HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2015-02-11 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Address in Reply

Address in Reply

Debate resumed.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (12:47): So, that is an important one for me. I think there will probably be a lot of members from the opposition who will reflect upon the fact that the speech did not include the references to regional South Australia that we would have liked. I note it talked about the regions only in connection to the four significant hospitals in regional South Australia in which effort has gone into their rebuild. It talked about regions, in further defining it, such as East Asia and India, and regional South Australia was presumably part of the group that provides fine wine and food to that part of the world. But there should have been a far greater emphasis upon it.

I cannot remember reading any words about cost-of-living pressures. I am sure that I am not unique when it comes to members of this house having people in the community talk to them about the challenges that individuals, families and businesses face when it comes to paying the bills for consumables—and the most basic of necessities: food, water, electricity, cost of living—all of those sorts of things—housing, accommodation. That should have been of greater emphasis too, because that is part of our charter, part of the reason we are in here, to try to provide the services, to ensure the infrastructure is there to support that, and give the people as much as we humanly can, but also to ensure that the cost associated with it, which is borne by the taxpayer at the end of the day, on every occasion, is at its best and at its most efficient. I hoped that would have received greater emphasis, but unfortunately it did not.

I did read with interest the reference to the fact that traditional industries are in decline, and I respect that. We are in a very challenging time, indeed, for South Australia. The initiatives that were brought to our state post-World War II and were vibrant for the economy of South Australia are suffering because of the worldwide economy that we operate in. We are in a transitional period, but that is where government, and opposition, need to espouse what the opportunities are going to be for the community so they can move from what is seen as traditional to what the future chances are to ensure that training opportunities are there; to ensure that support via policy for business growth to provide job opportunities is there; and to ensure that through our educational institutions people are graduating with the skill set they require.

So I would have loved to have seen that, and I am sure that many members from the government side within those areas that are suffering some of those unique and very far reaching challenges will be demanding from their ministerial representatives, in the next decade in particular, the delivery of services to do that. I think this would have been an opportunity in the Governor's speech to talk about some of those initiatives.

There were a couple of references to portfolio areas for which I have responsibility. Quite an important one was the review of the Development Act 1993, which has been undertaken by an expert panel appointed by minister Rau nearly two years ago, which gave its final report to the minister in early December last year. Public consultation is ongoing until Friday of this week. The Governor's speech has flagged that legislation will be brought into the parliament later in the year for serious debate. I am not sure if that is before the budget or post-budget time.

I think there is a spirit of a change to occur. From my point of view there is also the need to ensure that not only is it legislation that is appropriate but the authority provided to those who make the decision as best as it can be and that it is used when it needs to be to ensure that we get outcomes. I do not want to see anything that stifles development opportunity but I do want to see that the legislation enshrines a very strong principle that community voices be heard when it comes to developing or creating what the development vision is for a community.

I think that individual development plans for council areas are important, but an absolutely critical one for me is to ensure that recommendation three from the expert panel on the Charter for Community Participation is one of the main focuses. By engagement with the community very early on you hear the voices about what they would like to see happen, what they are prepared to see happen—and there is often a very significant difference—what the development side of things might want to see happen, what local government believes it will need to try to support growth in particular ways. It is only through that really serious work in the very early stages that you get something that can be accepted by all and, therefore, reduces a lot of the angst that exists.

Development can be an exciting one or it can be a trigger mechanism for a debate and an argument to occur in a community that sometimes communities do not recover from. I know that there are other members in this chamber who have seen initiatives opposed by a community which have been exceptionally divisive, and long-term friendships have been ruined because of it. Different positions are held, and then it might not even occur, but you never recover from it. Development is an exceptionally important issue for the state to get right.

Minister Rau has been rather engaging, and I appreciate the fact that he and his staff are providing briefings to me on that, but there has to be an ongoing level of discussion to ensure that the legislation the parliament finishes up with has to be enacted within local government. I will be interested when the debate occurs on this about the Minister for Local Government actually having involvement in it because it is a key issue for his portfolio area, too, about the practical indications of what level of responsibility rests with local government for decision-making, what has to be taken over by a body such as the Development Assessment Commission and other bodies that make decisions based on what the development vision of a community is.

It will be a long debate. I think it is quite likely that this chamber will be occupied for several days talking about the nuances of it. As I understand it, it is intended not to amend the current act but to propose a completely new one, which is probably an easier way of doing it, but there will be a lot of comparisons between the 1993 act, which was amended probably 45 times via different bills that came into this place, and what the implications of that will be. There will be a lot of people from both sides who give examples predominantly of the bad issues or the frustrations of the time delay or the seemingly bureaucratic red tape issues that have driven people crazy through it, and they are the ones that are talked about on talkback radio all the time. Probably there is not as much credence given to those where the system has worked well and an outcome has been achieved, where it represents a compromise and also a win for all sides.

This is not my area of expertise, and there will be others in this chamber who will probably talk about it more, but time zones were noted. I confirm that I have received feedback, but not in this last instance, though. I expected a lot of Goyder community to contact me about it—that has been based upon previous times it has been brought up—but there is a high level of support for not doing it, because they are concerned about the impact on the people who live on Eyre Peninsula and what that will do to them. That is all I can offer at this stage, but that will be an interesting debate also, led by the Minister for Investment and Trade, the member for Waite, and we will see what happens.

I did also note that included in the Governor's speech is the suggestion, which has been floated by minister Rau in recent months, about the potential for the urban growth boundary to be put in place by legislation. I found this one interesting. As I understand it, minister Laidlaw as the then minister for planning in the mid-1990s put it in place via regulation, so therefore it is able to be amended by the minister via regulation and is therefore also presumably subject to disallowance motions from any member in any house, subject to it being within 15 days of being enacted or sitting in the parliament to do that.

It is fair to say that I had been contacted by groups, rather quickly, about the position held on that gazettal of the urban growth boundary. I will take the opportunity to put on the record one example of contact made with me. It is rather interesting; it is from the Urban Development Institute of Australia. On the bottom of the letterhead for their Executive Director Terry Walsh, it actually has a photo of the Premier, and indeed they have people booked to attend a major luncheon today that the Premier is speaking at. So, I find the timing rather interesting of a significant announcement, the Premier being the guest speaker, and the UDIA holding a very different position to that proposed in the Governor's speech. So I will just put it on the record. Mr Walsh, in providing me with comment this morning via email, says:

We are not happy with the statement relating to the Urban Growth Boundary. It is unnecessary; it creates an IN and OUT location factor with implication for skyrocketing prices inside the line. It will be a cumbersome arrangement where any potential change must be arranged via Parliament—

Now, that has to occur anyway via the regulation. It continues:

This planning decision is a decision for the Minister for Planning, who should need to defend it based on policy.

The statement must not be a precursor to changing the rules on current developments being planned within the scope of existing government plans [within the boundary that currently exists] for future growth.

The Urban Development Institute of Australia will not bend on its stance that 'an urban growth boundary is unnecessary; it will affect the affordability of land for people seeking their homes in outer suburban areas, often they are the most price-sensitive buyers in the market'.

I certainly do respect that last comment: that people, particularly where they do not have the resources or assets behind them to afford a high-valued property for the purchase of a home, which is a great Australian dream, will do it hopefully in regional South Australia but also in the fringe boundary areas of the suburbs of Adelaide, where land is that little bit less in price and allows them to achieve that dream of owning a home.

I have been contacted by others also. As I understand it, the minister intends I think to include this as part of the reforms proposed to the Development Act 1993—legislation that will come in later—but it is likely that this will be a continuing discussion that is held in a variety of forums, too.

I have not had a chance to review it in full yet, but I have been provided with 74 pages, or 77 pages, of the State Tax Review Discussion Paper that was released this morning. I note on page 24 some information regarding the member for Kaurna's contribution about pensions and the concessions payable on council rates. I think I will take this opportunity just to correct some of the information that the member might have provided.

My understanding is that the National Partnership Agreement, which was $27.7 million, was from the early 1990s, so that is true that it has been in place for 20 years. It was intended to expire, as I understand it, at the end of this financial year. The federal government, as part of a budget decision announced in May of last year, decided to stop that. Am I frustrated by that? Absolutely. I do not support the federal government's decision to have done that. But it is also important for people to understand that the $27.7 million was not specifically targeted to council rates and pension concessions on that. It was part of the overall cost, as I understand it. On page 24 of this taxation discussion paper, it highlights that the implications in the 2014-15 financial year on concession costs in all areas were $269 million. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00.

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