HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-10-31 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

DEVELOPMENT (PRIVATE CERTIFICATION) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 18 October 2012.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (12:37): I indicate that I am not the lead speaker on this bill on behalf of the opposition but I wish to make a contribution in respect of the Development (Private Certification) Amendment Bill 2012. This is a bill which was introduced into the parliament to amend the Development Act 1993 to provide for private certification of development plan consents. Essentially, the bill proposes the deletion of a provision in the act which currently restricts private certifiers granting development plan consent and to introduce a new provision that a relevant authority must accept that a proposed development 'complies with the provisions of the appropriate development plan' to the extent of such compliance when it is certified by the private certifier, and also the introduction of an audit system for councils and private certifiers undertaking development plan assessments.

My understanding is that the opposition (and the lead speaker will, no doubt, outline this) will not be opposing this bill and allowing it to proceed on the basis that the government has stated that this will provide for some streamlining. The government has also stated its intention that private certifiers will be able to certify residential code development only. In other words, their role in the planning area would be limited to the assessment of whether a development meets the residential code criteria and, therefore, whether it must be granted planning consent as a complying kind of development. The government does not intend to create a new class of private certifiers: current certifiers will be able to exercise these powers.

I think it is fair to say that information that has been received (and I have some information from a legal firm) relates to whether this might open the door for private certifiers to deal with other applications for development plan consent. This is the old foot-in-the-door sort of argument, that it is on the slippery slope to something sinister and worse. I do not know what the government's intention is in relation to that but, if it is their long-term intention to give private certifiers the capacity to access applications which involve other variations to residential code criteria or to meet all but one of the criteria, for example, then the opposition may have another view. But at this point, the lead speaker, I am sure, will confirm that we will be supporting the bill.

Hot from the press, I am advised that, because of a number of issues that have been raised, we will be seeking to adjourn the matter to be able to have some clear answers, and this debate should not be proceeding while there are so many extant issues. When the government brings in bills and wants to push them through before we have had a chance to speak to everyone, what happens is that we get little bits of concern and complaint—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can you keep your voices down so that I can actually hear the speaker.

Ms CHAPMAN: —and a number of questions are asked, and then from those questions we have even more questions. I have some questions that have been raised by some legal colleagues seeking clarification: first, whether private certifiers will be given power to issue development approval under section 35(4) or whether the relevant authority will retain this function; secondly, whether private certifiers will be given power to extend or vary a development plan consent previously granted; and, thirdly, whether the relevant authority will have any ability to question a private certifier's assessment that a proposed development is a residential code development.

This raises some very basic questions about the applicability of the bill, which we understand is the current intention of the government. What do we have? We have a bill introduced and a notice to the parliament that it clearly is to be dealt with expeditiously—here we are in such a short time. Even in the little window of opportunity we have had to consult with people, some uninvited and unsolicited submissions have been coming forward, so even in this little window of opportunity we have had questions raised.

The opposition accepts the government's presentation of this bill as something that is an important efficiency initiative which will help the industry—we have all that. There is no reason for us, on the face of it, not to accept that. The problem is that there have been too many occasions when a presentation has just evaporated when the people who are going to be affected adversely by the bill come forward and say, 'Well, even if the government has this intention, this is a consequence which we need to have either clarified or remedied.'

I hope our position is clear: we clearly need some time to consider this matter so that those who are concerned have the opportunity to consult on it and so that we can be properly briefed on where the deficiencies are. When a good idea comes forward, and the government has a good idea, even without amendment we can have a look at it, but we need to know the full impact of this, and we will only get that if we have sufficient time to consult on it.

Probably the most significant organisations to be directly affected in each of the regions of South Australia, of course, are the local councils, who actually deal with the residential code and its application on a day-to-day basis. I certainly have not had an opportunity to consult with the councils in my area or the LGA, but I am sure our lead speaker and shadow minister covering this area will enlighten the house.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (12:45): I indicate that I am the lead speaker on this particular bill. Before I move a motion that this matter be adjourned, I just want to explain why I am about to move the motion. The reality is that this bill seeks to transfer some of the planning functions from local council officers to private certifiers.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Allegedly.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: 'Allegedly.' I will now read from the LGA draft submission that was given to the opposition on Monday of this week. The LGA submission to us is:

This particular bill was introduced to the House of Assembly by the Minister for Planning on 18 October. The LGA did not have an opportunity to comment on the bill prior to its introduction...

Ms Chapman: What?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: That's right.

Ms Chapman: Incredible!

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Well, it is incredible for this reason—

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: No. This was a government which, under this Premier, came out and said, 'We weren't going to announce and defend, we were going to consult and decide'. This is a function transfer from a local government authority to private certifiers in relation to ResCode matters. Now—

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Allegedly.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: 'Allegedly,' says the Deputy Premier. But, that is essentially the argument; that is the principle that is espoused in the bill as I understand it. Whether you support or oppose that measure at this point in time is irrelevant to me. What is relevant to me is that there is no rush for this matter; we can delay the debate on this matter—

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Speak to the building industry; if you don't think there's a rush on this matter, speak to the building industry.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The Deputy Premier's understandably a bit sensitive on this matter. He interjects from across the chamber, 'If you think there's no rush for this matter, speak to the building industry.' The building industry has been complaining for a lot longer than one week, Deputy Premier. I am from the building industry, and your government has been very slow to react to a whole range of issues. However, my point is this: there is a whole range of legislation that this government has rushed through the parliament, only to see it get rolled in the High Court.

I will not list the whole range of matters, but there will be no harm done for the house to adjourn this for one week. The opposition will undertake to deal with it on the first day of the next week of sitting of this house so that we can properly be informed by the Local Government Association about their views. How can the opposition form a view when we receive a submission from the Local Government Association this week—Monday of this week? The government knows—

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Typical.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The Deputy Premier interjects with 'Typical.' That is not my experience of the LGA, I must say. The reality is that the government knows that the opposition's party procedure is that we need all of our papers submitted to the party room by Thursday night the week before a sitting. So, we get the LGA's submission on the Monday of a sitting week, it is in draft form because the LGA has not had enough time to even complete its own position paper on the matter, and all we are saying is this: we will guarantee to the government that we will deal with this matter first bill up, if that is the government's choosing, on the next Tuesday of sitting.

This will delay it all of about six or seven days—and there is hardly going to be a crisis in the building industry within that time—and you will still easily get it dealt with by both houses of parliament well within the next month. I see no reason why this house should be forced into debating this issue when the main constituency group whose power is being transferred, allegedly, from them to private certifiers has not even been able to reach a conclusive view and provide it to the opposition and independents so that they can inform the debate.

That is why, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will take the opportunity to move that the debate be adjourned, and I seek leave to continue my remarks on the adjournment if it is adjourned, of course.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You need to seek leave to continue your remarks first.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (12:50): I want to be heard on the adjournment and I want to put a couple of things about it on the record. First of all, let us deal with the really clear things. Since the 18th of this month this bill has been in the possession of this house. It has been a public document. It is a document that everybody knew was going to be debated today.

Mr Griffiths: No.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Or at least this week.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: Not since the 18th. We got told on Thursday last week.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Okay. Secondly, they knew from Thursday last week, I have just been told, that the bill was going to be debated today, and the first I have heard about an adjournment is right now, at a point in time where we are already into the debate. They knew since Thursday. It was certainly on the Notice Paper yesterday. The first glimmer that this matter is going to be adjourned occurs in the course of the debate—no warning, nothing.

The suggestion that the House of Assembly, or indeed the South Australian parliament, should await the indulgence of the Local Government Association to get its act together and provide information or opinion to people, with respect, is unreasonable. This is not the first time the LGA has behaved in this fashion and the opposition has fallen for it—fallen for the three-card trick. The same thing happened when the ICAC legislation came in here. The Leader of the Opposition was standing up arguing about the ICAC and, all of a sudden, at the very last minute, she got this piece of paper. She was forthright enough to tell us all that the piece of paper came from the Local Government Association which, at one second to midnight, had decided that it was going to get into the debate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Deputy Premier, I would ask you to keep your comments to the adjournment of this item only.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Okay. I do not know whether the LGA was asleep when the Hon. Dennis Hood and I had a meeting with all the industry people. What we were doing was very public, and a whole range of issues came out of it. I do not know if the LGA was asleep when the industry roundtable occurred, but my suspicion is that a certain Ms Campagna was in the room. I stand to be corrected on this. I could be wrong, and, if I am wrong, I apologise, but I recall seeing her in there somewhere.

There was no question about what was going to go on because it was announced at that meeting four, five, six weeks ago that private certifiers were going to go ahead for residential code applications, not to replace councils. That is not to say that councils are excluded from the field but that an individual who was not getting satisfaction from a council would have the opportunity of not having their development blocked; they could go to a private certifier and, if it was a code-compliant development, they could get approval in that fashion. I can tell you that the building industry thoroughly supports this.

There are people out there who employ tradespeople, there are people out there who have businesses, and they want to have a streamlined process for application processes. Some councils do a fantastic job, and they will be affected not a jot by private certification being introduced. They are doing such a good job that nobody will change; they will be quite happy with the council.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Deputy Premier is debating the bill and not the adjournment.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. You need to limit your comments to the actual adjournment discussion, Deputy Premier.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The adjournment is being sought for no good reason, well past the beginning of the time of the debate when the appropriate notice was given to the opposition about our intention to bring this matter on. This is either a ruse—in other words, there is some other reason for this—or some peculiar thing is going on in the opposition's mind whereby the incapacity of the LGA to wrap their head around something that has been publicly out there for a long time is—

The Hon. I.F. Evans: Yes, but they didn't get the detail of the bill until the 18th. They got the detail of the bill on the 18th.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Anyway—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can you make your point?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Okay, my position is this: we have been proceeding on the basis that this bill was going ahead and this is part of the timetable for this week. It is not being stopped by the government. In order to do fairness to the member for Davenport, not in order in any way to indulge the people who are responsible for that letter, and only for that reason, I am prepared to agree to an adjournment of the matter, on the member for Davenport's undertaking—and I think he has just given it—that we will be debating it next Tuesday we are back.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: Yes, whether the LGA is ready or not, we will debate it.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Whether they are ready or not.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: Whether they are ready or not, the first Tuesday back.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is on the Hansard: first Tuesday back, ready or not, we are debating it. I make the point that I do this only out of respect for the member for Davenport and out of respect for the opposition, but, about this behaviour on the part of the LGA and, indeed, the opposition's behaviour in having had notice since Thursday last week, today is Wednesday and, if they changed their mind on Monday, what has happened to the last two days? They could have let us know. We get it right at the last minute. That is not reasonable. You can have your adjournment. We will deal with it next Tuesday, whether they like it or not.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Next sitting Tuesday.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Next sitting Tuesday, indeed, whether they like it or not. The next time the opposition wishes to adjourn a matter which they have notice of, can we please be told when you work out you want the adjournment, not when you decide to waltz into the chamber during the course of the debate and call for an adjournment?

Motion carried; debate adjourned.


[Sitting suspended from 12:57 to 14:00]


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