Bills

State Development Coordination and Facilitation Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 3 April 2025.)

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (15:42): I rise to place some comments on the record in relation to this piece of legislation. I note it was the subject of quite an extensive debate in the House of Assembly as prosecuted by our shadow treasurer, the member for Flinders, Mr Samuel Telfer.

The origins of this bill predate this parliament and indeed this government with it being a recommendation, I understand, of the South Australian Productivity Commission under the Marshall Liberal government, so conceptually very much what the intent of this legislation is sits very comfortably with members of the Liberal Party in that this legislation is clearly intended to facilitate approvals.

I thank the officers from the government who provided us with a briefing, who I think used the language of 'a process improvement.' Being the nerd that I am, I love a good bit of process improvement. I would love it if this piece of legislation does indeed have that outcome. I think it has been drafted a little bit differently from what we would have done if we were in government, but, nevertheless, it is a significant piece of legislation to establish a Coordinator-General's Office and modify mechanisms for the facilitation of strategically important development projects in South Australia.

For those students of history, it has echoes of major project status that meant, I think it is fair to say, that projects that were deemed to be major projects would not necessarily bypass approvals but they would be given a special pathway that acknowledged the significance of them and often projects that are a larger nature may require a larger number of approvals. It is probably a bit simplistic to say it is a 'one-stop shop' or use that sort of language, but it should improve the delivery, particularly in a timeliness sense, so that there is some certainty for them into the future and the timeframes are reduced.

I note that it targets housing—which is to be commended—critical minerals, clean energy and defence industries, particularly those connected to AUKUS. It proposes to do so by creating state development areas (SDAs) and giving the Coordinator-General's Office powers to coordinate, expedite and support major projects within those areas.

Obviously, the Liberal Party supports the improved coordination and project delivery, particularly for projects that will shape our economy and our communities for decades to come. We have seen from time to time in this parliament indenture bills which have had a similar effect when they have been required. Faster, more proactive infrastructure planning and streamlined regulation are critical to maintaining our competitiveness and liveability.

As I said, there was extensive debate and some close scrutiny of this legislation in the House of Assembly. I think it is noteworthy that the regulatory process is not abolished but should take place earlier in the process so it does not actually remove any particular regulations. It remains to be seen as to how the coordinator will operate in practice and whether it is really going to make a huge amount of difference or not. I did ask questions about this in the briefing, but, again, these are matters which are unclear.

If we are particularly talking about the housing space, which is something that is much more familiar to me, HIPDU was created probably two years ago. The director, Ms Elinor Walker, has stepped down from her role. I am not sure what the ongoing future role of HIPDU is in the housing environment. Also, we have the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which has a bit more of that role of coordination. These processes sit alongside each other, I assume, rather than one taking precedence over another.

The bill also confers significant powers on the Coordinator-General's Office, but there is still a high level of ministerial discretion over operations generally. Ministers may direct the CGO and recommend removal of certain members. Such powers can potentially open the door to politicisation of what should be an independent and expert body overseeing projects of state significance.

The bill's governance structure for the CGO could certainly be improved. There is no current requirement for regional representation among its membership, despite the fact that many future developments of state significance occur outside of metropolitan Adelaide. Nor are there sufficient safeguards, in our view, against dominance by single organisations or particular vested interests.

There are also questions about how land acquisition, appeal rights and environmental protections will operate alongside the new powers and how the rights of local communities will be respected within the SDAs. To address these concerns, we have proposed a series of amendments, which we will address during the committee stage. Broadly, they seek to, firstly, ensure greater transparency and accountability for the CGO; secondly, strengthen the CGO's independence from ministerial direction; thirdly, require reporting on opportunities for genuine red tape reduction; fourthly, improve governance standards and promote broader representation, including from regional South Australia; and, fifthly, enhance parliamentary oversight of major project declarations.

In closing, the State Development Coordination and Facilitation Bill represents an important opportunity to modernise how we manage major projects. If implemented with the right safeguards, it can potentially deliver real benefits for our economy, our environment and our communities. However, we would like to see more of an independent, fair and focused on public benefit system.

We look forward to debating the committee stage and addressing any amendments that may come up. I apologise that our amendments have been filed somewhat late, but I do note that during the debate in the House of Assembly certainly the intent of those was anticipated. With those comments, I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (15:50): I rise today to speak in support of the State Development Coordination and Facilitation Bill 2025. I believe that, in order for South Australia to be competitive and to have the ability to attract investment for key developments, this bill intends to improve efficacy and efficiency, provide certainty and reduce risk for development by creating a centralised Coordinator-General's Office and improved system-wide coordination of key developments in South Australia for social, economic and environmental purposes.

The bill aims to improve coordination across South Australia's planning and regulatory system and will provide for:

the ability to proactively apply existing planning and regulatory processes;

pathways to take a place-based approach where development can be facilitated in a timely manner in areas which have been proactively identified as environmentally and economically suitable;

streamlined provision of enabling infrastructure to get more large housing developments built more quickly (I think that is welcome);

increased capacity and efficiency; and

greater influence over development and environmental outcomes through conditions and other mechanisms.

The key new measures introduced in this bill are the establishment of a Coordinator-General's Office (CGO) and its ability to create state development areas. State development areas, called SDAs, have been described as pre-assessed go zones. In other countries, I have observed that many of those zones are called special economic zones (I believe that is very similar), which allow for regulatory assessment to be undertaken at an earlier stage of the planning and development process. This is intended to establish a proactive and place-based approach to identify suitable areas for development and provide clarity for community and for development proponents, and will allow for faster approvals once applications are made.

It is important to note that the government has stressed that there will be no reductions to existing regulatory requirements or standards that apply under existing legislation. The government argues that the CGO will instead help coordinate these existing processes and standardise and streamline timeframes for statutory processes where possible. There is no doubt that this coordinator approach is something that industries and developers have been crying out for, and we have seen the success of similar coordinator-general functions in other jurisdictions interstate and overseas.

For example, in June 2024, New South Wales established a coordinator-general function to coordinate the delivery of key priorities in renewables in housing and the Western Sydney growth area, and similarly Queensland continues to refine its longstanding coordinator-general model, achieving successes in critical minerals, green manufacturing and infrastructure corridors. Governments in both the Northern Territory and Western Australia are also, as I understand, planning very similar reforms.

I think these sort of reforms can unlock many economic corridors and developments in South Australia. I am supportive of what South Australia is doing, because we need to keep up with best practices so that South Australia does not fall behind or miss out on opportunities to grow our industries, build more houses, growing jobs and boosting our productivity and interest for our economic development. I sincerely hope that this new CGO will indeed improve efficiency, enabling some streamlined processes, and not have another additional layer of bureaucracy laid on top of it for private investors to navigate.

I am encouraged to see the state development areas introduced in this bill, and this will create the ability for the CGO to proactively access suitable areas for critical development and give proponents confidence that applications will be given timely and targeted consideration. Pre-assessment of SDAs will help to identify, avoid or manage barriers to a proposed development, and ensure that the sites are fit for purpose, can be zoned appropriately, and can accommodate key infrastructure and developments without undue local impacts. This ability to proactively pre-assess a range of statutory requirements will be a gamechanger for many developments, helping to de-risk projects of critical importance to our state.

I would also like to point out that the bill would allow for the minister to authorise the CGO to undertake essential infrastructure works for designated projects or projects in an SDA. I believe that will facilitate public and private enabling infrastructure to help bring large housing developments and new communities to life more quickly, which is really a legitimate partnership between public and private sectors.

I note that the Hon. Robert Simms will be moving amendments, and I will consider those amendments during the committee stage. I also understand that the Liberal opposition, the Hon. Michelle Lensink, also filed some late amendments. Some of them are quite sensible, so I will consider those amendments as well. Overall, I am encouraged to see progress towards a more streamlined, proactive and positive approach to development in South Australia. With those remarks, I commend the bill.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:56): I rise to speak on the State Development Coordination and Facilitation Bill 2025 on behalf of the Greens. I listened with interest to the speeches of my colleagues the Hon. Michelle Lensink and the Hon. Jing Lee, and I suspect I am going to be the odd one out here in indicating that the Greens are not supportive of this bill.

I am very concerned that this bill represents a significant change in the way in which we do things in South Australia, and it requires very careful scrutiny. Obviously, we are going to undertake a committee process shortly but I am very, very concerned that we run the risk of handing the Malinauskas government a blank cheque and an opportunity to override existing laws and protections here in our state.

That is concerning for our democracy, and it is coming at a time when I think a lot of South Australians are very concerned about the way in which governments of both persuasions—Labor and Liberal—are disregarding their views when it comes to their embrace of the United States and their very dangerous foreign policy.

I hear the Hon. Michelle Lensink groaning. This is a view that I think most people in the South Australian community share; this is a significant issue in Australia at the moment. The Trump presidency poses a real risk to Australia, and I think people right across the state are concerned about the nature of our relationship with the Trump administration. This is an issue that has been playing out over in Canada just today.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: With respect, the bill specifically references AUKUS, and that is one of the key elements that the Greens are concerned about. AUKUS involves a collaboration between the United States and our country, and I think it is legitimate to talk about the risks of that relationship when it comes to our security.

The bill establishes the Coordinator-General's Office, and I understand that where there is a project of state significance the bill allows the newly established Coordinator-General's Office to perform a series of functions or assessment processes that currently sit within other acts of parliament. This is a broad set of powers that are being proposed.

We understand that the government has undertaken consultation in the development of the bill, both open and targeted. However, while some concerns have been raised in the consultation stage and have been addressed, there are others that have not been sufficiently tackled by the government. One of these significant issues that has been raised with the Greens is the concentration of power to four unelected officials who will make up the Coordinator-General's Office.

The primary principle established in the bill, that the Coordinator-General's Office must consider the economic, environmental and social aspects of the project, is meritorious. We of course support that being included. However, there is not sufficient guidance being provided to the Coordinator-General's Office in terms of how that assessment is made. One of the fundamental concerns that we have, which I flagged in my introductory remarks, is the relationship between this bill and AUKUS.

The intention, as stated by the government very clearly, is to undertake projects of state significance, including increasing the supply of housing that is desperately needed for the state. Of course we support that, but I do not accept the government's premise that one of the major barriers to housing development in South Australia is a lack of fast-track approvals. Surely the major issue, when it comes to housing development in our state, is the lack of capacity to actually get the work done and the lack of investment from the South Australian government and the federal government in terms of public housing. That is the major barrier, not necessarily land release and certainly not necessarily red tape.

It is clear that the Coordinator-General's Office will be tasked with various AUKUS projects. Indeed, the bill makes it clear that one of the members of this office must have expertise when it comes to AUKUS. The Greens have been very clear that we do not support this dud deal. It is a dud deal for our nation and it is a dud deal for the people of South Australia. It trashes our reputation as a clean, green state and it makes our country less safe by putting us in the eye of the storm by tying our foreign policy interests and our defence interests to the delusional nutcase, Donald Trump. We do not believe that this is an equal partnership, we do not believe that we will ever see any benefit that will flow from this dud deal, and we have serious concerns about the toxic nuclear waste storage and transport that is associated with this deal.

I should say that this bill will also allow the government to, in effect, sweep in and find sites for nuclear waste and to potentially impose those on communities against their wishes. I recognise that the Malinauskas government and the Tarzia opposition are locked into supporting AUKUS. They are a unity ticket on this reform. But that is not the view of the community. For instance, the Port Adelaide Community Opposing AUKUS group have been advocating a long time into this project, and the residents of that area are directly impacted by the project in a number of ways.

There has been a lack of consultation and transparency from both state and federal governments when it comes to the implications of the AUKUS deal for that community. They have concerns about their health and their local environment. They have concerns about the potential impacts of any accidents that may happen in relation to nuclear waste.

It is interesting: when people talk about nuclear waste it is very easy to talk about it in the abstract, but no-one wants it in their backyard. There is a reason why the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, has not visited one potential nuclear waste site during the federal election. He knows that people do not want nuclear waste in their backyard and for good reasons—because the health and the environmental risks are well documented and well known.

Here in South Australia, we pride ourselves on being a clean, green state, yet we have signed up to a deal that allows nuclear waste to be stored amongst our suburbs. The concerns of the community are valid, and we do not want to see the state government ignoring their views. We know that we cannot rely on a Trump administration to treat us equitably in any deal moving forward. Trump did not even know what AUKUS was when he was asked about it.

The atrocious public policy decisions being made by the Trump administration in the US should be making us question the state and federal government's dedication to AUKUS and our defence strategy in general. We know that South Australia is not set to start building submarines until 2030 or 2040, and in the meantime it is clear that there are going to be significant shifts in global politics that will impact on this deal.

The Greens will be moving amendments to the bill to ensure that this new Coordinator-General's Office's powers cannot be used for the doomed AUKUS project. Furthermore, we want to give assurances to the people of South Australia, and in particular the impacted community around Osborne, that these powers will not be used to establish nuclear waste sites, and so our amendments make that expressly clear.

This is a test for the Labor and Liberal parties. They will say that this is not about nuclear waste. If that is the case, they will support the Greens' amendments to make this very clear to the people of South Australia. I suspect, however, that what we will see is the unity ticket of Labor and the Liberals voting together to give this new office the power to fast-track finding these nuclear waste sites.

The Greens are also concerned that this bill is bad news for the environment. The Conservation Council made a submission to an earlier draft of the bill and it states:

The environment sector does not support the delegation of decision-making functions without clear safeguards to ensure the existing integrity of environmental approval processes are upheld rather than subverted.

This bill enables the Coordinator-General's Office to call in the functions of, or to undertake approvals under, a series of important acts: the Native Vegetation Act, the Environment Protection Act, the Coast Protection Act, the Heritage Places Act and the pastoral lands act. Parliament took great care in crafting these pieces of legislation. We should also exercise our due diligence when a government comes along with a plan to hand those powers over to another office without the same level of ministerial oversight, without the same level of knowledge or expertise that exists within those departments when administering those acts.

Our amendments seek to remove those acts from the remit of this bill, as we believe these are important standalone legislative instruments that should have their unique status preserved. In particular, we recognise that these acts are fundamental to environmental protection. That is why we have identified them for discrete treatment.

We are also concerned about the potential implications for work health and safety. As a result, we will be seeking to remove the ability to call in the functions of the Work Health and Safety Act. We see no reason why the Coordinator-General needs to bring these functions into their remit. The Work Health and Safety Act is a vital piece of legislation for keeping workers safe. Why do we need to transfer the powers of that act over to unelected officials?

I understand, of course, that the government will claim that these concerns will be addressed by the fact that parliament can disallow some parts of the bill. We will be asking questions in the committee stage about exactly which provisions of the legislation will be disallowable, as we have received some contradictory advice about how this will work in practice.

We also have concerns about the composition of the Coordinator-General's Office. As I mentioned before, the Greens do not want to see these powers being used for AUKUS, and therefore we will seek to change the composition of the council to ensure that there is diversity of expertise. Our amendments will remove a requirement that there is expertise in AUKUS and instead ensure that a member of the First Nations Voice is included, a person with expertise in climate change and a person with expertise in planning.

If indeed this bill is to enable development, let's make sure that there is somebody at the table with planning expertise. If the government is serious in its commitments to addressing climate and engaging with First Nations people as part of our planning, then it should also make a commitment to ensuring that these decision-makers in the Coordinator-General's Office have expertise in that regard. It is vital that these voices are included in these decisions, and this would go some way to addressing the concerns of members of the community who feel that they are being shut out of this process.

I am concerned that this bill is a power grab from the Malinauskas government, so that they can establish yet another office to fast-track key developments. This office will be able to take on the roles of important agencies to do the bidding of the government of the day, to prioritise the projects that they see fit, and it further reduces the level of public scrutiny and oversight over the provisions of the toxic AUKUS deal. This is the Malinauskas government bulldozing their way through our state, and the Greens are not supportive of this approach.

I do urge the opposition to think very carefully about their position on this bill. I understand that they are moving a number of amendments. As the Hon. Michelle Lensink acknowledged, we have only just seen those, but we will consider those and form a position on them during the committee stage. At first blush, many of the amendments that the opposition are proposing are sensible and do introduce some level of transparency, but they do not go anywhere near far enough in terms of addressing the myriad concerns that the Greens have with this legislation.

Might I also express some frustration at the way in which the Malinauskas government has approached this issue. This is something that should receive a high level of public scrutiny and a high level of public engagement. I accept the government has conducted a consultation piece; however, dealing with this in the parliament this week, which is on the eve of the federal election when all eyes are focused on national politics, does seem a little bit too clever from my perspective. It is being a bit too clever by half.

The government could have waited until another week, so that this could get the level of public and media scrutiny that it deserves. It is a significant change. It is one that the Greens believe the public should be engaged with, and it is one that this parliament should really give due scrutiny or due consideration of. We are moving a series of amendments. I urge members to support those, but ultimately our view is that this bill sets our state down a dangerous path.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (16:12): I rise to speak on the State Development Coordination and Facilitation Bill. Unfortunately, my office was only briefed on this bill yesterday. Given its complexity and significance, it has been challenging to fulfil due diligence within such a short timeframe.

It is clear that the government is keen to progress this bill as quickly as possible, and while I appreciate the urgency to respond to the housing crisis and meet the challenges of our state's transitioning economy, I remain concerned that fundamentally this bill views the extension of government power and influence as the solution to improving the cost of doing business in this state. Surely a reduction in the excessive regulatory framework hampering business growth, development and investment in this state would be more effective in addressing the urgent need to improve business efficiency rather than creating yet another government office.

We have reached an unfortunate state of affairs when the government solution to resolving the regulatory complexity of doing business in this state is to create another government office. Bigger government is rarely an effective solution to problems of economic efficiency. Nevertheless, it is understandable that industry supports this move as it will alleviate the burden of navigating the current layers of bureaucracy associated with gaining land-use assessment and approvals from multiple different public agencies, which is causing ongoing and unnecessary delays.

However, the creation of one centralised public office to coordinate this red tape fails to address the fundamental underlying cause of the problem, which is the excessive regulations and increasing government interference. As one business owner recently stated in response to a survey conducted by the South Australian Business Chamber, Australian business is drowning. Reduce tax. Reduce red and green tape.

The Association of Mining and Exploration Companies has also highlighted the significant number of commonwealth and state government environmental legislative reforms currently underway in Australia, which will impact the regulatory approvals and ongoing monitoring and compliance of explorers and miners who already undertake significant rigorous approvals and compliance.

According to the association, the state government's intention to accelerate approvals with this bill is a welcome and worthwhile measure; however, the association also notes that most mining projects trigger commonwealth requirements for environmental assessments under the Mining Act and that this dual process of assessment will actually undermine the intentions of the South Australian government.

In directly addressing this bill, the association also stated that the bill enables the South Australian government to make a decision in favour of one industry project over another and requested that the government should provide clear and up-front information regarding provisions that consider compensation for future losses for tenement holders with existing rights.

The association raises a legitimate concern about the extension and broadening of government power into one central office and, given that this office will have a significant role in the coordination of major land approvals in this state, I believe it is an element of this bill that requires further examination.

I do note that the Hon. Robert Simms has proposed amendments to clause 6 regarding the appointment of the four officers to the new Coordinator-General's Office. It is clear that this amendment is intended to address the broad powers given to this new office and the fact that the four officers will be appointed by the minister.

The honourable member has stipulated that the minister must ensure that at least one member of the new office must be from the State First Nations Voice and at least one other member must have expertise in climate change. While I appreciate the honourable member's concerns, I would suggest that such interest groups are already adequately represented and protected within the current legislative framework at both the state and federal level and that any appointment to this new office should be drawn from relevant industry, given that the whole intention of this new office is to streamline the approval process and alleviate the burden and unnecessary delay on land approvals for all investors.

To attract more investment to our state, we need to reduce the cost of doing business and the complexity of our compliance measures. While this bill offers operators and investors some much needed administrative support, it does not address the systemic problems of doing business in this state and it also provides the government with further and broader opportunities to increase its power and influence rather than removing the regulatory barriers to allow business and investors to improve our level of productivity and stimulate the growth of our economy.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON (16:16): I rise to speak in support of the State Development Coordination and Facilitation Bill, a bill which seeks to streamline the approvals process for declared large or complex developments through a one-stop shop by creating a new four-member board called the Coordinator-General's Office, which I will refer to now as the CGO.

The bill also allows for the creation of state development areas. These are pre-assessed go zones which the CGO, in partnership with regulators, have confirmed as regulatorily and environmentally suitable for development. The CGO will have the capacity to rezone land, build infrastructure and facilitate streamlined approvals within these state development areas. This will be done by using the work that the CGO and regulators have done up-front, such as baseline studies, master planning or pre-assessments. State development areas also allow the CGO to steer development to suitable locations by incentivising development within them. This helps facilitate the right developments into the right locations.

With this bill we can ensure our state's planning and regulatory framework is fit for purpose to keep up with the growing demands of our state. Our government has made a concerted effort to make sure that young South Australians can have a great future here and harness all the opportunities available in our state. This includes being able, of course, to buy a home. Hence, this bill aims to streamline planning and regulatory processes to allow more homes to be built closer to key public transport routes and indeed other key services.

In an ever-competitive market for major projects, this bill seeks to ensure South Australia remains competitive to attract investment in major projects. The bill provides new functions and powers to the CGO. These powers of coordination enable existing processes and requirements to be applied in a consolidated and streamlined manner where necessary, instead of creating a major projects pathway that sidesteps existing requirements. Examples include:

setting, varying or aligning timeframes for processes, such as an assessment process;

calling in a process so that the CGO may perform, for example, a planning approval for an arterial road where a CGO has done the baseline studies and master planning;

attaching a condition to decisions where appropriate (for example, a requirement to transition from traditional clean energy to measurable two-year milestones); and

creating and operating state development areas.

I note that this bill is in no way unique. Similar legislation has been in place in other jurisdictions, including Queensland and New South Wales. They have proven to be effective in encouraging development and the creation of jobs in those states. I understand that WA and the NT are also developing or establishing similar processes.

In conclusion, I want to note that this bill has been endorsed by a wide range of industries, from housing, renewable energy and manufacturing groups. This has come about because of the extensive public consultation and stakeholder engagement that occurred late last year. The bill seeks to be ambitious but responsible. It includes a range of checks and balances, protections and exclusions, including for protected areas under state law and Aboriginal heritage, which is deliberately left out of scope. I commend the bill to the council.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (16:20): I rise very briefly to speak on this bill, noting of course its main objective in terms of improving coordination across our existing planning and regulatory processes and pathways to a place-based approach to de-risking critical developments through what the government has coined as state development areas, environmentally and economically suitable go zones proactively assessed by regulators, streamlined provision of enabling infrastructure for large housing developments, increased capacity and efficiency, and greater influence over the development and environmental outcomes through conditions and other mechanisms, amongst other things.

I do note that the bill has gone through an extensive consultation process. I note also that in the briefing I had on this bill when I asked about that consultation process I think it is fair to sum up the advice given to me as a middle-of-the-road type approach where everybody got a bit of something—not everything they wanted—in terms of the final outcome. Certainly, there was give and take on both sides with industry stakeholders in terms of reaching that middle ground, if you like, and being able to introduce this bill.

It has been I think quite rightly and aptly described to me as ensuring that we have these plug and go, plug and play—whatever you want to call them—areas where people know what the lay of the land is, in short. I have always been very supportive in principle of the notion of one-stop shops, and it is on that basis that I have considered this bill. We know that it can cost a ridiculous amount of money and a lot of time to get approvals through existing processes.

I think the example given to me at the briefing was one of the worst examples, of something like $20 million and a two-year process for an approval. It beggars belief that you could go to those sorts of extents before you have actually reached any outcome and have incurred those sorts of fees and costs and that sort of timeframe. It beggars belief that any company or organisation would stick around and not leave this jurisdiction and go to another if they are spending that sort of money trying to get an approval in South Australia over such a protracted period of time.

I guess that was the best example given to me because these are issues that I often discuss with stakeholders in my office in relation to the fact that there are so many different pathways that you have to go along, and it is a bit of a—it is not just a bit; it is a bureaucratic nightmare and one that we need to overcome. So I accept that this bill is designed to address those issues.

I will say, though, that one of the things I raised during my briefing, and I am hoping the minister responsible will take this on board and be able to respond to it, is it is all well and good for, I guess, the big operators to know where to go and look once we have these designated places in place and places of state significance in place and I note that there is no monetary threshold in the bill and there is a different way of determining eligibility—and I am glad there is not a threshold—but not all operators are going to be of the same size and magnitude.

I did speak to the advisers about the option of an undertaking by the government that this will be prominently placed on their website so that those operators who are not as big and potentially do not have the capacity of other operators who will know where to go and look, will have, in addition to the one-stop shop, one place where they can go and look at decisions that have been made in relation to go zones, because that at the moment has certainly been an issue.

It has certainly been an issue for stakeholders who come to see me about certain projects and find themselves running between three or four different departments and councils and whatnot and all the regulatory processes that come with that, without even having identified a suitable parcel of land for a particular project. I think that is a very important inclusion and one that ought to be very prominently placed on the website, as I said.

I do note a couple of points the Hon. Rob Simms made. Perhaps I will ask this question particularly in relation to work health and safety, but I do note also that there are powers that will come within the realm of this legislation that are already existing in other areas. It is not just the substantive act where those powers may exist, they may exist under different pieces of legislation as well, and I would be keen to hear whether work health and safety falls within that category of powers. The land acquisition one is the one that I can think of off the top of my head where there are various agencies that hold powers in relation to that under different pieces of legislation. That is no different from including them in this piece of legislation.

I did say I would not speak for very long on this other than to say that in principle the concept of one-stop shops and these plug and go areas I think is a good one in terms of efficiencies. I understand there is a lot of detail here. There will be a lot of detail yet to come in the regulations, which we will have to have a very close look at. As we know, the devil is always in the detail. I intend to do just that.

Again, I would ask the minister to confirm that that is one of the things the government is intending to do to ensure that, regardless of size and scope of those who will be effectively taking advantage of this piece of legislation, there will be somewhere easy for them to go and identify areas that are relevant to the sorts of undertakings they wish to pursue and that those processes are intended, indeed, to cut the red tape, make it more efficient and less bureaucratic in terms of being able to seek quicker outcomes and certainly in a much cheaper way.

Lastly, one of the other questions I did ask is: given that so much work has already gone into this and there has been such an extensive consultation period, I am keen to get a better idea of if the worst case scenario is two or three years what is the best case scenario under this sort of model in terms of savings on time and money? I point again to that insane example that I gave where you have a company spending $20 million in two years just for an approval of a project. That is not the sort of thing that stimulates any sort of economic development activity or, indeed, I would say, making South Australia favourable for projects if you can get it done cheaper and quicker elsewhere.

With those words, I look forward to the committee stage debate. I look forward to the minister's response to my question and I will consider the amendments that are on file as we get to them.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (16:29): I would like to thank the honourable members who have made a contribution on—

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Pangallo has just stood up. Sit down, the Hon. Mr Pangallo. I have called the minister to conclude, but if you want to make a contribution, when we get to clause 1 you can make your contribution. Minister, I am sorry to interrupt.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I would like to thank members for making a contribution: the Hon. Ms Lensink, the Hon. Ms Lee, the Hon. Mr Simms, the Hon. Ms Game, the Hon. Mr Hanson and the Hon. Connie Bonaros. It is an important bill that aims to streamline the systems that we currently have and requires balancing of social, economic and environmental considerations on a state and a local level. I am sure this is something that we would all seek to find the right balance for.

In terms of the amendments that have been filed by the opposition today, the Hon. Ms Lensink acknowledged that they were filed pretty much as we were discussing today and we acknowledge the apology that was put forward, but, because of the late filing, we will not be able to support them. However, it may be that some of them do have merit and, if they pass in this place, the government is happy to consider them between the houses.

I think one or two members mentioned timeframes for progress of this bill. My advice is that briefings were offered 11 weeks ago. If briefings were only received in the last days, that was not due to anything remiss of the government. I thank the honourable members for their contributions, and I commend the bill to the chamber.

The council divided on the second reading:

Ayes 16

Noes 3

Majority 13

AYES

NOES

Second reading thus carried; bill read a second time.