Bills

Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Unauthorised Tree-damaging Activity) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 October 2025.)

The Hon. T.T. NGO (16:56): I rise on behalf of the government to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Planning, Infrastructure and Other Matters) Bill 2025, a bill that introduces measures to speed up housing delivery and simplify development processes. In 2024, the Malinauskas Labor government released the South Australian Housing Roadmap to tackle the housing crisis with clear and practical actions. We continue to deliver on those commitments through major land releases in Concordia and Onkaparinga Heights. The Concordia Code Amendment alone has rezoned land for 10,000 new homes and ensured infrastructure is delivered up-front.

We are addressing housing affordability through first-home buying programs and major funding to SA Water to support new developments. The housing crisis affects us all, and this bill delivers efficiencies to bring homes to the market faster. It enables the use of technology and artificial intelligence to make planning decisions. AI technology is now being trialled through the SA planning portal, one of the first of its kind globally.

The bill makes sensible updates across several acts, including the Architectural Practice Act, the Law of Property Act, the Real Property Act and the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act. These changes will streamline processes, reduce red tape and modernise outdated systems.

Amendments in this bill that save significant processing time include extending the Government Architect's tenure on the Architectural Practice Board, expanding the rent-to-buy scheme following a successful pilot and allowing electronic signatures for deeds under the Law of Property Act. The Real Property Act will also be updated to enable fully electronic land divisions, further reducing delays. To ensure transparency, landowners must now consent before an application is lodged over their property.

The bill also streamlines the State Planning Commission's functions so it can focus on statewide initiatives. The Minister for Planning will still be able to seek the commission's advice when needed. Further amendments will simplify the process for changing the Planning and Design Code, allowing the minister to initiate code amendments when appropriate, reducing bottlenecks and turnaround times.

The bill clarifies that land division clearance can proceed once agreements with SA Water are in place, rather than waiting for connections to be completed. It introduces a requirement for local governments to prepare local area plans aligned with regional plans, strengthening coordination between states and local planning. Other improvements include allowing infrastructure schemes to transition efficiently between stages and updating language to align with federal laws. Importantly, the bill also recognises First Nations people in the objectives of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act.

The Labor Malinauskas government remains focused on affordability, supply and cutting unnecessary delays. Every week saved brings us closer to getting more South Australians into homes and it is something we all—

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Point of order: I think the member might be speaking from the wrong speech notes.

The PRESIDENT: The point of order of the Hon. Ms Franks is noted, and I think we all agree with you.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (17:01): I rise to indicate that, while the Liberal Party supports the sentiments of this legislation, we are unable to support the bill itself. Probably the most significant flaw it contains is the presumption that any damage to trees is caused by the landowner, which I think is potentially unnecessarily punitive and will cause a lot of potential problems for landowners who may find themselves in a position where they need to install CCTV in order to have that as a defence against any trees that potentially are going to be damaged on their property.

I kid you not. You heard it here first in the Legislative Council. It should never be said that we are a sleepy place that is not observing the Zeitgeist because we may end up with a particular offence known as revenge pruning, where someone seeks to have the owner of a property charged with offences by lopping trees and causing unauthorised tree-damaging activity, and the default will be that they are the person who is responsible.

Tree canopies are something that is important to all parties and this was very ably demonstrated when the Liberal Party was the party of government under Steven Marshall. We support the activities of the City of Unley, which is seeking to increase its tree canopy, and are disappointed that those initiatives were not continued by this government. We established Green Adelaide, which had a range of means by which it worked on greening and tree canopy and part of its legislative inclusions were green streets and flourishing Parklands through sustainable water management and fauna, flora and ecosystem health in the urban environment.

The Greener Neighbourhoods fund, which in its initial phase provided funding to urban councils for street and park tree canopy expansion, was a highly successful program leading to budget increases from Green Adelaide's internal funds and more funding after the initial one. In 2021, this was expanded to regional centres with populations over 10,000. We established a specific CBD greening fund, including several million dollars for the Adelaide City Council's street tree planting, and a range of others. National Park City status was another initiative of our government, along with Glenthorne National Park, in which some 200,000 trees and shrubs have been planted since proclamation.

I am not being glib when I say that most people do love trees. I have certainly sought to increase the native trees on my own suburban property, recognising that they are an important food source for local fauna and are much more resilient in our climate. We do support the aims of what this bill is intending but we think that, although it is designed to be a crackdown on tree vandals, it is probably going to hurt a lot of people and may indeed lead to people being too scared to plant trees because they might get pinged by these penalties. With those brief words, I indicate our opposition to this bill.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (17:06): I rise to speak on behalf of the government to explain why we will not be supporting this bill. While we appreciate its intent to strengthen protections for our urban tree canopy and deter illegal removal, we believe the proposed bill in its current form is flawed.

The bill proposes to define both the Urban Tree Canopy Offset Scheme and the Urban Tree Canopy Overlay in the act, make the offset scheme permanent and introduce new powers allowing the seizure and sale of machinery used in unlawful tree-damaging activities. The bill would require courts to impose compensation orders on anyone convicted, allow councils to carry out replanting work if offenders fail to comply and presumes that the landowner is responsible unless they can prove otherwise. These measures may appear strong; however, they place unfair burdens on ordinary South Australians and duplicate existing powers.

Section 228 of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act already allows the court to order the replanting of trees or modification of developments when unlawful tree-damaging activity has occurred. The powers are there; the problem is not a lack of legislation, but how those provisions are enforced. The government believes that adding new, overlapping layers of law will not necessarily improve compliance or outcomes.

Another concern about this bill is the reversal of the burden of proof. It presumes that the landowner is guilty of the offence unless they can prove otherwise. Many landowners rely on licensed contractors and may have no knowledge that unlawful work has been undertaken. To expect them to disprove guilt against the resources of a council or government agency is questionable. Reversing the burden of proof should only occur in exceptional circumstances, such as where it is absolutely necessary, where reasonable defences exist and where the offence is otherwise almost impossible to prove. There are many other serious offences under the act, such as illegal building work, that are equally difficult to prosecute yet the same reversal is not proposed.

While the idea of councils replanting trees when offenders fail to comply with a make-good order sounds practical, in reality it would be difficult and costly to enforce. Those who fail to comply in the first place are often not in a position to reimburse councils. Likewise, allowing machinery to be seized and sold introduces a new risk around ownership disputes and compensation if convictions are later overturned.

The reforms have been proposed without proper engagement with councils, compliance officers and other specialists and consultants who are expected to implement them. As such, the government would want to engage with the local government sector before progressing reforms of this nature.

Protecting and expanding our urban tree canopy is a shared goal. We all understand the value of trees in cooling our suburbs, supporting biodiversity and improving our well being. Achieving that goal requires fairness and cooperation, not legislation that risks punishing innocent landowners and overburdening local councils. It is for these reasons that the government cannot support the bill in its current form.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:11): I rise to thank those speakers who have made a contribution today, the Hon. Michelle Lensink and the Hon. Tung Ngo. I am disappointed that neither the opposition nor the government will consider debating this bill and continuing this conversation today. This is a serious issue, and I draw members attention to the case law analysis that was completed by the City of Port Adelaide Enfield since I introduced this bill.

I believe that letter—a letter from Mayor Claire Boan sent to the Premier, which was circulated to many members of parliament—actually shows how the current laws are not working. We have seen the strengthening of our laws, but that analysis by the City of Port Adelaide Enfield indicates that between 2000 and 2007 average fines were between $3,000 and $4,000—this was 10 per cent to 13 per cent of the maximum allowable fine at the time. Since 2007, when the maximum penalty was increased from $30,000 to $120,000 because the fines seemed to not be working, average fines have been some $6,000 to $7,000—only 4 per cent to 6 per cent of the maximum allowable fine.

In fact, in percentage terms it seems to be less than half what they were before the increase, and it is rare for a fine to reach, let alone exceed, 30 per cent of the maximum allowable fine. It is all well to say that we have great laws and that the courts can do their job, but is not being taken seriously at the moment. This will give another tool to ensure that illegal tree felling is not occurring.

I note that the Hon. Tung Ngo spoke about innocent property owners who might somehow fall foul of rogue tree removalists and arborists doing a job they did not authorise. Well, they would be able to prove, in that case, that they, as landowners, did not authorise that job. That would be quite an easy process. What we see, of course, is not just ethical arborists working within this space but also unethical arborists; people can call themselves an arborist in this state whether or not they are trained. We have rogue operators, and we do not have enough tools to curb their ways.

We also know—the Urban Forest Inquiry of the Environment, Resources and Development Committee has done some really fine work in this area, and I was hopeful that perhaps that work would have furnished more of the speaking notes of at least the government bench today—that we have a long way to go in ensuring that we cool our suburbs and have an urban canopy that does the job of keeping the climate cool as well as our suburbs safe for human habitation into the future.

We should be taking this more seriously than we are. This was a small measure that would have ensured rogue operators were actually held to account and lost the tools of their unethical trade. With that, I certainly commend the bill to the council and was looking forward to a constructive debate where perhaps people moved amendments if they had problems with certain small parts of it. I will be dividing, should I have a second voice.

The council divided on the second reading:

Ayes 3

Noes 16

Majority 13

AYES

NOES

Second reading thus negatived.