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 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS) (NOTIFICATION) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Second reading.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:05): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This is a short bill. It is fundamentally about informing people who may or can be affected by development to ensure that they get information about that development and are able to make some input in respect of what could well impact directly on them.

In supporting this bill, I point out that a lot of members of the public are concerned about current provisions which effectively shut them out from having any meaningful say in a proposed development. The example of the shopping centre at Flagstaff Pines comes to mind where, from memory, only people within 60 metres of that development can have any input. Obviously a shopping centre that has a bottle shop of something in the order of 1,000 square metres, a supermarket of 2,000 square metres, a doctor's surgery, and a childcare centre, etc., will have an impact that is greater than 60 metres.

There is a lot of concern in the community about the fact that the public does not have an opportunity to have a meaningful say or any input in respect of a development. I was contacted recently by someone from Glenelg who found that he was going to have a huge development right next to his house, but apparently he is unable to have any say whatsoever in that matter. I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (12:07): I will speak fairly briefly about this piece of legislation. It really is part and parcel of the same couple of bills which were moved by the Hon. Mr Parnell in the other place some time ago and which received support from the opposition at that time. Again, I note—at least, according to the remarks made by Mr Harding—that the opposition has at least indicated to the HIA that they now have a different point of view and are not supporting this bill, so I guess we will have to find out whether that remains the case or whether they have returned to supporting it again.

First of all, I pick up on the honourable member for Bragg's comments in her last contribution where she interrogated the government rhetorically about to what extent we had engaged with Mr Hayes and his committee on this topic. Can I say that it is not our normal practice to interrogate anybody about bills that are either bills that originate with another party—in this case, the Greens—or, even more particularly, bills that are the joint work of the Greens and the Liberal Party.

In those circumstances, we would have thought that if there were any interrogation of Mr Hayes to be done, that interrogation would have been done by those who are supporting the bill in the other place. To come here and suggest that it is somehow our responsibility to make inquiries about a bill that has been put up and supported by the would-be government-in-waiting, their rhetoric about consultation is pretty empty when you consider the fact that none of them, apparently, thought to speak to Mr Hayes about the matter.

The reason I am opposing this is that we think that this matter might legitimately be a matter for consideration by Mr Hayes and I do not think it is appropriate for us, at this point in time, to go mucking around with the Development Act while Mr Hayes is in the middle of his inquiry. I could say the same thing about the previous bill, for the same reason.

Ms CHAPMAN: What about your bill on precinct planning?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That was discussed with Mr Hayes, as you well know, because you obtained a copy of the correspondence about that. My preliminary view is that this would create a significant workload and resource issues for government and councils and the Development Act already currently provides for direct notification of DPAs in some circumstances. As I said, the government has established the Expert Panel on Planning Reform and this is where this matter should be sent for them to give consideration to it, along with all the other matters that they might be considering.

Again, the opposition, in particular, is happy to chastise me for having put a bill into the parliament which was nearly finished before Mr Hayes' committee was established, and was the subject of comment by Mr Hayes' committee. They criticised me for that but support this measure, moved by the Greens in the other place, without consulting Mr Hayes. If that is not the pot calling the kettle black, I do not know what is.

The same problem is exposed: the opposition supports this in the upper house, they say, 'We may or may not support it if we ever get into government,' they tell Mr Harding they are not supporting it any more, it comes down here and we bring it on because we want a bit of certainty. Can I say that I would be happy for both these matters to go to Mr Hayes. That is where they should go, not be peremptorily dealt with in this place while Mr Hayes is still doing his job.

What a discourtesy to Mr Hayes to try to amend the act underneath him—literally underneath him. We are trying to hold the status quo for Mr Hayes. I undertake to the members of the opposition and to the Hon. Mr Parnell that I would be happy to forward these bills to Mr Hayes, if they have not already been forwarded, for consideration as part of his project, because I am sure he is interested in it.

Can I say this, as a matter of interest. I understand there is another proposal floating around about putting signage on development sites. I personally do not think that is a bad idea. Why should you not be able to walk past a place where the building has just disappeared and see a little sign saying, 'By the way, this is what's coming'? Why should you not have that? It seems sensible to me. Again, I think that is probably something Mr Hayes should be looking at. We are not going to be able to get it through this parliament, I do not think, anyway, even if we wanted to, but it is another worthy idea—more worthy than these, even—but, again, one that I think Mr Hayes should be looking at.

For the reasons I have just explained, I do not support this bill. I understand why the Hon. Mr Parnell moved the bill. He has a longstanding and deeply held conviction about planning matters, and he and I have agreed to disagree about a number of these things many times. He believes that there should only be an opportunity for preservation orders, in effect. I think that is perhaps not an unreasonable summary of his view: it might be too simplistic but it is generally something like that. I understand where he is coming from but I respectfully think that there are opportunities and times when a strong statement on the basis of interim DPA arrangements is important.

I will give one example: we had a lengthy consultation with the Adelaide City Council about the Adelaide City DPA which came out in March last year. We thought that in order to give the property sector, the investment sector, the banking sector, and the building and construction sector a clear message, having consulted with the council, we would do that on an interim basis, but we excluded all of the residential precincts of the city and almost all of North Adelaide from that so that they could then go through the DPA process in the ordinary way, which they are doing now. It is wending its way through the system, managed by the Adelaide City Council, not by the planning department.

That is one example of where some clear initiative needed to be given and, since that decision was made, we have in excess of $3 billion worth of projects which are either in case management or have been approved—

Ms Chapman: Except Roseworthy.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —and a number of them are already under construction as a result of that initiative. The honourable member mentions Roseworthy; I would be interested to know what the honourable member's particular interest in Roseworthy is because it would be nice to have on the record whether the honourable member is suggesting that in circumstances where we have 18 years' supply of fringe-rezoned land, six years of which is shovel-ready—and we have said that we do not want to see Adelaide becoming an endlessly sprawling single-dimensional city and that we have to start to grow up and not out—they would immediately rezone Roseworthy? Is that what the honourable member is telling me: that in spite of that, that is the opposition's official policy?

Is that what the opposition is saying? Because if it is, that should be on the public record. Everybody should be in a position to know if that is where the opposition stands on Roseworthy. That is a very interesting and revealing comment because, at the moment, Roseworthy is a very, very long way from the metropolitan fringe and it may or may not be that, within the forward horizon of the 30-year plan, Adelaide grows to a point at which it is necessary to turn our minds, in an immediate sense, to land which is beyond Gawler. It may or may not be.

If we had a population of two million people in this city, that might happen a lot more quickly. However, I saw a ludicrous idea in the paper the other day from the CE, I think it was, of the Light Regional Council, and this is an absolute burster of an idea: 'Rezone it and they will come.' It is this sort of philosophy of 'just rezone everything in the 30-year plan, just rezone the whole lot; don't worry about who is going to pay for it; don't worry about what that will do in the forward estimates, and beyond the forward estimates, to future taxpayers; don't think about that, never turn your mind to that; just rezone it and it will just work itself out.'

As I have said before, I have acknowledged that, in the past, when governments (through lack of experience, I should say, not mala fides) have embraced the 'Rezone it and it will work itself out,' guess what that was called?

Ms Chapman: Mount Barker.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Exactly.

Ms Chapman: And you didn't fix it up.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is something that I have been berated about for the last 3½ years, and I made it clear within a few months of becoming minister that there would be no more Mount Barkers on my watch. If you boil it all down, what is the thing that has made Mount Barker infinitely more difficult than it might have been? It is exactly what the Light Regional Council is calling on me to do right now, and that is, rezone and do not have any heed of the consequences, just let it all rip and let the poor old future taxpayer, lumbering under the burden of enormous imposts generated by a minister who did not turn their mind to the consequences of rezoning and letting it all rip, deal with it.

In 20 or 30 years, somebody will be able to say, 'Who was that crazy person who rezoned all this land and burdened the state with this infinite infrastructure burden?' At that stage I know what the answer will not be: me, it will not be me.

It is about time the opposition came out from the cave and said where they stand on this. Are they into infinite urban sprawl? Do they think that the arable land surrounding the city should be preserved for purposes other than being submerged under quarter acre blocks? Do they think that we need to get to the point in time where Adelaide becomes sophisticated enough to have a mix of housing, not just endless greenfield development put on the never-never for future taxpayers to lumber under the burden of?

The really amusing thing about this is the hidden subsidy. People rave on about how wonderful it would be to rezone all of this land. The reason they think it is so good and the reason they put all these arguments about: it is going to be cheaper housing, affordable housing, blah, blah, blah, there is a good reason for that, it is because there is a hidden subsidy and the hidden subsidy is by the taxpayers of the future. So, the purchaser and the developer get to walk away knowing that somebody, five or 10 years down the track, is going to pay for what they have walked away with.

The Hon. R.B. Such: That's the Bob Day model.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. That model is not an infinitely sustainable model, which is why there has to be an alignment between the land requirements, which at the moment are set at 15 years—we are at 18—and zonal infrastructure arrangements, which means that everybody knows who is paying for what and when. When you have the infrastructure in place, when you have those arrangements in place, fine, if the land is required to meet a minimum standard of rezoned land to be available then, sure, rezone, but at the moment I just want it on the record: 18 years worth of fringe land rezoned, six years worth ready to go right now, and the indicative requirement for that was 15 years in the plan.

So, when I read things in the paper like the idea from Light Regional Council, you know, just rezone and let the world take care of itself, surely everybody has seen enough of the consequence of that to say, 'We don't want this anymore,' because I promise the member for Bragg this: any planning minister who is foolish enough to ignore the lesson of history and go out there and rezone willy-nilly and let it rip is going to be condemned by future generations of South Australians for having been irresponsible with the Treasury of this state for decades to come—so, just a bit of a segue there.

This particular piece of legislation, as I said, should go off to Mr Hayes. I oppose it for that reason and I note, again, that the opposition opposed it elsewhere, have apparently told industry groups they now support it, and if it is the same as the last piece of legislation then I assume they will now support it again.

Mr PEGLER (Mount Gambier) (12:23): I rise to support the Development (Development Plan Amendments) (Notification) Amendment Bill. It is quite a strange day that I rise in this place to support the Greens twice in a row, so they are doing well. We heard the minister speak a lot about rezoning. Really, this bill has nothing to do with rezoning and whether some rezoning has been appropriate or not. What this bill is about is notifying people who are going to be affected whenever there is a change made to a development plan amendment report.

We also heard from the minister that the status quo has been held. I say the status quo has been held for far too long. At the moment the only obligations often are to put a notice in the Government Gazette. I do not think very many people in my electorate read the Government Gazette, so they have no idea what is going on sometimes. Previously as mayor I always made sure that our whole community was informed whenever any changes were to be made to planning rules within our council area. Often people would disagree with the proposed changes, but at least they knew that those changes were being debated, and I always made sure that everybody had the opportunity to have some input.

I chaired many meetings where people were quite up in arms, but at the end of the night, once they had a full understanding of what was proposed, they often agreed with those changes or they disagreed but felt that the matter had been dealt with in a proper manner and that they had had a chance to see what were the proposed changes, and they had the opportunity to make comment. Whenever changes are made, good leadership in councils and in government is all about informing the people of the changes you wish to make within their area. This bill goes a long way towards doing that and, whilst there may be an extra workload for some councils and for the government sometimes when it is making changes, I feel that that extra workload is well worth it to have a community that is well informed. I support this bill.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:27): I indicate that the opposition supports the bill. This bill was originally introduced by the Hon. Mark Parnell earlier this year. As has been indicated by other speakers, it proposes an amendment to the Development Act to require notice directly to parties affected by a proposed change to a development plan, either local government or ministerial. The position at the moment is that, although there is an obligation to give notice via the Government Gazette, the specific obligation to notify an owner/occupier of land directly affected or adjacent to that land is not required. This bill remedies that.

The bill also provides that any changes to the DPA would not be rendered invalid by reason of failure to notify a particular person. That is an important component of this, because the question of increased risk of legal challenge in the obligations to notify under 'reasonable steps' has been raised by one of the important stakeholders in this area, the UDIA, and we are mindful of that. As the preceding speaker indicated, this is a bill about giving people an opportunity to know something, whether they exercise any right to make a contribution, whether they make any submission or the like, is then a matter for them.

Interestingly, I received the Ambassador for Thailand and members of his staff this morning, and one of the first questions he asked me, when I brought him in to see this chamber, was whether we have a gazette published of the parliament. I explained that we did, that it was provided in hard copy still but was available online, was publicly accessible and it provides notices of the usual situations of ministers being appointed, going on leave, board appointments, any notices under our legislation required to be given public notification. We have anything from the registration of ear tags and cattle brands across to the disposal of land, acquisitions and the like. It is an important piece of information which is available online to the public and which probably is hardly ever read by members of the public.

That is the reality of the world: whilst governments and ministers are happy to say, 'Look, it's on the website, it's available online, you can access it, blah, blah, blah, www', etc., the reality is that if we all spent all the time reading all these things to try to identify what we should be keeping up with, we would never get a chance to live. I for one would like to actually live my life, not speed type it; nevertheless, the important thing is—

The Hon. J.D. Hill: Not do what? You want to live it, not what?

Ms CHAPMAN: Speed type it. The important thing here is to understand that this is a bill about notice, and we think that it is reasonable. The original mover of the bill had identified the two circumstances of application of a heritage listing and also the change from residential to floodplain zoning, without people even having a clue that this was going on because they had not read the Gazette or, even if they had read the Gazette, they do not have any knowledge of it.

It is important that the government understands that it needs to provide for regulation on this and that, to supplement that, the questions about whether the form of direct notification is to be by unaddressed letter or council newsletter and the like are important things that could be considered under regulation, which I think would abate some of the reasonable first-response concerns raised as to the question of time, cost and administrative burden in providing for this initiative. So, we do support that.

I wish to just also refer to a matter which the Attorney raised in his contribution. He suggested that there had been the adequate provision of 18-year land supply as the reason why it was unnecessary to progress the Roseworthy structure plan. This is a matter which he has outlined as being clearly surplus to requirements of the government and unnecessary, given that, according to its own 30-year plan, it has plenty of housing stock available already that has been zoned, and a portion of that is already ready for immediate development.

If that is the case, if the government are of the view that, not withstanding that there are areas available for consideration of applications in the 30-year plan, as at this point in November 2013, there is plenty of supply and they are ahead of time, indeed, in their land supply entitlement, then why have they not told anybody? Why have they not gone out and said, 'Look, we are telling the world; we are announcing to the world'?

Where is the minister being honest with the people of South Australia for those who might want to develop in a greenfield site, for example? Where is the honesty to the people of South Australia to say, 'We are just going to put a hold on everything. We are no longer participating in any kind of advance of structure plans or anything else that you have got pending'?

Where is the response to the letter that I wrote to the minister a couple of months ago, asking what is happening here, other than getting an acknowledgement? Why have I not got a response? Why is there not some respect for this parliament on behalf of the people of South Australia to give a response to say, 'We have decided, as a matter of policy, that we are ahead of schedule and we do not need any more. We are going to be honest with you and tell you that we are not going to be progressing any other applications'?

No, they are too gutless to do that. They would not ring up the UDIA or the Property Council or the Housing Industry Association, who they are proud to try to come out and quote today as the basis upon which they are opposing a particular piece of legislation. They are trying to condemn us for not following suit with various stakeholders. Yes, they are happy to do that, and yet they are too gutless to ring them up and say, 'It is the end of the line. There will be no further greenfield sites. We are above schedule. We do not need to do this.'

They come in here and start making these demands—how pathetic! I will tell you why: it is because we are just over 100 days from an election and the government does not want to come clean on this. It is absolutely disgraceful that they come in here and try to pretend that they give a toss about the future of South Australia's opportunities in this state, that they even give a care if our children are leaving here and there is about 5,000 a year net emigration out of this state into other states, and that they give a care about the debt and liability that they are leaving the future generations of this state. They do not give a toss.

They care about 14 jobs—theirs—and I cannot wait to the election to make sure that we do have some changes and some opportunities for South Australia and not have to listen to this drivel anymore, and then not have to listen to that nonsense of promises to care about the people of South Australia, when they are keeping secret what is clearly their plan; that is, there will be no further development in this state, and all you kids who want to have a future in this state may as well pack your bags now and go and get a job somewhere else.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:35): This bill, like the previous one, I believe is a reasonable, sensible measure. I was pleased to hear that the planning minister will refer it to Mr Hayes—I am sure he reads Hansard anyway—so that, even if it has a stormy response in this chamber, the principles outlined in this bill should and will get further consideration. The planning minister did not spend a lot of time talking about the notification aspect of the bill. This is really an extension of the democratic principle—that is, to inform people.

I think it is a fundamental principle to ensure that electors and residents are aware of what is happening, particularly changes in the law, whether it is planning law or whatever else it may be. Democracy is always more costly and it is always more time-consuming. If you want to get things done quickly, whether it be in planning or elsewhere, you go for the person with the small black moustache. That person can do things very quickly, but we do not want to live in that sort of society and we should not be subject to that sort of anti, non-democratic approach.

The planning minister mentioned some things about planning and I agree with him in many respects. I do not believe we should have more urban sprawl. I think we should be moving to—the term 'high rise' is probably inappropriate—three or four-storey options in appropriate locations along transport corridors, above shopping centres and so on, a bit like the Paris model. The critical thing is how you do it, not just what you do but how you do it so that you end up creating a city that is elevated in more ways than one.

This desire to keep expanding out, whether it is to Roseworthy or further, is not in the long-term interests of the people of Adelaide or this state as a whole. The cost of infrastructure, etc., is significant. The other thing—and we have seen too much of this already—is the impact on agricultural and horticultural land. In Adelaide we have built on some of the best horticultural land that exists in Australia, and we should not keep making those same mistakes in terms of agricultural or horticultural land. In terms of creating a city which is a community, I think there is merit in going up, as the planning minister said, rather than going out.

That approach will be tested by people like the incoming senator, Bob Day, who seems to have a view that you should be able to build whenever and wherever you like. I do not share that view. I think it is critical that the planning minister and the government make the correct decisions in relation to consolidating Adelaide and not having endless and, ultimately, very costly urban sprawl. Sure, you need to provide for and ensure that there is adequate open space if you are going to have people living in three or four-storey apartments, but that can and should be accommodated.

This issue is about the bill before us and, irrespective of its fate here today, it is an important issue that needs to be aired. There is a lot of concern in the community, as I said before, where people are concerned about lack of information and lack of awareness. The member for Bragg quite correctly points out that very few people read the Government Gazette. I do not think it is on the top sellers' list—it is certainly not on the top reading list. We know the argument that ignorance of the law is no defence, but the reality is that people do not get to know what is happening, so what is proposed in this bill I think is reasonable.

Sure, it will cost more and take longer, but, as I said at the start, that is what democracy is all about. They do take time and they cost more because you are letting the people have a say, and that is what democracy is about, to a large extent. I support this measure and I ask members in here to do likewise to help bring about some fundamental changes in respect of stakeholders being notified of changes in planning provisions.

The house divided on the second reading:

While the division was being held:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is a point of order.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I understood it was always the practice of the house that a negative voice had to call the division. That is my understanding of the process.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Anyone can call for a division.

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 (21)
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.
PAIRS (6)
Marshall, S.S. Weatherill, J.W.
van Holst Pellekaan, D.C. Bignell, L.W.K.
Pengilly, M. Fox, C.C.

Majority of 3 for the noes.

Second reading thus negatived.

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