Bills

Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Transparency) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (16:50): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (16:51): I move:

That this bill be read a second time.

I rise today to introduce this bill to improve the transparency of our state's planning system. Our state's planning system is of vital importance to the lived experience of every South Australian. The rules set down in statute, regulation and the still to be finalised planning and design code inform how our state's land is used and what form our built environment takes. These planning instruments inform where different categories of development can be built, the design standards and demolition controls which apply, and a whole lot else besides.

The contents of our state's planning laws, regulations and planning and design code are therefore of great importance. But an effective planning system should not prescribe the specifications for every conceivable land use or category of development. Good planning systems need flexibility and that is one of the reasons why our state's planning system includes a development assessment process, which in turn includes the deliberations of expert panels.

These expert panels adjudicate on development applications because they are of significance, are complex, are controversial, or are all of the above. Great power and responsibility is therefore conferred upon assessment panels in our state's planning system and it is this power and this responsibility with which this bill is concerned.

Under our state's planning system, there are two levels of development assessment panels: council assessment panels and the State Commission Assessment Panel, known as the SCAP. Amongst other functions, the SCAP is delegated planning authority to adjudicate on the most significant, complex and controversial development applications under schedule 10 of the Development Regulations 2008.

These include: inner metropolitan developments exceeding four storeys in height; developments in the City of Adelaide, valued at in excess of $10 million; developments in the Adelaide Parklands; certain developments valued at more than $5 million in metropolitan Adelaide and $3 million outside of that area; developments undertaken by Renewal SA; developments in the Hills Face Zone; mining developments; landfill depots; commercial forestry developments; and significant electricity generator developments.

In short, the SCAP adjudicates the fate of the state's most important, most complex and most controversial development applications. In spite of this, the legislative transparency requirements that apply to council assessment panels do not apply to the SCAP. This bill seeks to address these legislative anomalies.

In essence, the bill has two key objectives: to limit the ability of the SCAP to meet and deliberate in confidence to the same exemptive criteria as presently applies to council assessment panels and to require members of the SCAP to be professionally accredited to the same standards as already apply to members of council assessment panels under the Accredited Professionals Scheme.

In proposing these amendments, the Labor opposition is aware of the SCAP transparency measures introduced by the Marshall government in November last year. While Labor supports greater transparency in development assessment processes, we note that the Minister for Planning's reforms are limited and have been inconsistently or slowly applied. The following comments on the government's reforms from The Advertiser's Caleb Bond on 20 November last year sum up their inadequacy: 'the Government has missed a golden opportunity to pursue some real reform to support the public’s right to know.'

Development plans such as those submitted by the Australian Walking Company for a tourist development application in the Flinders Chase National Park, Kangaroo Island, were slow to be uploaded to the SCAP's website, and the SCAP's meeting proceedings and deliberations were also held in private. This practice does not lend itself to public support for development assessment processes.

And this is no small issue. Our state’s planning system needs a social licence. Broad public support is needed to sustain land use and development patterns, and rigorous transparency is vital in fostering public support for development assessment processes. At present, seemingly countless development applications come before the SCAP which generate some level of community anxiety. This is to be expected, given the categories of development applications assessed by the SCAP. However, the vast majority of planning practitioners agree that openness and transparency are more likely to produce acceptance, if not support, of development assessment outcomes.

Planning experts, including those who have served on council assessment panels, have explained that conspiracy theories proliferate in the community when information and decision-making is hidden from public view. They have explained that even ardent opponents of particular development applications are more likely to accept a development assessment approval when they can inspect the proponent’s plans and observe a panel’s meeting proceedings and deliberations. These experts argue that when opponents witness their objections being considered firsthand by an assessment panel, they are more likely to accept the ultimate development assessment decision, even if it goes against their interests.

Legal experts, including the Law Society of South Australia, have also argued that because assessment panels are not required to provide documented reasons for their decisions, unlike the judicial system, the meeting deliberations of the SCAP should be open to the public to enhance their acceptance and understanding of decisions made.

With regard to professional accreditation standards, the Marshall government may point out that the State Planning Commission has voluntarily extended the requirements of the Accredited Professionals Scheme to members of the SCAP. While this development is pleasing, it is not sufficient. Members of the SCAP should be legislatively required to be professionally accredited, not according to the whim of either the Minister for Planning or the State Planning Commission.

For the South Australian public to have confidence in our state’s development assessment processes, it deserves to be assured that members of the SCAP are appropriately qualified to adjudicate on the most significant, most complex and most controversial development applications. For these reasons, I commend the bill to the council.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.J. Stephens.