HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-02-03 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

DEVELOPMENT (PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

(Continued from page 1237.)

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (16:44): I had just started my contribution to the debate on this bill before lunch, and I reiterate that we are supporting it. As I said, having lived in a state heritage home that was adjacent to a slightly more modern building, with another state heritage home next to that, the inconsistencies regarding what you could do in and around these buildings were quite amazing. The desire to have a coordinated approach to planning to preserve the historic nature of Glenelg and the buildings there was great in theory but, in practicality, it was not working.

We have seen many examples of this in and around Glenelg, unfortunately. Probably the worst examples were on Colley Terrace where a number of local heritage listed places there were potentially able to be restored to the beautiful historic homes that are visible in the photographs in the Glenelg Library. They could have been restored but, obviously, the economics were not there; developers bought the properties and these local heritage listed places were knocked over. There are some quite large buildings there now. In fact, I think Liberty Towers is the largest building by volume in the metropolitan area.

The thing that I really look forward to in this bill and the regulations is more consistency in the development of buildings, additions, changes and alterations throughout not just the metropolitan area but also the whole of South Australia. I am continually amazed by development in South Australia and the consistency of the inconsistency. The guidelines in development plans are being used to allow for a wide range of inconsistent developments. I see them throughout my electorate all the time.

It may be like the Caltex service station on Brighton Road at Hove. It is the only service station on the western side of Brighton Road from Christies Beach through to opposite the airport. It is the only servo there and yet, because of the council's attitude of strict adherence, that service station cannot be open 24 hours a day. Most of the residents around it do not mind that at all. There are a couple over the road who have been talked to by the owners and a compromise is available there, I understand. However, the council sticks to the fact that it cannot have that because a particular zoning is there, and yet there are other developments and changes of use throughout the City of Holdfast Bay which are quite incredible.

In other council areas in my electorate (Marion and West Torrens) we are seeing similar sorts of occurrences. Over at Glengowrie there is an atrocious development, in my opinion. I am no architect, but I think this is an atrocious development. The quality of the homes themselves might be good but where they are is atrocious. There were large quarter-acre blocks which had quite nice bungalows on them which had probably been built in the 1950s and 1960s and which were terrific family homes. What has happened is that a developer has come in and knocked over two of these homes and built some semi-detached, two-storey apartments which go wall-to-wall across the block. He has then filled in the whole back of it. He has destroyed the amenity not just for the neighbours but also for the whole community. It has changed the whole character of the area. This is something I am very concerned about.

Over in the City of West Torrens a house was knocked over and another house built on the site. The gutters on the house next door which, under the old regulations, were allowed to be on the boundary, are now squashed up against the side of the house by the side wall of the new development. It is really just an unforgivable way of dealing with developments to allow this sort of thing to happen. These are just two very small examples of the things that I hope this bill and the regulations will overcome.

The issue raised by the member for Davenport about the internal changes to buildings that are permissible is something that needs to be looked at. There was a case at Glenelg North, opposite St Leonard's Primary School, where there was (in some people's minds) an enterprising group of men who decided to change some three-bedroom homes into multiple-use dwellings. Every room in the house was used as a bedroom. They were rented out, at quite high rents, to people out of the mental health and prison systems. They had one toilet, one kitchen and no extra car parks, and it was a total disaster. Let us hope that under these regulations that sort of thing is not allowed to happen again.

There is a real need to make sure that councils have a good hard look at their development plans. I have to give some plaudits here to the City of Holdfast Bay. The City of Holdfast Bay do have character zones in place. At Glenelg East there were some real issues with property owners who had quite large homes (not new homes but the older-style bungalows) along Dunrobin Road and Maxwell Terrace. These homes were potentially able to be sold off and subdivided, and then homes which the residents there and I think would have been out of character for that area may have been permissible. But, thanks to the City of Holdfast Bay's common sense, that will not be allowed.

That is not to say I want to stop people subdividing their land if they want to sell a big home, subdivide it and move off into retirement, but it has to be done with some degree of communication, consultation and looking forward to the future so that, as I said at the start of my speech, the sign 'Historic Glenelg' on West Terrace really does mean there is something of the past there. Whether it is the bungalows of the 1950s and 1960s—and some from the 1940s—or the homes dating right back to 1886, they need to be there. What I do not want to see is builders coming in and looking at the regulations and saying, 'This council will allow this and put up with this, so we will design a certain number of styles of homes for this particular area', so it will be one, two, three, four or five designs that suit all purposes for this particular council.

A few years ago I was in America in the outskirts of Los Angeles where there are what they call 'block developments'. There was a series of homes where occasionally the colour of the roof changed and occasionally the colour of the paint on the outside changed but, if you were not sure where you were going, you did not know which house was which, because they all looked almost identical. I would hate to see that happen under these regulations where a builder could say, 'We can get in this sort of home, so let's build a whole lot of these.' That would be a terrible thing. We need some flexibility and variation. We need to preserve the past and move forward, but also we need to ensure that planners, investors, home owners and builders can do this with a degree of certainty. Those who want to extend and improve their homes should be able to do so with a degree of certainty and also not have to wait out months of delay as we have often seen. We do not want that to continue to happen.

I support this bill and look forward to looking at the regulations, because the devil is in the detail, as the member for Mitchell said. The thrust of this legislation and the regulations, as I understand it, is going to be a great improvement on what we have, and I look forward to seeing the regulations in their final form.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (16:52): This bill has caused me some concern in the sense that, whilst I welcome anything that will expedite planning approvals (which this bill seeks to do), I think until we see it in operation, when it becomes an act, we will not really know what the impact will be in terms of development. I appreciate that when you have 19 councils in the metropolitan area it is not surprising that you will have some complexities, delays and different approaches to planning matters, and I think that could be resolved in ways other than through this bill. However, putting that aside, it is not going to change in the short term, so legislation is required. I have some concerns, but it is a trade-off, ultimately, between expediting planning approvals and getting things right. There is little point in doing things in a hurry if you get it wrong. I will mention some of my concerns, and I hope these do not remain and are addressed over time.

The first is in relation to dealing with stormwater. Everyone in South Australia I think is aware that we have a problem at the moment with water and capturing stormwater yet, currently, we see a lot of developments that exacerbate the problem. In fact, in my electorate there is a development on one of the main collector roads where the whole front of the property—and it has been built only in recent times—is under pavers. Obviously, that is done to facilitate parking and also to minimise any gardening, but what often does not happen, and could happen, is using the option of employing porous pavers. I know of a business at Blackwood that has used porous pavers (and these porous pavers are able to withstand the weight of heavy trucks) and, as a result, a large red gum has survived and is thriving, because the proprietor of that business has had enough insight and commitment to provide porous pavers where the rain can soak into the ground rather than add to the flow of stormwater that we are already trying to deal with.

I would like to see a greater commitment and action by the government to encourage people to use modern technology by way of porous pavers so that we do not add to stormwater run-off. As I understand it, the situation in New South Wales is that commercial developments must deal with all their stormwater on site, and I think the government here is looking at that issue. I know it is not specifically part of this proposal, but I think it is very important that that issue be dealt with.

Another issue that concerns me, which I hope does not become a big problem over time, is that of landscaping. As people move away from gardening because of the cost and availability of water and a change of lifestyle, we are now getting big houses on small blocks. That often means that there is little or no room for trees. It is not simply about trees as air conditioners: trees reduce the ambient temperature by at least three or four degrees. Trees also prolong the life of bitumen roads by about one-third of their normal expectation of life. Trees, shrubs and grasses are also habitat. We often hear gardening experts saying, 'Plant this; it will save water.' That is fine, those plants will use less water, but people need to look at vegetation as habitat, because the existing habitat has been so diminished that there is a real threat to many of our species of birds and other animals.

Sadly, what I am currently seeing in the metropolitan area, and a classic example (and I am not picking on them for religious reasons), is the Exclusive Brethren building standardised places of worship. There is one at Littlehampton near the Great Eastern Hotel, and two have recently been built in my electorate. I do not have a problem with their religious beliefs; that is entirely up to them. However, if one looks at the landscaping that has been done (and it is obviously legal), one will see that there has been a minimal effort around the edge. There is a tiny, pencil-thin strip around the edge of the perimeter of the property—obviously, to maximise car parking. They are, no doubt, conforming with the law, because they are law-abiding citizens. However, what you end up with is minuscule landscaping, which means that ultimately the character of the area is changed.

If members want to have a look, they can come to my electorate and visit places such as Nickel Drive and Black Road, where they will see two of these recent places of worship built by the Exclusive Brethren, or they can go to Littlehampton, and they will see exactly what I mean. I have nothing against their buildings; it is obviously a general issue, but it is highlighted by those developments. It is obviously not something that is limited to the Exclusive Brethren.

I think the government really has to look at the landscaping provisions (and I have written to the minister along these lines a couple of times recently), because some them contain very poor, low-grade provision for trees and shrubs. People carry out minimal planting, and within a few months that vegetation is dead or dying. Ultimately, if we are not careful, particularly in the metropolitan area, we will end up with second-rate areas that look like something out of a Third World country.

Another point I want to make is that, in terms of developments, I believe there should be a requirement on developers to provide community facilities. A classic case where they have not provided them is Craigburn Farm (or Blackwood Park, which is its commercial name). There is not one community facility in a housing development that will have over 1,200 homes.

It is not in my electorate; it is in the electorate of the member for Davenport. However, I argued for something like a community centre. There is nothing. So, all those people who have paid a minimum of probably $200,000 a block, or more, have no community facility whatsoever. I think that allows the developers to get away with a minimal contribution. When people buy a block in a development such as that, part of that money should go towards something like a community centre, where people can attend cookery classes and learn English if it is not already their first language, and so on.

If members want to see a good example of a community centre they should look at the one in Coromandel Valley built by the City of Onkaparinga. Another point that I think needs to be addressed involves retirement villages. I have several in my electorate and one of them has nearly 300 units in it. It is all on one title, so that they do not have to contribute to open space and make the contribution that I think they should make. Those issues need to be addressed. This bill will bring great benefit, particularly to the developers. I am not so sure that it will bring much benefit to the wider community.

I think that the claims of an increase in gross state product from $3.4 billion to $4.9 billion are probably exaggerated but, hopefully, some benefit will arise from this. The final point I want to make in relation to development—and I know this excludes aspects of heritage—relates to areas such as Hahndorf and other areas that have a special history. They should be protected by way of requiring development to fit into a theme, particularly in the main streets. They do it in Europe and England. If you want to put a KFC in the main street of a Hahndorf-type village somewhere in Europe they would say, 'You can do it but you must fit in with the heritage theme.' I think that we have been too easygoing here in relation to that matter.

I support the bill in general terms, and I hope that it works. I hope that it is not just a mechanism for those in the development industry to get what they want more quickly without a significant benefit flowing to the wider community, because otherwise I think that the community is being short-changed.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (17:01): I would also like to make some comments on this bill because there are significant issues in the electorate I represent in this place concerning planning and development. I do not need to traverse the technicalities of this particular piece of legislation; I think that has been adequately covered by previous speakers in the house today and by the minister in his second reading explanation.

Planning development has needed some reform, obviously. It is an issue that is raised via my electorate office on a fairly regular basis because there are some frustrations with people lodging development applications and the way in which the development plan and development assessment panels, as well as the Development Assessment Commission itself, operate. I know that the legislation does not necessarily go to streamline the whole process, but it does make some development applications easier to process and not get logjammed in the bureaucracy that currently is experienced.

As I said, I get quite a number of contacts in my electorate office from people frustrated with the process. It is a process that has evolved over many years. I understand the need for having all the 'i's dotted and the 't's crossed in local government development plans (under the Development Act, for which we are responsible), because some shoddy development has taken place through the decades. There is a bit of a wink and a nudge, and, 'You'll be right', and then down the track we see that the development that has taken place historically is not really that tremendous for the general amenity of that particular district.

The development plans have had to evolve to close those supposed loopholes in the process. However, like everything we see, there is a tendency for the pendulum to swing too far the other way. The argument in this case is that the pendulum has swung too far the other way, hence the need for this legislation. However, it does take me to some quite key issues that are faced in a particular district in my electorate, that being the Mount Barker, Littlehampton and Nairne areas.

We have seen significant development, both residential and commercial, in Mount Barker in particular, and also residential development in the Littlehampton and Nairne townships. We have seen a recent announcement by the government of its plan for Greater Adelaide in engaging consultants. I note the Minister for Planning and Urban Development taking interest in the debate today. We have seen the government's plan to engage the services of consultants in assessing that district of Mount Barker, Littlehampton and Nairne for further residential development in an effort to cater for the government's plan of population growth in this state.

So, whilst the government is conducting its own consultation, it has become apparent in my seven years in this place that the government's track record of community consultation has been particularly poor. I could give a number of examples of poor consultation that the government has undertaken, particularly in my electorate concerning the prescription of the water resources in the western Mount Lofty Ranges catchment area.

Under the guise of community consultation the bureaucrats from DWLBC came out and communicated the decision the government had already made. There was no real consultation, rather, telling the key community stakeholder groups what the decision would be, namely, to prescribe the water resources in the catchment area. We had a debate at the time and the government implemented its broad-brush, heavy-handed approach, and we are seeing as a consequence all the complexities that have come out of that issue in relation to trying to develop a water allocation plan in an extremely complicated water resource district.

The water resources in the Adelaide Hills in that area is extremely complicated when compared with the Willunga Basin and out through the Murray Mallee and the like. With underground water we are not tapping into a big underground basin in the Adelaide Hills. There are thousands of individual, separate rock aquifers and the department is struggling—to use the kindest description—to try to get a handle on how to properly measure that resource.

That job is far more difficult than assessing the catchment in terms of the dams and so on that catch water above the ground. That is one example, and it is not just me saying it but also the key stakeholders—the fruit and wine grape growers—who felt the consultation process was very poor. That was a specific example in my electorate and in the electorate of the member for Heysen.

On a statewide basis, the country health plan and the debacle that followed that in relation to the community consultation exposed how poorly the government undertook the community consultation in relation to the country health plan. We had the country communities revolting against the country health plan and the government arguably did not seek advice from country doctors, and so on. I am not sure of the actual title of the professional group, but the president of the association of rural doctors, Dr Rischbeth, strongly opposed that plan.

The Hon. R.J. McEwen interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I am giving an example of how poorly the government conducts its community consultation. Its track record relates to the question mark over community consultation and the consultation process that the government will undertake in relation to planning and development in the Mount Barker district. Minister, that is how it relates to this bill. Because the government has got such a poor track record of community consultation, I am undertaking my own consultation process within the electorate.

I have highlighted it through the local media, and I will send out a survey form to every home and an extensive number of businesses in those three towns to seek feedback on what the local people believe should take place in the district. Do they want more houses built? Do they want to draw a line in the sand and say that, as a result of the current development of 800 new homes on the southern part of Mount Barker, enough is enough until the government is able to provide an adequate, satisfactory level of infrastructure and services in the community to support the increase in population? Anecdotal evidence is that people are telling me and local government people that we need to draw a line in the sand. That is what people are telling me, but I want to seek a broad range of comment from the community. Once that takes place, I will be able to measure it against what the government consultants release. We will be holding the government to account on what its investigations reveal and on what the consultants report.

At present the government is not satisfactorily putting services into the district to meet the demand. The maternity unit of the Mount Barker hospital is at capacity. I get a consistent flow of complaints from the local community about how the hospital is not meeting the needs of the community. The schools are struggling for resources. Mount Barker Primary School—one of two primary schools in the town—after many years of lobbying and fundraising is only now having a facility built where the children are able to undertake out-of-classroom activities. They call it an all-purpose facility. It is another name for a gym, but it is not just a gym. They can hold assemblies out of the weather and they can undertake recreational activities out of the weather. We know that the hills district is wet and cold in the winter, so it is not appropriate to have primary schoolchildren out in the weather during those cold winter months.

Ms CICCARELLO: I rise on a point of order, sir. I think the member is straying completely from the bill. What he is saying has absolutely nothing to do with the planning and development bill.

The SPEAKER: Order! I have to admit that I have not been following closely, but I will pay attention. If the member for Kavel is straying too widely, I will pick him up.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Thank you for that direction, Mr Speaker. Obviously I disagree with the member for Norwood because it is all about planning and development and the government supporting that planning and development in a satisfactory manner because, to date, it has not. If the government wants to open up more land in the hills for residential development, particularly in the Mount Barker district, then it has an obligation and a responsibility to provide the level of services to support the local area satisfactorily. It is of real relevance. I could further digress in my comments. However, I think I have made a number of key points. The government has a poor track record of community consultation. It needs to get it right. It needs to resource the district adequately with services and the like. To hold the government to account, I am conducting my own consultation process in relation to the development issue in that part of the district.

Ms CICCARELLO (Norwood) (17:16): I wish to make a few brief comments in relation to the current planning reforms proposed by the government and, in particular, I wish to comment on the development and implementation of the new residential code under the Development (Planning and Development Review) Amendment Bill. The government proposes to introduce the new residential code from 1 March 2009 for alterations and additions to existing homes, excluding heritage areas and places, and it is in respect of those heritage areas and places that I rise to make comment.

I state at the outset that I understand the government's intention in relation to the residential code, that is, to increase the efficiency of the planning approval process by exempting certain types of development from requiring council approval. I have no doubt that this move by the government will reduce unnecessary red tape experienced by South Australian families looking to undertake minor development on their property. I recognise that it is important for the government to balance what are reasonable expectations of landowners to develop their land for their benefit. I believe this to be a sensible legislative approach by the government.

However, many residents of the Norwood electorate have lived in the suburbs making up the Norwood Payneham and St Peters council area with an expectation that their built environment will retain that character which has been built up over many years. I seek the assurance of the government that the residential code proposed will not adversely impact on character areas within the Norwood electorate, where residents have a reasonable expectation that areas of character should be preserved. I am of the view that many residents within the Norwood Payneham and St Peters council choose to live and raise a family there because of the unique character of the area.

I was encouraged by the comments made by the Minister for Urban Development and Planning during the committee stage of the Development (Planning and Development Review) Amendment Bill in the Legislative Council on 2 December 2008, when the minister stated that the protection of heritage and the uniqueness of Adelaide's suburbs is important to this government. The minister also stated:

This is the reason why the government did not adopt all the recommendations of the planning and development review steering committee, choosing to exempt historic conservation zones and heritage items from the application of the proposed residential code in recognition that development in these areas is sensitive and must be assessed on qualitative criteria.

The minister further stated:

Between now and 31 March 2009, councils will be able to nominate to me those areas which they consider to have character and which can be the subject of further work on how the development assessment process can be streamlined for landowners in these areas.

I seek the government's commitment that the City of Norwood Payneham and St Peters will be afforded every opportunity to identify areas of character to be excluded from the operation of the proposed residential code.

The Minister for Urban Development and Planning has indicated that he intends to release a suite of documents to assist councils to identify areas of character within their council districts. I look forward to seeing those documents and ask that the City of Norwood Payneham and St Peters make full use of this assistance. I am aware that the City of Unley has undertaken a comprehensive development plan amendment (DPA) to identify areas of character and that this DPA was well received by the government. I have every expectation that the government will provide the City of Norwood Payneham and St Peters the opportunity to identify areas of character. I take the opportunity to encourage the City of Norwood Payneham and St Peters to do this work without undue delay for the benefit of those families seeking to preserve areas of character.

I have had discussions with the minister and his staff since the code was first proposed. I will be writing further to the Minister for Urban Development and Planning informing him of my concerns and asking that he give due consideration to the comments I have made in the house today. The Norwood Payneham and St Peters council is very concerned about heritage protection, as was the former Kensington and Norwood council.

We put in place many historic conservation zones and, in fact, the whole suburb of Kensington was, in my time, made an historic conservation zone. Currently, the council has 600 local heritage places and 1,500 contributory items, not to mention 73 state heritage-listed properties in that area. I think that signifies the importance the council and the residents place on the area. With that, I conclude my remarks on the bill.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite—Leader of the Opposition) (17:21): I want to contribute to this debate to place on the record how pleased the opposition is to support the measure. We often hear from the government that the opposition is opposed to this and opposed to that. It is the opposition's job to hold the government to account and critique it in order to ensure that both sides of every argument are fully explained and presented for the people of South Australia to understand and absorb. It is also the job of an opposition to come forward with positive ideas of its own and, where the government comes up with something that is worth supporting, to support it and that is why in respect of these planning reforms we are very happy to give it our support.

If anything, we would like to have seen these sorts of measures introduced much earlier in this government's time in office. The government came to office in 2002 and, for the first four years, I think it probably did not do much of substance. I know the numbers were different then, but not much was achieved, not many ribbons were cut and not many structural reforms like this were introduced. I think that is also true for the second term of this government. I do not think a lot has been done. A lot of things are on the drawing board now but, when you look back over the past seven years, I am not sure whether the government can claim many major achievements in the way of structural reform. Things are planned, if they get a third term, but that is a big if, isn't it?

This is a structural reform that I think is worth while. My understanding is that it has been handled reasonably well by the minister in the other place. I think the consultation between the two parties and the minor parties has been fair and reasonable. The minister understood that the opposition was very firm in its commitment to preserving our heritage suburbs and to ensuring that, over a period of time, Adelaide as we know it does not lose its character and its special appeal. There is growing concern about the demolition of old homes even where they are not of heritage significance or even of local heritage significance. But still, where they are appealing and the streetscapes are enjoyable places to live, we want to see that situation retained.

In respect of the regulations, which are really the meat of this legislation, we will be keeping a very close eye on any changes in the future. The government proposed amendments to the planning systems through its Planning Review back in June—I think on 19 June 2007—with the minister keen to ensure that the Planning Review Committee would report to parliament by the end of 2007 and that the legislation would be introduced in 2008. As I mentioned, it is two years later that we are considering the legislation.

We actually went out there with our own policy document on 5 May 2008 because, frankly, we were tired of waiting. We flagged our position and got out there early and, in many ways, set the agenda. I hope that made it clear to the government what our position is and that it informed, to some degree, what has finally been brought to the parliament here in early 2009. It is indicative that we will get out there with our own agenda if the government dillydallies and fails to take action on its own account.

I am not going to repeat the contributions made by my colleagues earlier. I, simply, as Leader of the Opposition, signal to the government that if it is prepared to come up with more constructive and sensible structural changes that make the state a better place, the opposition is very happy to support it. If it is good legislation, we will support it. If it is sloppy and bad legislation, we will oppose it.

I believe there is definitely an argument that this legislation will expedite and streamline development applications and get things moving. They certainly need to get moving because there is too much bureaucracy, too much red tape and too much impediment in the way that developments are dealt with at present. I think this bill and the code that goes with it will make that situation better, so I look forward to seeing the bill pass into law, and we will monitor the future and finetune it as the occasion requires. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (17:27): I also rise to support the bill and I am also very cognisant that a number of my colleagues have made substantial contributions and raised points both promoting the bill and opposing it. There is nothing quite so important to the future of South Australia as having orderly and proper development, progress and investment and, indeed, there are a number of aspects of this bill to assist in those matters.

Having had 17 years in local government and, for all of that time, sat on planning committees of council, I can tell you that the vast majority of scraps and fights that I had in council were over planning and development issues. Even now in my current role, I have increasing numbers of grumbles, grizzles and concerns expressed to me by my constituents over planning applications and the adjudication on planning applications before development assessment panels.

I do not know whether we are ever going to get this right. Somehow or other, we have to try to get things right. I am very much of the view that there are far too many instrumentalities and bureaucracies involved in development and development applications and, with a bit of luck ,this bill may help. I am also of the opinion that, within the system, we probably have, just for one thing alone—pick out something like rural living—55 different names used by 68 councils, and it is arrant nonsense.

I know from bitter experience that there are far too many single-minded bureaucrats within government departments who have the opportunity to comment on development—and on many occasions negatively—and I can think of a couple who always oppose any application. There is a mindset amongst numbers of the bureaucracy that they are going to do everything possible in South Australia to stymie and stop everything. If I get their names from time to time, they may get a mention in this place. They are of no use nor ornament.

When you look at these things, quite often, planning officers within councils, for whatever reason—inexperience, concern for their own futures or minding their own backsides—will refer an application from 'Mr Smith' to numerous government departments when it is not a mandatory referral. They will just send it off, and that extends the time taken to adjudicate on development applications. Invariably, these government departments to which the application goes will come back with a list of questions, and it goes on and on. I think we are further encumbering the planning process and the orderly development of South Australia by giving these NRM boards more to say. That is just another obstruction.

The bill put forward by the government is an effort to try to assist this process. I know that the member for Napier agrees with what I am saying and is very much in favour of what is happening. As the leader said: good legislation is brought before the house by the government in the best interests of the state of South Australia, and I support that. I know that the minister in another place knows my views on this. Rather than go back over a lot of ground that has been covered before, I wish the bill a speedy path. I am sure that the government whip wants me to be speedy so that she can get home. However, the fact of the matter is that we are in here to talk about this thing. It is a good bill, and I commend it to the house.

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN (Mount Gambier—Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development) (17:31): I am delighted to close the debate where I have heard everything from the inability to give praise where praise is due, damning with faint praise, reluctant support to bold and statesmanlike bipartisanship; we have seen a range opposite. Great! In the end we move towards the ability to say, 'We support what you are doing because it is a damn good idea.' The only other problem I saw was that, by far, most of that said about the bill had nothing to do with the bill.

Mr Pengilly: That would be unusual in here.

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN: That would be unusual in here. In closing, I need to thank the team from the Department of Planning and Local Government that has done a lot of work on this. Obviously, I thank Ian Nightingale in his present position. I might add that we in aquaculture have reluctantly watched Ian move to a new role in which I think he will perform fantastically on behalf of the state. I thank Amanda Nicholls, John Hanlon, Simon Howes and Nick Buick. From the LGA, I thank, under Joy's leadership, Wendy Campagna, Victoria Gaillit, Michael Barry, and—do not forget—Felicity Ann Lewis, the Vice President, who has done a good job and Garth Heynen. We are pleased with the work Michael O'Brien did, along with Michael Hickinbotham and Fiona Roche, Stuart Mosley, Tim Jackson, Jamie Botten, Jennifer Westacott and Belinda Wood.

In terms of the industry groups, some of the criticism of the bill was in relation to the lack of consultation; I think on the contrary. The consultation here was as good as you could ever hope it to be, certainly with the support of the Property Council, the Urban Development Institute of Australia, the Master Builders Association and the HIA.

I think we have actually brought to this house a very good bill around development in this state in terms of moving forward and understanding the requirements of all stakeholders. The Planning and Development Review Amendment Bill 2008 at the conclusion of the second reading debate in this house is now well advanced in terms of being a good piece of legislation. I thank everyone who has contributed.

Bill read a second time and taken through its remaining stages.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT