Bills

Planning, Development and Infrastructure (State Planning Commission) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 18 October 2017.)

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (20:43): This bill of the Hon. David Ridgway is very simple in its intent. His proposition is that there must be one person on the State Planning Commission who has expertise in agriculture or primary production. When we look at the composition of the State Planning Commission in the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act, we can see that the parliament has approved a system that is based on what you might call skill sets or an expertise-based system, and the list does not include agriculture or primary production. I understand that the honourable member sees that as a gap and he is seeking to fill it, but there are some problems with the way he has gone about this.

First, I think that there is an assumption made—I think it is an erroneous assumption—that the State Planning Commission will make a great number of decisions in relation to agriculture and primary production, when I think the reality of the situation is that most activities that fall into that category do not require planning approval. A farmer does not need planning approval to grow wheat or to graze sheep or, in fact, for most things. It is even possible to switch crops or to switch from cropping to grazing and not have to go before any planning body for approval.

The other shortcoming in this bill, I think, is that the range of expertise set out in the act uses the following words:

The Minister must, when nominating persons for appointment as members of the Commission, seek to ensure that, as far as is practicable, the members of the Commission collectively—

in other words, it does not have to be a particular individual, but collectively—

have qualifications, knowledge, expertise and experience in the following areas…

So, the four words are 'qualifications, knowledge, expertise and experience', and then there is a list, (a) through to (f), of a range of areas, including economics, finance, commerce, planning, urban design, development, building construction, etc.

The Hon. David Ridgway's proposed amendment does not require qualifications, it does not require knowledge and it does not require experience. He has limited it to only expertise, so I think it does stand out like a sore thumb in relation to how people are chosen for this commission. I do not think it is well targeted.

I am sympathetic to looking again, after the election, at the appropriate composition, and if we are going to have a bit of an auction I have a few categories of people that I think the commission would benefit from having on as well. But I do not think this really works as drafted, so whilst I appreciate what the honourable member is doing, the Greens are not able to support it.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (20:46): I rise to speak on behalf of the government. The government opposes this bill on the basis that appointing at least one member of the State Planning Commission with expertise in agriculture or primary production is not required to ensure these matters are thoroughly considered in the implementation of the planning system.

The government agrees with the Hon. David Ridgway that the State Planning Commission is influential on planning outcomes for South Australia. It is for this reason that the act defines the important qualifications and expertise that commission members may collectively have in delivering its functions. The qualifications and expertise required were debated in the Legislative Council as recently as 2016 and cover a breadth of experience, including economics, commerce or finance; planning, urban design or architecture; development or building construction; the provision or management of infrastructure or transport systems; social or environmental policy or science; and local government, public administration or law.

There is also no argument that agriculture and primary production are critical drivers of the state's economy, but there are many industries and businesses that have bespoke needs in relation to the planning system which will need to be considered by the commission in developing the new strategy and planning rules for our state.

Given the breadth of issues that the commission may be required to address in its delivery of the planning system, the act has been written to enable the commission to appoint one or two persons to act as additional members from a list established by the minister to deal with any matters arising under the act. Specific categories can be developed for this purpose, one of which could certainly be primary production and agriculture. The act has been written in this way to acknowledge that the commission may from time to time require additional expertise to address specific planning issues. The commission may also seek professional advice on any matter from state agencies, run inquiries on a particular matter or consult with a range of entities on planning issues.

In closing, agriculture and primary production is one of a diverse range of issues that can impact on both urban and regional planning. To single out this one specific field of expertise over many others is not something that the government can support.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (20:49): I rise to place on the table the Australian Conservatives' position. I see this as a good initiative. I do not know whether Labor members generally get out into rural and regional areas and the interface that often. I hear of one who is on Kangaroo Island a lot just at the moment, but that is an aside and it is a personal interest. By and large, I do not see a lot of Labor members out in the country, especially dealing with people who have terrible situations as a result of bad decisions, or decisions that are made perhaps without the right expertise, by the commission.

Where you have an interface between rural, residential and the like, and subdivision issues or change of land use issues come up regularly, that is especially where you need someone with some expertise. The Hon. David Ridgway is a big enough man to defend himself, but I do not think, from what I understand, he was saying that it would be just anyone with country residential knowledge. My understanding was that it would be someone with specific expertise.

It would be no different to a lot of committees and boards that we have where it says that two shall be men, two shall be women, one will have expertise in certain farming practices, one will have it in economics and another one will have it in governance and law. This sort of thing goes on all the time and there is a reason for that in a lot of legislation so that you get a proper cross-section of the community to deliberate on the situation that they have to consider with appropriate input from that commission or that board.

I think this actually ties in really nicely with the right to farm legislation that Australian Conservatives will be putting to a vote in the Legislative Council on the next Wednesday of sitting. I believe this could assist people like Mr Peter Grocke, as an example, who has had an absolutely shocking time. They are generational farmers, who are very good and dedicated farmers. Mr Grocke wanted his sons to come home with him on the farm, but planning decisions there have made it extremely difficult for him. For those types of people—and there are lots of them—I think there is a lot of wisdom in this amendment and therefore I advise the house that Australian Conservatives will be supporting it. If there is a division called, we will be voting with the Hon. David Ridgway and his party.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (20:53): For the record, I indicate that I will be strongly supporting this amendment. It is absolutely essential in the peri-urban areas of South Australia that on the commission you need someone with rural planning or agricultural experience. I have had plenty of examples in recent days in the Barossa area where decisions have been made by planning assessment panels. They have had no rural experience and they just completely ignore any aspect of agriculture when it is up against urban areas. With that, I support the amendment.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (20:53): I will quickly conclude the debate and thank members for their contributions. I want to make a couple of quick comments. I think I know where the numbers are and I am very encouraged that it looks like we will have the numbers. I am interested that the government and their spokesman tonight, the Hon. Tung Ngo, said that agriculture and primary production is a critical driver of the economy, yet they do not recognise that there are some significant issues that the Hon. John Darley spoke about in the interface between agriculture and urban development and also conflicting uses of agricultural land (vineyards versus broadacre land).

I think it perhaps shows the government's lack of understanding of agriculture when the Hon. Tung Ngo says it is a specific industry. It can be called a specific industry, but it is so broad these days, with on-land aquaculture; horticulture; intensive animals such as pigs, chickens, and livestock; grain; covered horticulture; broadacre horticulture; and vignerons. It is quite broad and so there are some real challenges.

It is my view that the Planning Commission would be enhanced by having someone of that expertise who actually understands it, because clearly the government does not understand. In relation to the issues that the Hon. John Darley and the Hon. Robert Brokenshire spoke about regarding Mr Grocke, PIRSA accepts that there is a problem, but they have no leadership from above to work out how to sort that problem out. With those few words, I commend my bill to the parliament.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: On clause 1, given my friend the Hon. Mr Ngo's comments on behalf of the government, can the Hon. Mr Ngo highlight to the chamber how the government formulates and appoints the people who are currently on the commission?

The Hon. T.T. NGO: I will have to seek further advice from the minister, because I am not fully across how they were appointed.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 and 3) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (20:58): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.