Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act Regulations

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. M.C. Parnell:

That the general regulations under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 concerning Planning and Development Fund (No. 3), made on 10 December 2020 and laid on the table of this council on 2 February 2021, be disallowed.

(Continued from 3 February 2021.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (17:13): This is deja vu all over again, I suspect, so I will only speak for as long as the other speakers might want to participate in the program. The government's position has been made clear on any number of occasions (I have lost track)—it might be four, I think.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Four, yes. We might be able to confirm the actual number. The government's position is clear: we will oppose the motion. We have been singularly unsuccessful in this council on previous occasions, so I am not holding my breath in relation to the circumstances of the vote on this particular occasion either, but I make clear the government's position that there is no intent that the P and D Fund will be used on an ongoing basis to fund the planning reform project beyond the current project. Therefore, the government advises that the current regulation includes a sunset clause of 1 July 2021.

As has been explained on previous occasions, the use of this fund has been for the e-planning project and implementation of the Planning and Development Act to ensure that that can be completed and that all South Australians can gain the benefits of this new and more efficient planning system, first envisaged by the former government and carried through by the current government. It is for all those cogent and wonderful reasons that the government continues to oppose the Hon. Mr Parnell's motion.

I am further advised that the 2020-21 grant round is currently open for applications for projects aligned to the Open Space and Places for People programs funded via the Planning and Development Fund. In fact, for all those people listening to this debate with great interest, those applications close on Friday 19 February. The closure date is imminent. I am told that the total amount to be allocated in 2020-21 for the Open Space and Places for People grants is $20.4 million.

I am further advised—this is late breaking news and I am sure you are going to be interested—that as of yesterday, or early this week, approximately 60 applications have been received for the current round of $20.4 million. I am sure the Hon. Mr Parnell will be delighted to hear that a significant sum of money is being made available for the purpose that he believes the fund should be used for. As I said, that current use of the fund that he is objecting to, I am advised there is a sunset clause of 1 July of this year. With that, I will concede the floor to another honourable member.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (17:17): I thank the Hon. Mr Lucas for entertaining us for so long. Labor supports the motion to disallow the general regulations made under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 because these regulations would allow the Minister for Planning to use funds from the Planning and Development Fund to prop up his failed planning reforms.

Under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016, applicants who create new developments are required to pay into the Planning and Development Fund. They pay in money to enable projects to be undertaken to improve the public realm. Money paid into the fund is derived from cash payments in lieu of open space for development involving the division of land into less than 20 allotments and for strata and community titles.

As we know, the Planning and Development Fund is for projects to make streets and suburbs more liveable by developing reserves, planting trees, constructing water harvesting projects and building playgrounds. Instead, this government wants to use this regulation to divert funds so that they can prop up mismanaged planning reforms. For those reasons and others that will be outlined by the Hon. Mr Parnell, we will be supportive of this disallowance.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (17:18): As other members have alluded, we have done this four times previously. This is the fifth time we are disallowing these regulations. I thank the Treasurer and the Hon. Ian Hunter for their contributions. The only additional piece of information that I would put forward is that no member has advised me that their position has changed from the previous four times we have disallowed these regulations. These regulations are still strenuously opposed by the Local Government Association, the development lobby, all the conservation groups and all the residents groups—nobody likes these regulations.

All the government can offer us is to say, effectively, 'We are going to stop pilfering from the fund on 1 July, so after that we will be fine. From 1 July, we will only use the fund for the purpose for which it was created, which was the provision of open space for communities.' That does not give me a great deal of comfort, the fact that in a couple of months' time they are going to stop doing the wrong thing. I want them to stop doing the wrong thing now. I wanted them to stop doing the wrong thing six months ago when we first moved these regulations.

My expectation is that tomorrow, for a sixth time, we may well see these regulations back in the Government Gazette. I do not know what the record is for 'regulation ping-pong', backwards and forwards between the Legislative Council and the executive, but when members of the community find out that this is how we govern the state and this is how we make law, they are appalled. They are appalled that a government has the ability the following day to reintroduce regulations that a house of parliament has deemed to be unfit and should be disallowed.

The only other thing I will say is that the Treasurer, as an aside, mentioned that grants are open now from the fund: $20.4 million is available. I will just remind members that they have already pilfered more than that amount for administrative purposes. It was $23 million at last count. It is probably a lot more than that now; I do not have any recent figures. So the amount they are offering for the entire next funding round, the entire next 12 months, is less than they have nicked already for admin. I do not take a great deal of comfort out of that.

If they had not nicked the money, there would be $23 million more for parks and gardens, and bike paths and footpaths and all the open space that communities find so important. So I will conclude with some words I have used before to honourable members: you know what this is and you know what to do.

Motion carried.