HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-11-12 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

DEVELOPMENT (INTERIM DEVELOPMENT CONTROL) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 2 May 2013.)

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (11:09): We are talking, as I understand it, about the Development (Interim Development Control) Amendment Bill which was moved in the other place by the Hon. Mark Parnell. Just so members can be clear, the intent of this legislation is to ensure that, in effect, the capacity of any planning minister to issue an interim development plan amendment is removed, other than, I believe, in the context of interim development plans to protect heritage or prevent destruction of built form.

This is a serious assault on the range of policy initiatives available to any planning minister, and it is something which is fiercely opposed by virtually all of the industry. In fact, Mr Parnell, in doing this, I guess is moving in the direction of what perhaps none of us would find remarkable, as being Greens policy in respect of development. They do have a fairly consistent approach about these matters and it is probably a very conservative approach about all planning matters. This is not, in other words, an atypical bill to be coming from the Greens.

However, what concerns me significantly is that when this matter was before the other place, the opposition there, in the form of the leader in that chamber, Mr Ridgway, made a very remarkable statement to the Legislative Council. This is what he said, and I will quote from Hansard:

I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell, although I always put the caveat that we do not necessarily think that this is something that we would necessarily do in government.

I have a number of concerns about this. First, had the opposition consulted with any of the industry groups before forming the opinion that they were prepared to vote in the other place and, if they had consulted with them, why did they choose to ignore the opinions expressed by industry groups? I understand that the industry groups, in particular the Housing Industry Association's Regional Director, Mr Harding, stated in his regional director's report for September of this year—and I quote:

...as a result of HIA submissions, the Liberal Party will now not support the Bill.

This is the opposition that constantly has a refrain about the government failing to adequately consult with communities or industry groups or whoever and, in this particular instance, we have an example where, in the other place, the opposition has been prepared to vote with this proposition from the Greens, make the interesting admission that even though they are voting for it they might not actually do that again if they were ever in government, they then apparently receive a submission from the Housing Industry Association and, according to the industry association, as a result, they then reverse their opinion.

This, as I said, is the group that constantly berates the government in relation to consultation. There are only a couple of conclusions that one can come to in relation to this. The first one is that before forming the opinion that they just roll along with the Greens on this particular issue, they had not bothered to make any effort to consult with the HIA or any other relevant industry group and, in that case, how hollow are their bleatings about consultation which they make regularly about government decisions?

Secondly, if they had consulted with them, why did they choose to ignore them and, nevertheless, vote with the Greens on this proposition and finally come to the point where they then—if they had actually consulted with them and had ignored them—backflip on the proposition and decide that at some point they are now not supporting the Greens in relation to this matter?

So, this does raise some issues about whether the opposition actually has any policy position on this bill or, indeed, a great many other things at all. Remember, Mr Speaker, that the opposition would have the people of South Australia consider them fit to potentially assume office as a government of this state in March of next year, and on a matter as absolutely fundamental as this key issue about planning policy, they clearly have no idea. Not only do they have no idea, but apparently they have not even consulted with the relevant industry group, or if they have, they have ignored them and then felt a bit of a squeeze and decided to do a backflip.

It is very important, so far as the government is concerned, that the industry in this state has some confidence that measures such as this—which are designed by the Greens to achieve a certain outcome, but inevitably will lead to uncertainty and some degree of concern in the construction industry around the state—are completely dealt with and removed from the political agenda. At the moment, it appears that the opposition is actually supporting this proposition. That is their last recorded position as far as the vote in the other place is concerned. We need to know—

Mr VENNING: Point of order: standing order 120 prohibits debate of debate in the other house.

The SPEAKER: The custom of the house is that one does not reagitate debate in the other place; but a bill has come from the other place to this place, and the Attorney is canvassing the merits of the bill and illustrating the path that the opposition has trod on this matter. I do not think that violates the custom of the house as long as he does not go into who said what to whom in the other place.

Mr VENNING: I will just read the standing order to you.

The SPEAKER: No, there is no division; you do not need to cover your head.

Mr VENNING: 'A member may not refer to any debate in the other house of parliament or to any measure impending in that house.'

The SPEAKER: Well, I presume that the Attorney will now not canvass the merits of the debate in the other place, but he is free to canvass the opposition's position on the principle. Attorney.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It would be an odd situation indeed when receiving a message or a bill in this house from the other place if one could not argue about whether the bill was any good. Anyway, getting back to the proposition, here is the thing: the industry wants certainty and the government certainly wishes to guarantee that certainty to industry. We want to see a unanimous vote—a unanimous vote—in this chamber to say that this bill is not where we want to go (and by 'we' I mean all of us as members of this chamber) and that we do not endorse this retrograde proposal.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: The President would have to resign, wouldn't he, if this is voted against?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Who can say? This is a very retrograde proposal, it is a damaging proposal; in fact, it is the sort of legislative vandalism which gives great concern to industry in South Australia because they want a steady hand. They do not want people who flip-flop around the place and who, on a whim, vote for a proposition which one would have thought an alternative government would have found absolutely repugnant; but, anyway, there we go. The question is really about this: we brought this bill on today to give absolute certainty about what is going on. As the government, we make it very clear that we oppose this bill and we call on all members of this house to unanimously vote against this bill today.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:20): It is with pleasure that I stand to speak on the Development (Interim Development Control) Amendment Bill 2012, which has been dealt with in another place and which has been now presented by the member for Fisher for our consideration. I appreciate the government's initiative in bringing this matter forward to be aired and dealt with and thus rescuing it from the unhappy end which occurs to most things listed under private members' business in the last six remaining days of the parliament.

Unlike the government's view that this is an instrument of legislative vandalism—you must feel terrible, Mr Speaker. I have never heard of the member for Fisher introducing a bill to the parliament that could be described as legislative vandalism, but in his many years in the parliament I am sure that he will receive that as a badge of honour, as distinct from some kind of intimidatory remark by the Attorney-General as to his mala fide in bringing forth such a bill.

The bill that is under consideration was introduced by the Hon. Mark Parnell to amend the Development Act 1993. It is important to remember that, under that act, the Minister for Planning has the power to use an interim development power pending an amendment to a development plan. This was a power that was introduced by the Hon. Don Hopgood in the late 1980s with the objective of protecting heritage that is both built and natural. The classic example that I used was that, pending the review and process to amend a development plan that might adversely affect the fate of a large, significant tree or a piece of heritage building, there would be power for the minister of the day to step in and issue an interim order to ensure that there was some protection.

That, I think, the Hon. Don Hopgood had prosecuted when presenting this amendment, which, for good reason, was successful, and it has been applied appropriately by governments since that time. What is very disappointing is that, notwithstanding the minister's assertions against the opposition, it is his government that has brought this power to a new level and we think utilised it in a manner which has been inconsistent with its original objective and which has been effectively an abuse of power in its application.

There are a number of projects under the wing of the current Minister for Planning, which, to some degree, were under the previous minister for planning, the Hon. Paul Holloway. I think, overall, the Hon. Paul Holloway had quite a good approach in relation to a number of initiatives under his watch and I think he has left the parliament with some regard as a minister. What has actually occurred under the watch of this minister has been vandalism, as he has described it, which this bill helps to try to cure.

Even after the debacle of Mount Barker (a legacy of this government which will be long-lived) and the Auditor-General's stinging report as to the conduct of government and members of the government's staff, the current minister has not been inspired to do anything to try to remedy that mess. Still he goes on to act in his new role as the Minister for Planning without any care for the rules as they apply, and with this interim power that he has utilised in a manner which has been identified. The capital city DPA is another example under his regime of attempting to promote particular developments; namely, the Mayfield development. There was the statewide wind farm DPA, and, of course, there is the now infamous inner-metro DPA—and I will come back to that in a moment.

In essence, the utilisation of this power by this particular minister would be of great concern to the original mover of this amendment (Hon. Don Hopgood) as it was born in an environment of good intention. It has been fairly applied by ministers prior to this government: under the Bannon government—I do not think it was ever applied under the Arnold government because it was a bit short—the Brown and then Olsen governments. It was utilised as it was intended and this government's legacy of excuses for using it is shameful.

This is a bill designed to stop a minister from bringing a DPA into operation immediately so as to fast-track his favoured developments. Essentially the bill seeks to limit the use of the interim powers to stop inappropriate development ahead of that public consultation. In particular it does three things: it requires the minister to consult with DPAC before declaring interim operation; it requires that any development application lodged during the interim operation must be put on hold pending the finalisation of the DPA, unless the outcome would have been the same; and it will also effectively prevent the use of the interim operation to downgrade public participation rights, that is, the appeal rights.

What is also very interesting is that the minister bleats some concern that the opposition has apparently failed to consult with what he describes as 'the industry'—and I notice he identified one party as 'the industry'. I do not see anywhere from the government any presentation, announcement or provision of what Mr Brian Hayes QC says about this. As members would be aware, Mr Hayes has been appointed by the government to do a review of the Development Act and to provide some report back to the minister sometime late in 2014. He has also apparently been consulted on other legislation of the government, for example on the new proposed powers (statutory rather than regulatory) for the Urban Renewal Authority.

He was also consulted on the introduction of a regime for the provision of precinct planning. He provided a report, and after some months of pleading he provided the report to us so that we might consider it. We ultimately supported the government in that initiative, but as he was conducting his review—and that has not been completed—it was entirely proper for the government to get some information from him. When we finally got the response from Mr Hayes, which I noted the government had been keeping secret for a few months, it was not quite as glowing in its support as the government had claimed; but, nevertheless, he was at least consulted.

Where is the government's consultation with the very person who had been involved in the original development in 1993? In fact, I think he was one of the early drafters. As someone mentioned the other night at a function which the minister also attended, Mr Hayes has probably been involved in many of the famous cases since then on development law that have effectively raised questions about the original applicability and the necessary amendments.

In any event, he has been given this task by the government to undertake that review and yet where have we got any indication from Mr Hayes whether this should be wholly dismissed by the government—in fact, rushed into government time to attempt to rebuke the opposition, whack us with a wet lettuce leaf and say how unacceptable it is in our consultation which he alleges, and then come into the house and not even come to us with any indication whatsoever of his own appointed Queen's Counsel who is conducting a review on the Development Act at all?

Do I speculate to think that Mr Hayes has probably not even seen this bill? Do I speculate that he has not had a view on it? Do I speculate that there has not even been one iota of consultation about this bill before the government makes the decision that they are going to come in here and say, 'No, this is completely unacceptable. We are not going to accept this.'? Talk about consultation.

I mean, what a joke! Talk about the incredible double standards of the government when they come in here to try to whack us around with a lettuce leaf about lack of consultation, and what have they done? Nothing. They have just decided that this is something that is going to try to clip the wings of the minister who has acted out of order in the application and abuse of this role and not taken the slightest bit of notice and just continues to press on.

For example, what did he do in introducing the inner metro growth? That was a great DPA. We had an announcement just before Christmas last year; more recently we have had the proposed DPA confirmed. We have had the Burnside Council crushed out of consideration. We have had Prospect council handing over their role by the then mayor who, of course, is now the Labor candidate for the next election in the seat of Adelaide.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: No, no, no, well, the Attorney shouts out that there was an interim DPA, but his process, his operation, his application of the Development Act ought to tell this parliament about how unsafe it is for planning to be left in the hands of this minister. It is ridiculous that he should even try to assert to be the bastion of consultation and protection of orderly development in this state. To add to it, we were both mutually at a dinner the other night—the Planning Institute of Australia dinner actually, at which a number of town planners from across the state were rewarded in recognition of their service to the state—and the Attorney—

The Hon. J.R. Rau: I was very nice to you.

Ms CHAPMAN: —interjects to say that he was very nice to me. I think I recognise the member for Bragg was the phrase he said, but I had to almost laugh when he said, 'There are two things important to my government: transparency and the wise application of taxpayers' money,' or words to that effect. I nearly choked on my hors d'oeuvre to hear this. Transparency? What a joke! Look at the inner metro DPA process. It is a joke. If the Attorney is proud of that, he should be ashamed.

The incredible thing is that when he finally comes out with it, when an area of criticism comes from people in the constituencies—that is, ratepayers who might be concerned about things who raise their correspondence to their local council or to the minister or to me, which inevitably they do—what does he do? When he makes the announcement for the final DPA, he cuts out the bit that is actually an area of vulnerability to the government. He cuts out Anzac Highway and all those people down there who are complaining about it. He cuts out that piece in the West Torrens council region which, of course, is conveniently in the seat of Ashford.

How inconvenient! The West Torrens council is thinking, 'Thank goodness for that. We've got all these problems there. We'll just keep massaging the population and we'll deal with this.' So, the seat of Ashford gets protected. There has been no indication from the government as to when that is going to be progressed. There has been no commitment to tell the people of South Australia under that DPA about what is going to be happening in that region before the—

The Hon. J.R. Rau: It's a council DPA. It's not mine.

Ms CHAPMAN: It's a council DPA, the minister interjects. Isn't that interesting? Did the council in the seat of Unley wholly support the government's position? Did the council in the area of Norwood wholly support the government? No, but the government had to come out and introduce the DPA to cover their regions, bearing in mind the other two are out of the picture anyway. No, they were there. The government has conveniently excluded the DPA of that little storm of discontent because of a marginal seat. Of course, where is the other area? Where is the other area that it takes out? Henley Beach Road. Mr Speaker, you look up with interest. It was not actually your area.

The SPEAKER: I thought it was Croydon. I thought we were out.

Ms CHAPMAN: No, you have a little bit of Port Adelaide. We will come to you in a minute if you like, Mr Speaker. The member for West Torrens, the minister for urban planning or whatever he is—

Mr Gardner: Development.

Ms CHAPMAN: Urban development. That's right. He is the sort of second minister. It is a bit like we have a real transport minister and then we have a transport services minister; we have a real planning minister and then we have a sort of urban planning minister. He was the person who got bumped in even debating the last bill on this development act, which was the precinct planning issue, and the Minister for Planning (the real minister) has to come in and do it. So, the Minister for Housing and Urban Development—

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Education will not interject out of her seat and is called to order.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you, sir, for your protection. The Minister for Housing and Urban Development also happens to be the member in the state seat of West Torrens, which covers the Henley Beach Road area of concern. It is a precinct which is under consideration for considerable urban infill and development and which has, unsurprisingly, elicited some concern in the region around it, particularly of residents who have a variety of views on what should be occurring there.

How convenient that that is missed out. That is simply taken out of the picture. That is still under consideration by the West Torrens council. That is an area of potential conflict in the community. That is an embarrassment for the government as we lead up to the election, so that just gets wiped out. This is the way this government operates.

Bring in the Prospect council and get them to agree to hand over their powers so that they are out of the picture and there is no embarrassment to their potential candidate for the seat of Adelaide, who has now come out of the closet on that; squash Burnside, because everyone loves to bash Burnside; then tiptoe around West Torrens to protect two vulnerable seats.

The SPEAKER: And Croydon?

Ms CHAPMAN: As for Croydon, sadly, sir, as much as I love repeating the statistic of getting more primary votes than you did at the last election, which I am so thrilled about, I have to say that in the spectrum of opportunity for the opposition at the next election Croydon will probably just evade us—just. We may not be able to secure that seat. I will work on it, but I think probably it is going to be just beyond reach.

I am sure that we will have an excellent candidate down there. You were not seen, I think, by your own political party as being in a vulnerable area, so they seem to be quite happy to introduce a part of the DPA, if you have had a look at it, which covers a little bit into Port Road. You can have a look at that and see that—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: That's my electorate.

The SPEAKER: Not me?

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: No, it's all mine.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is it all yours? It's all yours. Perhaps I was mistaken then that they are not worried about you at all. They probably don't care, actually. I will go back to the Minister for Housing and Urban Development. That little piece is actually all in his electorate, he interjects to tell me helpfully. Again, no area of controversy or opportunity is necessary. It is appropriate, so they are happy to throw that into the plan. Where it gets hot, where the fire is brimming there, they are prepared to do that. I just say that in the light of all this the government says it wants to be transparent. Where is the structure plan for Roseworthy, for goodness sake? Two years we have been waiting for that! That is the inconsistency of this government and hypocrisy of this submission.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (11:40): I quote:

There is a world of difference between the Greens and, as far as I am concerned or aware, just about everyone else contesting this election, because everyone else in this campaign supports economic growth and supports a more prosperous economy.

Who said that? It was Prime Minister Abbott. Here we are debating a bill that members opposite supported in the upper house, moved by who? The Greens. Who supported it? The Liberal Party of South Australia. They voted for the bill, supported the bill, and spoke in favour of the bill. Indeed, I understand the Greens were so overwhelmed with joy that the Liberal Party had supported their bill and spoke in favour of it that the Hon. Mark Parnell thanked the opposition for their support. Such is their resolve, by the time it gets to the lower house—

Ms Sanderson interjecting:

The SPEAKER: I call the member for Adelaide to order.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Such is their resolve, they are now against the bill. I look forward to the resignations of the frontbench of the Liberal Party, the Leader of the Opposition in the upper house, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the upper house and all the members who voted for this bill, because of their repudiation by members in the lower house.

I think of the structure of the Liberal Party. There is a bill to be debated in the parliament. The shadow minister for planning takes it to the parliament, takes it to the caucus room, and they say, 'We should support this bill. Absolutely, we should support this bill. We will support this bill.' It goes to the parliament, they make speeches, they vote on it, and they put their name to the bill. It comes down here and then they vote against it. This is—

Ms Chapman: Excuse me; we support the bill.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Well, that is not what the Liberal Party has told the HIA. Robert Harding stated in his original director's report in September 2013, 'As a result of HIA submissions, the Liberal Party will now not support this bill.'

What we have just heard now is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition say, we say one thing to the industry groups, so they can report that in their magazines, and do another thing in the parliament. Isn't that a fascinating turnaround? Isn't that a fascinating turn of events, that the opposition says one thing in the parliament and another thing to key industry groups? The Liberal Party is lost at sea. It is in chaos; it is in absolute chaos. Their prime minister is at war with the Greens and here they are in a state parliament in bed with them!

One minute they are out telling their donor base, 'We won't be supporting this bill.' They publish it and the HIA, on the basis of conversations they have had with the Liberal Party, publicly say that they will not be supporting the bill, but we have just heard from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that they will support the bill. Talk about confusion! Talk about anarchy and chaos! This lot is not fit to govern, let alone be in opposition. How can they possibly say to an industry group, 'We won't be supporting the bill publicly,' and then in the parliament turn around and vote for it? How can they possibly do that?

Surely, this needs to be sorted out and sorted out quickly, because I will be calling Mr Harding directly after this debate and showing him the Hansard with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition saying that he is wrong. The Liberal Party is indeed supporting this bill after having told them that they would not. It goes to the point that there are fewer than 100 days, I think, to the next state election—or thereabouts—and the opposition has plans. It has plans for hospitals, it has plans for schools, it has plans for roads, it has plans for all sorts of things. It is not prepared to tell us what those plans are. They are secret plans, lest the public find out what those plans are and be horrified and vote against them. So they keep them quiet. That is why we have quotes like this, Mr Speaker:

I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell, although I always put the caveat that we do not necessarily think that this is something that we would necessarily do in government.

Well, that is something you can bank on. Talk about certainty for industry! Let me paraphrase: what the opposition is really saying is, 'We want to wreck the economy until we become the government. When we become the government we don't want to wreck the economy.' That is not a loyal opposition: that is economic vandalism. What kind of person actually says, 'I'm going to vote for this, but I'm against it'? What kind of morality is that? What kind of politics is that?

Only the Liberal Party of South Australia can go into the parliament and say, 'I'm opposed to this, therefore I'm voting for it.' How do you sleep at night, thinking like that? How do you sleep at night when you act that way? I stand by every vote I have made in this parliament; every, single one. What I do not do is turn up and say, 'I'm going to vote for it, even though I oppose it,' because that kind of behaviour is immoral. Everyone in this place knows that.

The Independents know that. If they oppose something they vote against it and if they support it they vote for it. What they do not do is tell an industry group, in private, 'We oppose this bill,' and, in public, vote for the bill or, even worse, in one chamber vote for the bill and in the other chamber vote against it, and then say 'Make us the government.'

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Grow up? Name any other time that the Australian Labor Party has moved a bill in the upper house and voted against it in the lower. What a disgrace! I look forward to speaking to the HIA directly after this vote, because I would be very interested to know who Mr Robert Hardy actually spoke to, when he said, '...as a result of HIA submissions, the Liberal Party will now not support the bill...', given what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has put on the record.

She talked about a whole series of DPAs. She talked about the Unley DPA; the West Torrens council DPA, and the Malvern and St Peters DPAs as all being the fault of the government. One part that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did not let anyone in the parliament know was that they were all council DPAs. That slight detail, that slight nuance of language—that 'Well actually we support the bill, but we are voting against it,' or 'We're opposed to the bill, but we're voting for it,'—it is those sorts of nuances that people should automatically and intuitively understand from the Liberal Party.

The reality is this: the Liberal Party should do what the Prime Minister says, 'Say what you mean and mean what you say.' Do not use weasel words; do not say one thing to an industry group and do another. Be committed—

Ms Chapman: They'll still give you their preferences, the Greens, don't worry. They are sucking up to you, they are in bed with you, they are sleeping with you. You can have them.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I have to say that that little outburst says so much about the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. She is in here arguing for a Greens bill, and then lashes out at us because we are voting against it. Let us think that logic through: I am in bed with the Greens. The Greens did not preference me at the last state election. Who did they preference in Bragg?

Ms Chapman: Ben Dineen, actually; the Labor candidate.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Did they? We will check to see, but I know that they did not preference the Labor Party in the seat of West Torrens, and I suspect they will not preference it again. Quite frankly, so be it. The Labor Party is about prosperity and jobs; always has been and always will be.

Ms Chapman: Your job.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, not my job; other people's jobs. We exist to create wealth and prosperity in our community, to help aspirational people achieve those aspirations. I have to say that on this issue the Liberal Party has behaved in a way that shows it is not fit to govern. Perhaps it is just the inexperience of a first-term MP wanting to become Premier; perhaps that is what the issue is.

Perhaps it is someone who has been in this place for only 3½ years who has the audacity to think that they can be elected on the basis of saying one thing to an industry group, voting a certain way in the upper house and then voting a different way in the lower house. Now, apparently, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has just committed the opposition to changing that vote in the lower house. So I look forward to when a division is ultimately called—and I am sure it will be—to see exactly how the opposition votes on this measure.

Ms Chapman: We'll be making sure it's recorded.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Excellent. I am glad. I look forward to telling all the industry groups that the Liberal Party has spoken to saying that it will not be supporting this bill about what they can surmise from its actions. You can only surmise one thing: that the Liberal Party cannot keep their word and cannot say what they mean and mean what they say.

Mr PEGLER (Mount Gambier) (11:50): I rise to speak on this bill, which amends section 28 of the interim operation of the Development Act. I have always had problems with these interim DPAs, and I must say it is something of a new experience for me to rise in support of a bill that has originated from the Greens. I will speak for the bill considering what I have seen within my own electorate.

We have never had troubles with interim operations as far as housing and other developments go, but when it comes to wind farms we had a classic example at Allendale East where a wind farm was approved, it was then quite rightfully objected to, it went to the Environment, Resources and Development Court and the objectors were successful in having that wind farm stopped in a community and in an area where it should never have been, as far as I am concerned.

There was a reaction then from the government to immediately bring in an interim DPA which completely changed the way that wind farms could be assessed and, of course, with this bill I think it goes the right way about what should happen when those interim DPAs come in. I heard the minister refer before to these DPAs being council DPAs. I have had a lot of experience in local government and I find that quite a joke in the respect that at the end of the day it is the planning minister who determines what is in that DPA, not the council.

There is a lot of toing and froing and consultation, but at the end of the day it is the minister who signs off on those DPAs. Most often it is done in an orderly fashion but, as far as I was concerned, with the wind farms it certainly was not. The way that I read it, with this bill if there is an interim DPA brought in there can be no assessment done on that interim DPA for applications and those applications must be made once that DPA has basically been annulled and a new development plan amendment report has been agreed to.

As far as I am concerned, it still gives the community a say on what can happen within their areas and I think that is paramount. We must also make sure that development can happen in an orderly fashion so that this state can grow stronger all the time, but the community itself must be consulted with and must have a say in whether they agree with applications or not. When we start bringing in interim DPAs that basically take the right of appeal away from a community, I cannot agree with that, so I will be supporting this bill.

The SPEAKER: If the member for Fisher speaks, he closes the debate.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:54): Thank you, sir; good ruling! This bill, as members would be aware, originated from another place by the Hon. Mark Parnell. He asked if I would introduce it in this house, and I have done so. I am a believer in the democratic process; I think this is a very important issue, and I think it should be canvassed. Irrespective of how people eventually vote on it, I think it is an important matter to be debated in this chamber.

There is quite a bit of disquiet in the community about some of the planning decisions that have occurred in recent times. Right throughout the community, there are elements of disquiet about the planning process and what has been happening, and about the lack of opportunity for people to have a say; that is probably more in respect of the next matter to be considered.

Many sections of the public feel as though they are shut out of the planning process and that the planning minister and planning authority are able to intervene in a way which takes away many of the sound elements of the planning process. So, we have not necessarily a knee-jerk reaction, but a hasty overriding imposition from above on the planning process.

What this bill does, I think, is reasonable; it would not stop development. I can read the numbers in this house so I am fairly sure that the bill will be negatived but, if passed, it would not have brought the state to a halt. The minister just now indicating that it would lead to doom and gloom, and the economy basically going into freefall, I think is stretching things somewhat.

I will conclude by saying that, in essence, I think this measure puts the handbrake on the planning minister and planning authorities, and in that respect I think it is sensible and reasonable. I will be supporting this measure.

The house divided on the second reading:

AYES (18)
Brock, G.G. Chapman, V.A. Evans, I.F.
Gardner, J.A.W. Goldsworthy, M.R. Griffiths, S.P.
Hamilton-Smith, M.L.J. McFetridge, D. Pederick, A.S.
Pegler, D.W. Pisoni, D.G. Redmond, I.M.
Sanderson, R. Such, R.B. (teller) Treloar, P.A.
Venning, I.H. Whetstone, T.J. Williams, M.R.
NOES (22)
Bedford, F.E. Bettison, Z.L. Breuer, L.R.
Caica, P. Close, S.E. Conlon, P.F.
Geraghty, R.K. Hill, J.D. Kenyon, T.R.
Key, S.W. Koutsantonis, A. O'Brien, M.F.
Odenwalder, L.K. Piccolo, A. Portolesi, G.
Rankine, J.M. Rau, J.R. (teller) Sibbons, A.J.
Snelling, J.J. Thompson, M.G. Vlahos, L.A.
Wright, M.J.
PAIRS (6)
Marshall, S.S. Weatherill, J.W.
van Holst Pellekaan, D.C. Bignell, L.W.K.
Pengilly, M. Fox, C.C.

Majority of 4 for the noes.

Second reading thus negatived.

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