Statutes Amendment (Planning, Infrastructure and Other Matters) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 29 October 2025.)

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (12:41): I rise to make some remarks in relation to this piece of legislation. The Statutes Amendment (Planning, Infrastructure and Other Matters) Bill is a bill which we have been referring to as an omnibus bill, introduced by the Minister for Housing and Urban Development in, I think, the sitting week prior. It makes consequential, technical and administrative amendments to a number of acts across the planning, infrastructure, property and development portfolios.

The bill supports the operation of the State Development Coordination and Facilitation Act 2025 and amends some existing legislation with the establishment of the Coordinator-General's office and new mechanisms for coordinating state significant development and infrastructure delivery.

Amendments also respond to initiatives under the South Australian Housing Roadmap, aiming to reduce delays in approvals, increase digital processing of development and property transactions, and alter alignment between local and state planning functions. I think all of those particular measures are welcome. There are some which have caused some consternation to some in the industry, but I will speak to those either at the end of my second reading speech or through the committee stage.

This bill amends the following acts: the Architectural Practice Act 2009, the Land and Business (Sale and Conveyancing) Act 1994, the Law of Property Act 1936, the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016, the Real Property Act 1886, the Residential Tenancies (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act 2023, and the State Development Coordination and Facilitation Act 2025.

As I said, we all support the objective of streamlining planning and administrative processes, particularly if they modernise our planning and property legislation, which has been an ongoing matter for successive governments since the new PDI Act came into being in 2016 or 2017, thereabouts. I acknowledge the work of the former Marshall government in terms of a lot of the electronic work, and this continues that good work.

The most substantial amendments relate to the PDI Act, which can be categorised into five broad areas: recognition and interpretation, planning and governance, development assessment and automation, infrastructure and land division, and open space and enforcement. There are some other things which are technical, and I do not think it adds to the debate for me to go through things that are probably already on the record through debate in the other place.

In terms of the timing of this bill, it has kind of been later than I think it should have been: we are in the fourth-to-last sitting day of the year. I have ticked off the minister previously in relation to bringing things late, but it is fair to say that he has not rushed this one through or tried to jam it through with inordinate haste. However, certainly the industry groups that I have spoken to have had some ongoing concerns in relation to a range of matters.

There is a whole bunch of amendments, I think just for the clarity of the parliament. I took some amendments to be drafted. I think it is fair to say that the Hon. Connie Bonaros has had very detailed discussions with stakeholders on both sides, and she has three sets of amendments. I think she has been able to have some fruitful discussions, which will improve the legislation. So, when it comes to the amendments, we will play those by ear a little bit. I am happy to take her lead on that because I think she has probably had meetings and a whole range of things which I have not been engaged in, and my understanding is that the government is happy with the amendments she has come up with.

There is probably a bit of variation among some of the stakeholder groups. I do not think the Housing Industry Association have any concerns; I am not sure I have had that in writing. Master Builders Association do not have any concerns; I have had that firmly. My understanding is that the Property Council and the Urban Development Institute of Australia have had some concerns. To what degree they are being mollified by what is in the amendments and the success of those I think remains to be seen. There are concerns, obviously, about water infrastructure and infrastructure generally and who pays, which is an ongoing burr. It probably has been so for some time, but it is particularly so at the moment because everything costs a lot more than it used to.

I look forward to the committee stage of the debate and thank everyone who has contacted me in relation to this legislation.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (12:48): I rise today to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Planning, Infrastructure and Other Matters) Bill 2025. This bill represents an important step forward in streamlining processes and reducing unnecessary administrative burdens to help accelerate housing delivery across South Australia.

We cannot overstate how the housing crisis continues to impact communities across our state. Families, first-home buyers and young people are struggling to enter the market or are giving up on their dream of home ownership altogether. We speak constantly in this place about the need to increase supply to help address housing availability and affordability. Some of the key barriers have been the time-consuming and complex planning and approval processes that delay projects and increase costs. This bill tackles some of the inefficiencies in these processes head-on.

The reforms in this legislation are designed to streamline development approvals, reduce administrative burdens and modernise outdated systems. By enabling electronic execution of property dealings and digital land division processes, these changes could save up to three months in processing time, meaning that families can move into their homes a lot faster.

Combined with AI-driven planning assessment reducing approvals from an average of 9.5 working days to just minutes, these reforms will make a tangible difference for builders, developers and homebuyers alike. This is not about removing safeguards—councils will continue to issue building consents and the minister retains oversight—but is about using technology to deliver faster, smarter outcomes.

The bill also simplifies the Planning and Design Code amendment process, reducing the reliance on the State Planning Commission for minor technical changes. This will allow the commission to concentrate on statewide strategic priorities while ensuring that necessary updates to planning rules can occur without unnecessary delay. The minister can still seek the advice of the State Planning Commission as required on complex matters or where there is significant community interest.

The bill also strengthens planning objectives by formally recognising First Nations knowledge and perspectives, ensuring cultural heritage is considered in future development decisions. Further, the introduction of local area plans will strengthen alignment between regional and local planning, ensuring councils have clear pathways to support growth and achieve housing targets outlined in the Greater Adelaide Regional Plan. While this is a new requirement, I understand the minister is committed to working closely with councils and the LGA to provide support and guidance. The department has also committed to providing resources and technical assistance to councils, recognising that these plans can be resource intensive for smaller local governments.

I wish to highlight that the bill will also allow the use of rent-to-buy schemes to be broadened to the private sector where appropriate, following the success of the SA Housing Trust pilot program. This initiative gives long-term renters a pathway to home ownership, allowing them to rent their home at a reduced rate for two years while they continue to save for a deposit before buying the home at a fixed purchase price. With thousands of expressions of interest already received for the pilot, I am particularly hopeful about the opportunity to expand rent-to-buy programs to assist key workers purchase a home.

We have many businesses and industries, particularly in regional areas, that are struggling to attract workers due to a severe lack of local housing options. Expanding rent-to-buy schemes where appropriate could help address these interrelated challenges, supporting housing affordability, workforce retention and community resilience.

While I strongly support the intent of this bill, I acknowledge that industry stakeholders, including the Urban Development Institute of Australia (UDIA), have raised some concerns that warrant careful consideration. These include the proposed requirement for landowner consent before lodging a development application. The UDIA views this as an additional burden that could create unnecessary delays, as developers often lodge applications prior to settlement without impacting the vendor.

The bill will also specify that land division assessments will not be finalised until an agreement is reached with SA Water for the connection of water services. I understand the UDIA has raised concerns regarding potential negative impacts of this amendment, including potentially limiting competition and discouraging private sector involvement in addressing infrastructure challenges.

The UDIA has also expressed reservations about the minister's proposed power to terminate agreements or deeds where an infrastructure scheme is adopted. This power is intended to ensure consistency and fair cost-sharing when infrastructure schemes transition from basic to primary, but I acknowledge the need for transparency and safeguards that maintain confidence in contractual arrangements.

The UDIA is particularly concerned about the impact of terminating lawfully entered agreements, removing capacity for negotiation, and the imbalance in the way costs and obligations are considered. These concerns highlight the importance of ongoing dialogue with industry to ensure that reforms achieve their intended purpose without unintended consequences. I am constantly speaking to constituent stakeholders about the need to simplify the streamlined development approval processes, introduce efficiencies and ensure that our planning system is working for South Australians.

Families, communities, businesses and developers alike raise these concerns with me time and time again, and I believe that overall these amendments will help reduce delays, unlock housing supply and reduce costs, ensuring more South Australians can secure a home sooner. I am committed to reducing red tape, supporting economic growth and helping more South Australians buy their own home.

This bill presents several sensible reforms to modernise planning processes and reduce unnecessary delays, and of course this is welcome. I note that amendments will be moved by the Hon. Connie Bonaros and the Hon. Michelle Lensink. I will consider those amendments during the committee stage.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (12:55): I rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Planning, Infrastructure and Other Matters) Bill, a bill aimed at identifying additional efficiencies to bring housing to the market more quickly and drive significant efficiencies in the housing sector. To that end, the drafting of this bill makes changes to various acts within the planning, property and construction sectors. The key functions of most of the amendments—indeed, all of the amendments—are intended to be about streamlining processes, reducing administrative burdens where possible, and amending those bits of legislation which in effect stand in the way of those sorts of efficiency measures.

At the outset, I will place this on the record. Can I say that all the feedback that I have had from the sectors, and individuals in the sectors, seems to indicate that the government has overwhelmingly been very open to discussions around roadblocks and inefficiencies that exist within the sector. Stakeholders have brought issues to the attention of government and there has, I think, been a genuinely receptive and solution-driven response to many of those issues. That is a good thing, especially when it does not require legislation and you can fix things if they are brought to the attention of those who are able to fix them. Wherever levers can be pulled in the absence of legislation, it appears they are being pulled, and that is good.

I guess this bill is the culmination of those inefficiencies and measures that actually require legislative intervention. To that end, I will probably just focus my comments on the two aspects of this bill that are predominantly the subject of amendments that I will be moving, which have been the subject of very, very extensive consultation and discussions with the sectors involved and, indeed, with government.

When I say the sectors—and I say this because it is important—we are not simply talking about the big end of town. This is not a bill that just impacts the big end of town, and I think that is really important, particularly when you start to talk about the sorts of amendments that we will be dealing with later today around the infrastructure schemes. There are small players that are impacted by these measures, but they also have concerns that are equally as valid as those of the big end of town.

This is what we do in the centre of politics: we try to find a compromise that everyone can live with. I think some of the measures have quite rightly, as other members have indicated, given rise to very valid concerns, and those valid concerns centre predominantly on existing entitlements and protections when it comes to the infrastructure scheme that would be overridden in the name of efficiencies. On the face of it, that is something that anybody impacted by this scheme, no matter how big or small a player you were in this area, would have concerns about.

So there are a number of amendments that have been the subject of very extensive consultations; I reiterate that. It is, I guess, a bit of a compromise between where those who will be impacted by this bill and the stakeholders sit and what was initially proposed by the government. I thank the government for its willingness to take on board those concerns and land, if you like, at a middle ground that does have the desired impact.

When it comes to the role of the Planning Commission, I do have an amendment around that. I think that is a really critical aspect of this bill as well, because one of the things we cannot afford to do in the name of efficiency and streamlining is override oversight. I think the Planning Commission plays an extremely important role in that regard, so some of the provisions which the government had sought to remove in the name of streamlining I think are worthy of debate in relation to the important role they play when it comes to external oversight and transparency. When I say 'external', I mean external of the government, and that role now is one that is undertaken by the Planning Commission.

So I will seek to reinsert some of the provisions with the support, I hope, of both sides but certainly following discussions with the government. I do not think anybody disagreed in principle—in fact, the sectors did not disagree in principle—that they are good streamlining measures, but they are important in terms of oversight and efficiencies. I look forward to explaining them shortly when we get to the committee stage debate.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:15.