that any landholder who currently holds land that falls within a rural living zoned area who has the existing rights as at 1 December 2015 to further divide that land into further allotments with separate title down to a size allowed for that under the relevant rural living zone, but has not yet elected to do so, will continue to have that right under this bill for two years from the time this clause commences.

For example, a person may presently have land that is 50 hectares in size. These 50 hectares may be within an area that is already zoned rural living. The relevant rural living policy may provide for minimum allotment sizes of, say, 10 hectares. Accordingly, as of today, that person could, if they wanted to, elect to subdivide their single, 50-hectare allotments into five separately titled allotments to the size of 10 hectares, but they have simply not elected to do so.

Schedule 7 says to this person that, from the commencement of schedule 7, they will have two years to elect to exercise their rights existing as at 1 December 2015 to subdivide, as allowed per their current rural living policy; however, after two years, their right to do so will no longer exist. In the government's opinion, this schedule is only fair to such persons as described to have an existing right as at 1 December 2015 to subdivide but who have not yet elected to do so. Two years is more than adequate time for a person to consider whether to use such rights before they are extinguished.

If the opposition is seeking to oppose schedule 7, thereby entirely eliminating a person's existing rights as of 1 December 2015 to subdivide within two years from the commencement of this schedule, it is entirely a matter for the opposition to do so. However, in doing so, the opposition must clearly understand that the government has merely sought to introduce schedule 7 to give a person with existing rights as of 1 December 2015 a reasonable opportunity to elect to use such a right.

The schedule is not critical to the function of the EFPAs, so the government will not be prepared to revisit the schedule if the opposition chooses to vote down schedule 7 and thereby take away a person's existing rights in doing so. Further, to be absolutely clear, schedule 7 does not in any way relate to the ability or inability to realign boundaries of such allotments. As has been stated previously, the realignment of boundaries is a matter of policy and will be subject to the policy that formed the planning and design code.

The Leader of the Opposition asked for more details about the number of rural living zones and exact areas of the EFPA. A more detailed map of the EFPA is being prepared for the Hon. David Ridgway. The department has confirmed that there are 35 areas currently zoned as rural living or equivalent within existing development plans.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: It was 25 last night.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I said 'approximately' and that we would come back with an answer, and that is what I am trying to do—to be helpful. The department has confirmed that there are 35 areas currently zoned as rural living. These zones have different land with individual requirements that vary from zone to zone and council to council.

I will hand over to the Hon. David Ridgway very detailed maps of these zones because that was one of his questions. It has taken officers working very hard for many hours to extract these maps. I will hand them over to the Hon. David Ridgway in a moment for his benefit. I can confirm that they thought there were approximately 25 last night. The advice is that there are in fact 35, and I have very detailed maps of those zones.

The CHAIR: Do you want to seek leave to table them?

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: He doesn't want to table them; he just wants to give them to me. You would lose them.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, I have indicated that I am happy to give them to the Hon. David Ridgway. With that, I am happy to answer any further questions, as I think are foreshadowed.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The 35 rural living areas that the minister is talking about now, he says that someone who has a 50-acre block can divide it up into—

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, five lots of 10. As I understand it, one of the advisers told the Leader of the Opposition 10 lots of five, and I guess it varies. My question is: in these rural living zones, is there a minimum size? For example, do these rural living zones always have to have a minimum of one acre, five acres or 10 acres? They might vary above that number, but what is the minimum number you are able to subdivide a rural living zone into?

Whilst we wait for that answer, I want to put on the record that I thank the minister for his explanation that has now been provided. I think it provides some greater clarity, but I have a comment and/or question. The comment, firstly, is that for those of us in the chamber who are non-planning lawyers (which I guess is most of us) we read in schedule 7(1)(b)(i):

…within the rural living area that would create 1 or more additional allotments to be used for residential development…

Some of us took the layperson's interpretation of that to mean that 'residential development' means you can subdivide into quarter-acre blocks or whatever it might happen to be. That is not an unreasonable interpretation. When the minister's adviser comes back, my next question will be: I am assuming the government's advice is the term 'residential development' does not mean that? In the case of a rural living area, if it says you can only have a five-acre block minimum size, residential development can still relate to that particular issue. Perhaps we will get the response to the first question first.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In relation to the honourable member's first question, the minimum size would be dependent on that particular development plan rural living policy as of 1 December 2015. I am advised that it is not the case that these are statewide things; each rural living plan has its own minimum. The second question—

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: On that first question, I understand that it depends on the plan. I am asking, through the minister, the government's advice. They must know; they have had a look at 35 rural living plans, and some of these people are expert in the area. What is the rough rule of thumb? Can you get down to quarter-acre blocks? Can you get down to a quarter-acre block, for example, in a rural living area?

The example that has been given on the record today is, in essence, a 10-acre block or living area. The Hon. Mr Ridgway was told last night potentially five. Can you get down to a quarter-acre block in a rural living area, or is it the fact that you have to have some minimum level? Clearly, you do not have to have a minimum level because that is what the minister has just indicated, but I am assuming there is a policy standard with the 35, where you have some indication as to what the rule of thumb has been in terms of the government's policies.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Without a very detailed analysis of every one of the 35, the advice off the top of the head of the advisers is that it would be a substantial-size block and not your small courtyard block. We will certainly get that so that we can inform the honourable member. I guess the question is: what is the smallest?

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Five acres, is that what you are talking about?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We do not have the detail of all of them, what is the smallest. We will certainly get that, and if we do not have that today I undertake to bring it back to inform the honourable member.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I do not propose, from my viewpoint anyway, to delay the final consideration of this schedule on the basis of that. I would be interested—if there are 35, then there must be at least 35 decisions that are there—to get some indication as to what the current practice is. The minister says 'substantial' or 'significant' (I cannot remember the word); it is unlikely to be a quarter-acre block, but it is something bigger. It would be worthwhile knowing, ultimately, what it is that we are talking about. That question has been taken on notice and the minister has undertaken to provide us with an answer.

Let's assume it is a five-acre minimum; it might not be, but let's assume it is a five-acre minimum. My question to the government is: I am assuming when the government in this bill uses the term 'more additional allotments to be used for residential development', I interpret 'residential development' to mean quarter-acre blocks and subdivisions. Clearly, I am assuming the government, when it says 'residential development', means that that is consistent with this: if the minimum is a five-acre block, they can divide their 50 acres up into 10 five-acre blocks and they have to have a proposal to put a house on each of those five-acre blocks. That is what the government means by 'allotments to be used for residential development'.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am pretty sure I understand the question—the fact that (1)(b)(i) talks about 'allotments to be used for residential development' and, in the ordinary, plain English common use of 'residential development', one might take that to mean a residential development, say, at Mawson Lakes or that sort of style of residential development. This schedule applies to 'rural living areas', and in subclause (1) it quite clearly indicates, 'The following provisions will apply in relation to a rural living area place.' So, it has to be read down; it defines it as in relation to a 'rural living area'. It does say 'residential development', but that 'residential development' needs to be read down in relation to what the schedule is about, which is a rural living area. Therefore, all the applicable codes for allotment size apply there.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I thank the minister for that. To clarify, someone would have to come up with a development proposal for their 10 five-acre blocks for residential development, so each of those five-acre blocks would have to have a proposal to build a house or residence on that particular block. You could not be selling them off for five-acre market gardens, or whatever else it happens to be, because this is making it clear that it is only for residential development: it is not for a commercial or business development.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that it is entirely dependent on what that zoning and that policy allow. If it allowed that subdivision to occur for purposes where you did not have a house on it then, yes, you could do it.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I understand that answer, but it does not make much sense to me. If that is the case, why would this provision be drafted as 'to be used for residential development'? If it is said to be used for the purposes of the zone (or whatever the technical term might be), that is fine.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think the correct answer is that it is when you read it in conjunction with the EFPA. The EFPA seeks to restrict subdivision for residential purposes. When you read this in conjunction with the EFPA, which this schedule seeks to talk about, that talks about restricting residential purposes, which is why residential development is mentioned here. The EFPA is not restricting some of those other uses I think you are talking about.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: To try to assist my understanding of how this will work, I went to amendment No. 9, the proposed new schedule 7, and I looked at the definition of 'rural living area' and plucked out of that list one of the areas I had never heard of before so that I could explore what it might mean. I must admit that I had heard about people who have houses that back onto golf courses because they play golf, and people who have houses with stables that back onto horse racing tracks, but I had never heard about aircraft enthusiasts who have houses with a little aircraft hangar in the backyard that backs onto an airstrip.

One of the areas listed in this schedule is in the Alexandrina Council area and it talks about the residential air park policy area No. 2 in an airport zone. So, I had a look in the development plan for that area, and I discovered that about 2½ kilometres south of the town of Currency Creek you have this thing called the air park, which is divided up into different policy areas, including a residential policy area. It is says in the development plan:

The policy area accommodates large residential allotments, generally of between 2,000 square metres and 3,500 square metres in area.

The Hon. Rob Lucas asked (and this has been taken on notice): how big are they? Well, they vary in size. These they say are two hectares, maybe 3½ hectares. The development plan goes on to say:

The allotments are to be developed with a single detached dwelling fronting the internal private roadway with their associated hangars positioned generally to the rear of the sites, suitably set back from taxiways and runways for operational safety purposes, but proximate for convenient access.

That is really describing a form of development. My understanding, looking at the map, was that there was one parcel of land. It looked to be maybe five or six hectares in size, and therefore the planning policy envisages that you might get, say, two or three allotments. My reading of this particular provision is that there is no minimum lot size. It says what they envisage it might be, but I could not see a minimum anywhere.

However, leaving that to one side, my understanding of the purpose of schedule 7 is that the owners of, say, a five-hectare allotment have two years to effectively get in there and lodge their subdivision application to divide it into two or three lots. If they do not do that within the next two years, then they will actually lose the right to do it, which I think would actually undermine the purpose of this zone. Leaving that to one side, they have two years to do it. I am asking the minister whether I have understood this properly.

They have two years to divide it up. They then do not have to apply to build any houses on the allotments, they do not even have to sell the allotments. All they have to do in the next two years is get their subdivision application, get some separate titles issued for these two-hectare blocks, and then they can sit on them. If they decide never to do anything with those blocks they can just enjoy the large property they have, or if they decide to sell their blocks—say in 10 years' time—they will be able to sell the two-hectare blocks they have created.

My question is: can the minister guarantee that people who buy those two-hectare blocks will be able to put a house on them (or a house and a hangar, because it backs onto the airport strip)? That is my little case study, my example of how I think this might work. Can the minister tell me whether I have that right?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In terms of putting a house on it—

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: My point is that the prohibition on subdividing the environment and food production area is actually about subdividing it for housing. However, if you have taken this window of opportunity of two years, you have your subdivision application lodged, you are the proud owner of three certificates of title when you used to have just one, I just want to make sure that when, in 10 years' time, you do sell off one of those blocks that backs onto the airport runway, the person who buys the block off you will be able to build their house on that lot.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The very simple answer is, yes, that is correct. You are reading that correctly; that is how that could work.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The Hon. Dennis Hood has corrected my mathematics and I might have to look at this again.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: What, hectares—

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Yes. The map I was looking at indicated an area that was 100 metres wide and, say, 600 metres deep. So 100 by 600 is 60,000; that is six hectares. Okay, so that is right.

Finally, in relation this, the question has been asked: what is the minimum? In the current plan for this area it says that the allotments are 'generally of between 2,000 square metres and 3,500 square metres in area'. However, I cannot see anywhere where it says that is a hard and fast minimum. It may be that those words are somewhere else and I just have not found them—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: That is right; 2,000 is half an acre. So in fact—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: It is a half-acre block.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The Hon. Rob Lucas is interjecting. I had suggested that this big parcel of land could be divided into two or three, but it sounds like it can be divided into 20 or 30, that is really what we are getting at. So you would be holding more than just two or three certificates of title, you would be holding a whole lot of them.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think there will be different minimums with the zoning for a particular area. The one at Goolwa—I have not read it, but obviously the honourable member has—will vary quite significantly, depending, I am pretty sure, on the purpose of it. If the purpose is to allow it to back onto an airport, I am sure it will be very different from a rural living area north of Gawler or near the Barossa.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I recall from my early days on the ERD Committee with the Hon. Mark Parnell that once land has been zoned you cannot unzone it. You can, but no-one ever does it. What I am asking is, that with this change with the two years, you are not changing the zoning, you are taking away the right of people to subdivide within that zone. So the zoning is not changing, it will still be a rural living area. So you are not unzoning it effectively, but you are taking away the right.

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Why have you chosen to do that and why have you allowed two years? Given that we have just heard the Hon. Mark Parnell discussing the Goolwa example—it may be half an acre, 2,000 square metres, and he talked about an allotment of 60,000 square metres, so effectively that could be 30 new titles—does the department, the local council, the system, have the capacity in the next two years for every possible subdivision that may be contemplated to be processed in that two years?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There are a couple of questions. Firstly, why the two years? I am advised that that was to give a reasonable amount of time for someone to decide if they wanted to take that action. Two years is quite a reasonable amount of time and there is always going to be a cut-off time when you make these times and that was chosen for a reasonable amount of time for someone to take action should they so choose.

In relation to the next question, which I think was, 'Does the department and LTO and everyone else who needs to have the adequate resources to have processed all of these within two years?'—and the Hon. Mark Parnell, planning expert as he is, helpfully interjected that it is the lodgement of the application within the two years—my advice is that, if it goes beyond two years, it is the lodgement of the application within the two years that is relevant.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Does the minister envisage that either minister Rau or the relevant council will advise all these landowners that they have two years to exercise this right or it will be extinguished? I think we are talking about transparency and making sure that people are not taken by surprise.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The intention is to make sure that these landowners who will have their rights affected after two years are advised to give them a chance to consider what they want to do.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I want to revert back to the issue we discussed last night about the alignment of boundaries, and I have had some discussions overnight with the Hon. John Darley. You have said it will be dealt with as a matter of policy, that farmers who have multiple allotments will be able to realign their boundaries. The Hon. John Darley has had discussions with the minister and various other government officials in relation to his view of how this should operate to give those farmers some comfort that they will be able to realign their boundaries.

Let's be hypothetical again. You have an allotment, and let's say you have 10 titles, you cluster nine of them together, either in a little block, along the main road, along the creek or somewhere in an area that is nice to live—maybe nine one-hectare properties. You will subdivide and sell them, probably for a very good price, and that will give the farmer some opportunity either to realise his superannuation or buy another property somewhere else and enlarge his farming operation.

What I want to know is exactly how that will be dealt with, and is it envisaged that this policy will cover all of the environment and food production area or just the specific cases that the Hon. John Darley has been raising with the minister? In my view, because what is good for the goose should be good for the gander, it should apply to every property in the environment and food production areas.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can inform the honourable member that I have been advised, and I think as we talked about last night, that this applies to everywhere within the EFPA. I think the example was used that if you have a large farm with 10 titles in the farm, in the future you can realign those but you are subject to whatever code is in force at the time which may specify the minimum size of allotment. You can realign your boundaries but you are still bound by whatever code is in place at the time you want to do that.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I will keep using the Hon. John Darley's example because he is the one who has been negotiating. He has negotiated with the government for this opportunity, but we are talking about a policy in which we have no idea about what the minimum allotment might be. It could well be in two years' time or three years' time, after the next election. I enjoy the Hon. John Darley's company but he may well have retired from this place when finally the policy is gazetted, and it is not—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: He might never retire. It might bear no resemblance to the agreements and the intention that the minister maybe in good faith has given the Hon. John Darley. It might be a different minister, it might be a new government, it might be a different member of parliament. What I am trying to understand is how do these landowners, who believe they have some comfort from what the Hon. John Darley has negotiated, ever actually have any certainty that this will be delivered?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. As I said before, it will be subject to the code as it stands at the time, and I guess you could crystal ball gaze. It is possible that in five or 10 years' time there might be a completely different parliament and they could change this act. There is certainty that is there but it is subject to parliamentary change in the future as well. You cannot guarantee that even this act will not be changed by a future parliament in 10 or 20 years' time.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: But as you have said, minister, it was subject to the minimum allotment sizes, the new code, the new policy that you will develop—

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Whatever the code is, the minimum allotment size will prevail. There are certain parts of the Barossa Valley, for example, where the minimum allotment size is 60 hectares, and I think 40 hectares is another one, which is 100 acres in the old measure. It is hard to envisage what you are going to have.

I am struggling with the concept that minister Rau and the government want to stop urban sprawl and they believe in the urban growth boundary and that the environment and food production areas zone is the way to do it. I cannot believe that he would ever countenance having five or six or eight or 10 five or four-hectare allotments along a road or somewhere that a farmer can sell. I will be blunt: I think the Hon. John Darley has been given an undertaking by the minister that the minister will actually have no capacity or willingness to ever deliver.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am not sure what more I can add to it. I think that is more of a comment than a question, but the codes will be developed based on existing development plans and will of course be subject to consultation and, as we have talked a lot about in this chamber, subject to parliamentary scrutiny as well.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: You have probably just hit the nail on the head, minister, when you said they will be based on existing development plans. In the area we are talking about—the Barossa Council—the minimum allotment size I think is 40 hectares, not 60. It is 100 acres, I think, so, if that is the current development plan, that is probably what the code is going to reflect. I suspect you might find, sadly, the Hon. John Darley, that, for the people we have all been trying to give some comfort to, it will never happen.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: One of the main principles of this bill, as I understand it, is to protect the rural properties in the food production area. If the minister of the day does not exercise common sense on this realignment of allotment boundaries with sensible minimum allotment sizes on which you can build a house, all he is going to do is destroy the food production area.

New schedule inserted.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Employment, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Science and Information Economy) (11:41): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN (11:41): I thought I would make a contribution at the third reading, so I rise to speak on the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill at the third reading. I have listened carefully to the debate at the second reading and committee stages and participated on those issues that have been of interest to me. I acknowledge the diligence of my colleagues, especially the leader of the Liberal Party in the chamber, and the crossbenchers. We do not have the benefit of a coterie of advisers and staffers to hold our hands.

My reflection on this bill's progression through the Legislative Council is that the government has never provided the members of this chamber with a complete working model of its new planning regime for us to understand its practical effect and test the same through debate. I am not naive. The government has sought to walk a well-trodden path. They have attempted to create an artificial sense of urgency, and attempted to force the bill through the chamber at an unseemly pace.

The extant planning regime continues to function in an acceptable fashion and has done so for some time. There is no urgency. This time-honoured tactic has been employed with reckless indifference to the personal impact on those handling the bill who do not reside on the government benches.

The bill is seeking to legislate a new planning code, legislation that covers the field of planning. If the government had respect for this chamber and the community it represents, the legislation would have been presented along with a draft of, at the very least, the charter for community engagement, the planning code and the regulations.

On my calculation, there are up to 46 different areas in the bill that will require regulations to be created. Again, this is an old tactic: show the chamber nothing of the ancillary documentation where the operational detail is hidden, and force the chamber only to debate the overarching legislation. In other words, focus attention on the legislation, not the practical implications contained in regulation and other ancillary documentation.

This chamber has had to endure much criticism of its role in the democratic life of South Australia from the Minister for Planning. He does not see our value, yet this bill was amended over 200 times in the parliament by the government itself. Many of the additional amendments by my party and the crossbenchers of this chamber were accepted by the government.

The progression of this bill through our chamber should serve as an instruction to the minister and those who are like-minded that the Legislative Council is a necessary and vital part of the state's democratic fabric. We have sought to repair the faults of the bill and ensure that all of the voices of our citizens were taken into account when considering the bill. If this chamber did not exist, then none of the improvements to the bill would have been identified or implemented.

The debate on this bill and the philosophy that underpins the bill brings to mind the experience of the city of Paris in the 1800s, for the bill seeks to take away the local and democratic engagement in planning decisions and centralise them and employ bureaucrats to exercise their judgement and make decisions.

The Labor Party is applying its socialist values to centralise decision-making in the hands of a few and impose its view on the majority. As a Liberal, I believe that people should participate in the decision-making that impacts their community. Napoleon III sought to rebuild Paris in accordance with his vision for the city, which at that time consisted of narrow and congested streets. He employed the bureaucrat Haussmann, who lacked vision but was a competent administrator. Together they reshaped Paris as we see it today.

However, the principles that governed the development of Paris, as recorded by historians, were despotic. The financial and real estate dealings were unethical, and the result was that entire neighbourhoods of great character were destroyed. It can be argued that Paris gained much from the development, but it also lost its medieval quarters. In essence, no-one assessed the cost of the development or examined too closely its execution. The development of Paris should serve as a lesson to us.

The essence of the bill before us should be to ensure that the development satiates the broader needs of the community; in other words, that the trade-off and compromises associated with a development are well understood and debated within the impacted community. The process of gaining community consent should be open and transparent. I am not even sure at this stage of the debate, not having had the opportunity to see a draft planning code or the regulations, that we have achieved the right balance between the need to develop our natural resources and the necessity to ensure an equitable and sustainable future for our state.

If we are to centralise our planning decisions, greater scrutiny is required on appointments to those bodies that make the key decisions. As a parliament, we need to understand more than ever before the qualifications and heuristics of those who purport to make decisions on our behalf. Why should we entrust the architectural integrity of the city to an unknown and unelected few? We see daily their handiwork on government commissions, such as the Convention Centre extension and the ANZAC walk, both projects, in my view, lacking architectural or aesthetic merit. One cannot help think that we are handing over the shaping of our city to a chosen few who I suspect lack the classical skills to make our capital city truly great, inspiring and beautiful.

At the All-Union Congress of 1946, Joseph Stalin was called 'the father and friend of all Soviet architects'. He commissioned the construction of eight skyscrapers as a symbol of Soviet power. The architectural detail of each tower varies, ranging from the Gothic to the baroque. The architects tried to anticipate the desires and changing tastes of Stalin. Is this our future under the yoke of this bill when it becomes law? After Stalin came Khrushchev, who demanded a change in the aesthetic and opted for functional understatement.

One with a passing interest in history can see the parallels between the aims of this bill and the tenants of socialist planning and ideological theories of urban planning. However, instead of the Politburo or the Presidium, we have the planning elites appointed but not elected. Instead of the Soviet congress we have the developers and their associations or their paid lobbyists. Gone are the local councils and their intimate democratic relationship with the people they serve.

I also have a residual fear that this bill will be used to facilitate the desecration of our Parklands and our heritage buildings and suburbs. I wish to express my solidarity with the public statements of the members for Heysen and Davenport regarding their concerns on the proposed redevelopment of the old Royal Adelaide Hospital site.

There should be no contemplation of private residences on the Parklands. This is inconsistent with the sacred trust that each generation of citizen in this city must respect—that the Parklands are for all, not a few. The Parklands are for every generation, not just today's residents.

During the debate on this bill, one line of argument stood high above all the other noise in this chamber, and that was from the Hon. Mark Parnell. The honourable member argued that it should not be easy to develop in the Parklands: it should be hard because we should endeavour to leave the city in better condition for those who come after us. I endorse this view.

Similarly, I am concerned that this bill when enacted will provide for the devastation of our heritage areas. I know that preserving heritage is not consistent with protecting and underwriting the margins of developers. Yet the priorities of this city seem to always be subordinated to the altar of profit for the few. I look forward to the day when the city seeks its own path for development for the benefit all, not for the enrichment of a few. As a parliament, our duty is to the state, which means that we are duty-bound to seek to protect those who come after us as much as we seek to look after our people today.

I fear that this bill when enacted will result in the devastation of our heritage and the degrading of our Parklands, as I have said. I support the passing of the bill only because it has been subject to proper scrutiny by our chamber. I emphasise again that what has not been released in the draft are the regulations and the code. We must therefore remain vigilant to ensure that the elites and their development companions do not squander our inheritance and the legacy we are duty-bound to ensure is placed in the hands of the next generation.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (11:50): I rise very briefly to speak to the third reading. I want to reflect on the process we have gone through, the outcome we have reached and where we go from here. At the outset, I will share with you that earlier this morning I presented my new junior trainee with a pile of red-covered Hansards and asked her if she could add up how much time we have spent on the committee stage of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill. The result came back: 32 hours and 50 minutes in terms of the first pass through, and then when we add the recommittal we have it up to about 41 hours at present.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: There are unruly interjections from the government benches that the figure must be larger. The point I am making is that this is clearly the longest debate we have had, certainly in my 10 years in this place. It is longer than the WorkCover debate, longer than the Olympic Dam expansion debate, and in fact possibly orders of magnitude larger than those. I say that to make the point that we have been here for some little time. The process—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: It was also going through that last week before Christmas.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I did, I gave her the before Christmas one—but I am going to stick with 41 hours.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: You need to be accurate. Don't mislead the parliament.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I don't want to have to come back and make a personal explanation if I have the figure wrong. I will use the minister's words: 'I am advised' that we have spent about 41 hours on this bill. In terms of the process, I acknowledge the contribution of the Hon. Andrew McLachlan. He has pointed out that the start of this process was truly appalling. It was belligerent. I described it to one person who asked me as equivalent to dogs marking their territory by urinating on lampposts. That was how it worked in that week or so before Christmas.

Certainly, the start of the problem was that the minister was late in delivering the bill. He promised it before the winter break. We did not get it before the winter break: we got it afterwards. Yet the time frame of passing the bill before Christmas was apparently not negotiable. It was the job of the Legislative Council to pick up the slack that was left with the failure of the department and the minister to deliver the bill according to his time frame.

Members will recall that we were told that we were going to sit every day and night until Christmas if necessary to pass the bill. I think the Legislative Council did well not to be intimidated, to stand strong. We proceeded with the bill as we always do—methodically and clause by clause, asking appropriate questions. There was not a great deal of repetition. I think we did the job that people have elected us to do.

Also in relation to the process I would like to put on the record my appreciation for the role that the poor ministers with carriage of this bill have played: the Hon. Gail Gago and the Hon. Kyam Maher. We know that it is not their portfolio area, yet I think both of them conducted themselves well in terms of briefing themselves on the meaning of the various clauses and doing their best to answer the hundreds of questions we put to them. That part of the process I have no criticism of.

In fact, time precludes me from actually launching into a discussion on whether there is a better way for a Westminster democracy to deal with bills. Absolutely, there is. Bring on a scrutiny of bills committee. We should not have done this process in the way we did. I know it is the way we have always done it, but I would like to have seen a committee process outside of the Committee of the Whole, where we could have got the various stakeholders into the room and quizzed them directly; we could have got the responsible minister before us and quizzed him directly. I think we really do need to look at alternative ways of managing massive complex pieces of legislation like this.

It is one thing for all of us to read out the submissions of stakeholders, read out the latest email that we have from the Urban Development Institute, the Housing Industry Association, the Conservation Council or Environmental Defenders Office. Would it not have been better if we could have, in a parallel process, got those people into the room and asked them questions directly? I think it would have made the process of debate in the Committee of the Whole far more efficient.

In terms of the outcome, what do we now have? Do we have the camel—the horse designed by a committee—or do we have, in fact, the best possible framework for town planning and regional planning for the next generation because, as we know, this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity? My view, and I will take some days to reflect on the final outcome, is that I think we have the curate's egg: parts of it are excellent, parts of it are rotten. Maybe that is always the outcome with legislation.

Overall, I think that we have a replacement framework that is different, but not so different. I have heard a political slogan, recently—something along those lines—that it is different but the same; something I think I might have heard Mr Turnbull say.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: 'Continuity with change.'

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: 'Continuity with change.' We have continuity, in that the basics of the planning system have not changed. We still have a regime for setting planning policy, we still have a regime for determining individual development applications, but the background paperwork will, largely, change. Again, as the Hon. Andrew McLachlan says, we have not seen that.

The ultimate assessment about whether we have ended up with a better system we are not going to know for some time. Until these subsidiary documents have been prepared, we will not know whether the system, overall, is better or worse. I know the bits of it that are worse. The bits that relate to the ability of citizens to engage meaningfully in the planning process are worse. It has been going downhill for 10 years; it is now worse than ever. Other aspects, I think, have been improved.

In terms of the future, this chamber has now read the bill for a third time. It took us two pass throughs in committee, but we have the bill as good as we can get it, given the various views in the chamber. My suspicion is that the minister will not accept the verdict of what is the more democratic of the two chambers and he will come back for another go at some of his big-ticket items. My suspicion is that he will not accept that even a single, local councillor on panels is a good outcome. Apparently, these people are so dastardly and so political that having even one is going to be the end of Western civilisation as we know it.

I urge the minister: accept the verdict of the Legislative Council—do not bring back the panel member issue. You have a fair chunk of what you wanted. There are going to be fewer elected members than there were. Please accept that. I also suspect that the minister might bring back some changes because he will not be prepared to accept the decision of this chamber regarding the concept of early commencement, or what is known as interim operation, which has been abused over the years. He will not accept that we are putting some constraints on his use of that power. As we have said in the debate, it is a very valid tool, a useful tool, but do not misuse it.

This council has passed amendments to prevent the minister misusing those powers. I suspect he will not accept that verdict and we might see that back. Again, I urge him: accept the verdict of the Legislative Council. There are two things that I think would be useful to have come back from the other place when they have considered our amendments. In terms of the Hon. Dennis Hood's amendments, I think we might see the heritage one back again, and, as I have said in debate, the government needs to get back on top of heritage. There is going to be a separate regime we have been promised, but I expect we might see that amendment come back.

Also, I invited the government to bring back an amendment to deal with the high schools on the Parklands. I think we can make sure that we do not unnecessarily impede the ability of the government to develop those sites for schools. They happen to be in the parkland zone; I am happy to facilitate making life easier for the development of those schools on their existing footprint. I am not interested in expanding them into the Parklands too much, but on their existing footprint I think we can live with that. I would hope only two matters would come back to us from the lower house. My suspicion is that there will be more.

We now have a number of weeks, I think, where we will continue to talk with government representatives and with the minister. I put on the record now my appreciation of the willingness of the minister's staff and departmental staff to talk through these issues. We very often do not agree on the policy background behind the various amendments, but my interactions with them have been courteous and they have in a timely manner delivered the documents we need.

I also thank the Clerk of the Legislative Council for providing us with an early-bird edition of the amendments as passed, and that was an important document to help us navigate what is a complex piece of legislation. That is not an official document and it will not appear, I do not think, in the formal record of this parliament, but it made life easier for us to at least have a list of the amendments that had passed. Similarly, officers of the department prepared the colour-coded track changes version of the bill so that we could see at the end of the committee stage which amendments had got up. They were colour coded so we knew whose they were, and it enabled us to be more efficient as we went through the recommittal stage.

With those words, I say that I am glad we have got to the end of this bill. Some people have said that a huge dose of relevance deprivation syndrome might now descend upon me personally. There are plenty of other things on the Notice Paper that the Greens care about passionately and will be getting involved in, but I look forward to the final passage of this bill.

My final message to the government is that we will be scrutinising the preparation of these subsidiary documents. We want to make sure that we get the best planning system possible. We know this bill is only a framework, and we want to make sure that the final package of measures delivers the best results for the people of South Australia.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (12:02): I know that the Hon. Mark Parnell said he would be brief and he was about 10 minutes being brief—it was brief for the Greens. I will be much briefer than that. I will make a couple of quick comments. The Hon. Andrew McLachlan and the Hon. Mark Parnell have said a lot of things I would have said. Certainly from the Liberal opposition's viewpoint, we have a new framework, and time will tell how this serves this great state.

The two important points we have now are an infrastructure levy—the basic infrastructure and the essential infrastructure. Time will tell whether they actually operate and deliver the benefits the government claims they will deliver. And, we have an urban growth boundary or an environment and food production area, and likewise we will see what that gives. I guess it depends on where you are coming from as to what benefit you are looking for.

It was interesting: I was at the Bill Evans Westpac senior economist's breakfast on Tuesday morning and it became clear that the indicators are that we need population growth, jobs growth and exports growth. I am not convinced that the framework we have debated for some 40-odd hours (as the Hon. Mark Parnell had his hardworking new trainee adding up) will deliver support for population growth, jobs growth and exports growth, but time will tell.

I expect we will get a message back from the House of Assembly. Interestingly, I have had a media inquiry—whether the minister has spoken to them or whether they are just assuming that we will get a message back, maybe not before lunch but straight after question time—and I can assure the minister here and now that the opposition will be adjourning that message today. As to anything contained in that, I put on the record, there is no expectation that we will deal with that today. There will be some matters we will have to take back to the opposition's party room to see whether we insist on our amendments or whether we are prepared to negotiate.

I do not know whether the media was assuming that that might happen or whether minister Rau has been a little bold and his media advisers have been trying to prime the pump and build an expectation so that we would get the blame for not progressing it. I do not speak for the crossbenches, but I can see some head nodding going on, so I suspect we will have the numbers to adjourn that.

Some thankyous, as well. It has been a complex piece of legislation and I suspect that the Hon. Mark Parnell, having had many years as a planning lawyer, is the one who understands it the best. We have had the Hon. Gail Gago and the Hon. Kyam Maher; they do not understand planning jargon, the lingo, so it is often a bit difficult for them to give an answer that actually makes sense, and I say that in the nicest possible way. They are trying to interpret what they are being told to tell us, and I think it is a little complicated to try to get some interpretations.

So I certainly thank the staff who supported them, and I concur with the Hon. Mark Parnell that the minister's staff have been available to keep us briefed on amendments and changes, and updates on what has gone on. I do appreciate that.

There is one staff member, in particular, I would like to thank, and that is my longest serving staff member Cecilia Schutz. Today is the last day she will be here; she is leaving to have her second child and going on 12 months' or so maternity leave. When she had her first child it was halfway through the Barossa and McLaren Vale protection zone bills, and she was somewhat disappointed that she left halfway through. I think we are all quite happy that this bill will pass the third reading, but she is very happy that she can go on maternity leave knowing all the support and work she has put in for me.

I am very grateful for that support and work, because Cecilia is probably second only to the Hon. Mark Parnell in understanding the Development Act and the planning system. I had six or seven years as the planning shadow and she was my right-hand person there, helping me all the way through, and she still does a great job. So it is timely that she can go off and enjoy this part of her life knowing that we have completed this task. With those few words, I put on the record that I thank her and really appreciate the support she has given me. The opposition supports the third reading of the bill.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Employment, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Science and Information Economy) (12:06): I will be very brief—and when I say that I think, unlike the last two speakers, I probably mean it. I would like to thank all members for their contributions. It has been a difficult and lengthy process but I think, for the most part, people have taken it very seriously and—certainly since I have been handling it—diligently, to pass this bill.

I would like to thank the advisers and everyone else who gave a lot of advice on this bill. I certainly now know far more about the planning system than, frankly, I ever wanted to, and that is great credit to the people who provided advice on this. I would particularly like to thank the many, many representatives of organisations who have contributed feedback on this bill. I have a lengthy list of organisations from a whole range of interests and of varying views on this matter; I will not read them all out but they know who they are. I commend the third reading to the chamber.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (12:07): Just briefly, in addition to what has already been said I would like to put on the record my thanks and appreciation on behalf of Dignity for Disability to all the staff, lobby groups, activists and so on and so forth who have advised us during this debate, and who have helped us make it the far better bill that I think it now is. The debate has been productive and it has been constant in the last six weeks (I think I am right in saying six weeks).

Despite what may have been said about the upper house—not for the first time nor for the last time, I am sure—by certain people, the debate has been very productive and constant. There certainly has not been any unnecessary stalling from where I stand, and that debate has led us to having a far better bill. So I am very grateful to all members, staff and supporters for their advice and work on this.

I would particularly like to put on record a few words of thanks to all members for supporting Dignity for Disability's amendments around universal design principles. I am confident they will result in better planning in the immediate future and far into the distant future as well. Of course as I am sure we are all aware, because I have said this so many times before, the amendments do not go as far as one would have liked or hoped. They are certainly compromise amendments and do not actually mandate universal design principles, but at the very least we now have, for the first time in this country, mention of universal design principles in a planning act.

I am hopeful that will be a good starting point for having some further conversation and getting new standards around how we actually build public buildings and spaces that respond to the needs of, and respect, all people. I will certainly keep working on that, but for now I would just like to thank everyone for a productive debate. That certainly includes my own staff, particularly Anna and Ian, who have put a lot of work into helping me make sure that I know where I am up to in my own brain, which is always appreciated. Thank you to everyone for this productive debate, and I look forward to working on this to achieve even better results in the future.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you. I remind members that once the minister has spoken, that is the end of the debate, but we value your contribution very much, the Hon. Ms Vincent.

Bill read a third time and passed.