HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2016-04-12 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill

Final Stages

Consideration in committee of the Legislative Council's message.

Amendments Nos 1 to 5:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendments Nos 1 to 5 be agreed to.

The Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill 2015 was introduced in this house on 8 September 2015. I welcome the return of the bill from the other place to this house today. It has been a long, complex journey. There have been many amendments to this bill, reflecting both government and other interested parties' willingness to ensure that we achieve planning reforms that will help drive the economy and deliver a better planning system. Many of the reforms and their benefits have been previously canvassed and will now be possible with the passage of this bill. However, there are some particular reforms worth mentioning a little further now.

The key reforms are, first of all, the environment and food production areas. With the acceptance of the bill as amended we now have, for the first time in this state’s history, a complete legislated boundary within the greater Adelaide region—the environment and food production areas—to prevent unnecessary and unwarranted urban sprawl consuming our limited and precious lands that should be used to produce our quality food and wine, and lands that showcase some of Australia’s most unique landscapes and environments. Once these lands have been lost to urban development, they are irrecoverable. There is no way of converting housing, or the like, back into lands to produce the quality food that forms part of this state’s growing food and wine industry, which generates over $19 billion in revenue.

The EFPA provides necessary certainty to industries like our food and wine producers and the tourism sector. A farmer today can now have a level of certainty that his or her farm will remain so for future generations, without the ongoing viability of his or her farming business put in doubt due to the encroachment of housing development next door. The EFPA also provides developers and prospective developers with far greater certainty as to where urban development may or may not occur.

It is an incentive to deliver greater variety in the availability of choices and styles of housing in this state. Importantly, for all South Australians, the EFPA provides certainty that present and future taxpayers will not have to fund the massive hidden infrastructure and services costs of continuing urban sprawl. Such certainty is a good thing, and it is the right thing to do. If the EFPA and the certainty it provides is to change, which it can, this bill rightly provides that any such change can no longer occur at the stroke of a pen behind closed doors. Instead, any such change must be done transparently before the parliament and its merits publicly tested.

I would like to mention also the new assessment pathways. Another significant reform to the planning system that this bill will deliver is a new planning system oriented to provide the developer with an early 'yes' or 'no' to their proposed development, and not an infinite and costly 'maybe'. Delays will be shortened, red tape reduced and investment encouraged.

This will be achieved by ensuring that the rule book for planning is right. This includes developing the rules through genuine community engagement. This will be provided for in the community engagement charter. For the first time, the community will be properly engaged in the development of the rules for planning through the development of the statewide planning and design code and other regulatory instruments.

Secondly, the future rule book for planning will be far more consistent and understandable. The current ‘rule book’, made up of over 25,000 pages of development plans, will be replaced with the statewide planning and design code, which will apply across the state and be largely made up of perhaps as few as 30 to 40 zones, together with subzones and overlays where required. With the correct 'book’ for planning, an early 'yes' or 'no' will be achieved by applying these rules through a new outcome-based development assessment process.

The CHAIR: How many pages?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I'm nearly there.

The CHAIR: No, this new book.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The new book is 30 to 40 zones. There will be significantly fewer pages. This will result in far fewer merit-based assessments. I would also like to mention e-planning. The new planning system will be further enhanced with the passage of the bill through the introduction of an online electronic planning system. This will greatly reduce delays and provide the public with access to the information they need in relation to any development. However, having dwelt on the good, there are some unsatisfactory amendments that are wrapped up in this present we have had returned to us from the other place.

The introduction of the EFPA, community engagement charter, new assessment pathways, e-planning and, to some extent, the infrastructure schemes (which I will come to further in a moment), are significant reforms to the planning system that will bring significant benefit to the state. However, I have five remaining concerns with this bill, as amended.

First, although the infrastructure schemes are a significant positive reform to the planning system allowing us to avoid the problems such as those experienced in Mount Barker with the provision of essential infrastructure, I remain somewhat disappointed with the amendments to the general infrastructure schemes. In this regard, I particularly refer to the amendment that requires 100 per cent agreement of all landowners to a proposed general infrastructure scheme for that scheme to be used. This was an amendment that the government did not want, but had to accept in order to secure enough support for the passage of the bill.

In time, I trust the potential benefits of the infrastructure scheme will be better understood, and with that may come a desire to perhaps revisit that particular amendment. Having said that, the fact that this bill provides for basic and general infrastructure schemes is a significant reform to the planning system.

I wish to acknowledge the particularly constructive approach that the Urban Development Institute of Australia and the Property Council have taken to developing these reforms. The Master Builders Association, although engaged to a lesser extent, should also be acknowledged for its role in the development of these reforms.

Secondly, the amendment to clause 64 of the bill made in the other place will, in effect, require a plebiscite to occur in order for an area to be made a historic character conservation zone. This will be difficult to administer and appears unlikely to achieve appropriately balanced outcomes with respect to our state's interest in heritage.

Thirdly, the amendments to clause 74 of the bill cause this state to take a backward step in relation to 'early commencement' powers, otherwise known as 'interim' operation powers under the current Development Act. Such powers have been used in the interest of the state and local councils to assist in many developments that have been good for the state and local communities. The amendments to clause 74 will render the ability to use such a power to achieve these positive outcomes in the future very, very difficult.

Fourthly, the amendments to clause 125 of the bill concerning crown development in the Adelaide Parklands will mean that infrastructure developments in the state's best interest (such as the now much-loved Adelaide Oval redevelopment and the new footbridge) will continue to endure unnecessary additional red tape. This will continue to slow necessary economic development.

Fifthly, the amendments to the bill that still allow elected council members to be on assessment panels remains problematic from the government's point of view. Community voice is important and is rightly placed at the development of the planning rule book, as provided for through the introduction of the community engagement charter.

This government has tried hard—not once, but twice—to oppose the amendments concerning heritage, early commencement, the Adelaide Parklands carve-out in the crown development and the removal of elected members on assessment panels in the other place. I recognise that for this government to now try for a third time in this house comes with great risk. That said, perfection should never be the enemy of the good.

I remain of the firm view that the government's position on these amendments is correct, and, in time, this will be proven. Until such time, the potential risk of further delays and amendments to this bill as a result of any attempt now to address these concerns for a third time, currently do not outweigh the significant benefits we will see from the passage of this bill.

After discussion with many parties, and in particular Mayor David O'Loughlin, past president of the Local Government Association, I have been persuaded to soften my position. I do recognise that local government will be an integral part of the work of implementing the new planning system. I ask for their partnership in this task. On balance, and in order to serve the best interests of the state for now, the government should accept the bill in its entirety as amended in the other place.

There is much work still to be done in the implementation of the new planning reforms that the bill now brings. This implementation will take much time and involve the efforts of many interested people. With the passage of the bill I look forward to working on the implementation phase of these reforms with various interested groups, including the Urban Development Institute of Australia, the Property Council and the Local Government Association.

In addition, there are reforms to heritage that will need to begin, as I have previously foreshadowed. In this regard I also look forward to working with the various interested parties in developing such reforms in due course. I intend to make contact with all these various interested parties as to the next steps. I intend the cooperative partnership, forged in the negotiation of the passage of this bill, to continue in the implementation phase. I will be writing to these groups as soon as possible to formally extend this invitation.

For now, however, I wish to note some particular thanks. I thank all members for their comprehensive and considered contributions during both the committee and recommittal stages of the bill in this place and the other place. The government would also like to thank the members of the expert panel on planning reform for their work in consulting and reporting on the planning system. I would like to thank representatives of a number of organisations that have contributed feedback on the bill in order to help us in our aim to deliver an effective, efficient and enabling planning system, including but not limited to:

Urban Development Institute of Australia;

Property Council of Australia;

Local Government Association and the local government sector generally;

Master Builders Association of South Australia;

Planning Institute of Australia;

Australian Institute of Landscape Architects;

Australian Institute of Building Surveyors;

Surveying and Spatial Sciences Institute;

Conservation Council of South Australia;

Environmental Defenders Office;

National Trust of South Australia;

Community Alliance SA; and

several local law firms and members of the legal profession actively practising in this sector.

I would also like to thank the clerks of both this and the other place, and the parliamentary and Hansard staff, as well as the staff of the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, in particular, Mr Andrew McKeegan, Sally Smith, Sue Rudall, Anita Allen, Andrew Grear, Matthew Loader, Nick Buick, Simon Howes, Marko Klobas, David Whiterod and Jodie Evans.

I would also like to extend particular thanks to parliamentary counsel and the office of parliamentary counsel for their important and critical role in drafting the bill and its various amendments. In particular, I thank Mr Richard Dennis, now retired, and Mr Mark Emery. Last, but certainly not least, I wish to thank my staff, particularly Mr Chris Kwong, whose tireless efforts in the complex task of negotiating the passage of this bill has been outstanding. Thank you, Chris: I owe you a fish lunch.

The CHAIR: Before we go on, member for Goyder, in general we are accepting all of this and you are just making a statement? The question is that the amendments as printed be agreed to.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, I am not sure who is going to breathe easier now—you or I—as a result of this. I respect that it has been a particular commitment and passion of yours and those who work for you, and many others in our community who have committed a lot of time to the discussion about this legislation and amendment opportunities, if it is the right process and if changes need to occur, to try to get positive outcomes. I understand that. It is a uniform position put to me from across the community that changes are required, so there is no discussion or debate about the fact that it is appropriate that the Development Act of 1993 be reconsidered.

As an individual, it has been somewhat of an all-consuming issue for me too, I must admit, in the last six or seven months also. For those of you who work very closely with the minster—and I particularly recognise Mr Kwong—I know it has been something that we have had very regular contact about. I appreciate the fact that Mr Kwong has been available at very short notice many times to speak to me about it, to ensure that I am briefed on the position that the minister takes on many things.

It is certainly not the case that we have total agreement, and that is reflected in the fact that there are 208 amendments. I thank you, minister, for agreeing to the bill in its amended form. I understand, as you and many others do, that there will be ongoing discussions about subsequent changes and improvements as we work through the process to ensure that the framework that is put in place is one that benefits South Australia—no doubt about that.

The debate that occurred in the Legislative Council was a long one—absolutely. Some days I reflect upon the fact that I think 19 clauses were passed after a full day's debate, and that is all they managed to get through. That has ensured though that people's opinions have been able to be heard. There is no doubt that it has involved significant levels of compromise. I know, from positions that you hold rather strongly, minister, you have considered those positions and come to an outcome that you are not necessarily happy with, but you realise that if it occurs at this stage then it allows things to start to happen, and that is the key thing.

I commend you on the commitment to e-portal. I think that is going to be a fantastic initiative and I hope that local government gets the financial assistance it requires to implement it as quickly as possible, because one level of feedback I have received constantly in the last eight months in particular is: 'Let's improve the system to allow electronic capacity to exist and ensure that it can work quickly.'

The environment and food protection areas were a challenge from the Liberal party members. We have some members who are rather aggrieved by it, and they have had some discussions with their own councils and communities who feel that it is a significant restriction upon the use of the land within their area. Some members will speak about that, but there are only going to be a couple. We are not going to be here for the whole day debating this bill, minister.

The infrastructure area in clauses 155 to 179 is a rather interesting one. What we now have is a significant change to what was originally intended. I also pay respect to the fact that there are some groups that have worked extremely hard, in association with the minister and his staff, to ensure that there is a process in place that was able to, in their eyes, work initially and get through the parliament.

I question also the 100 per cent opt-in issue and the workability of that. I know we live in a democracy and 51 per cent of the vote, apparently, is how things work, but in this one it is an interesting one. There will be lots of reviews that will take place to ensure workability, because I am not sure how it is going to happen. I have tried to review it, read it and understand it, but it is a significant change.

The planning commission, and in particular the commissioner, is an absolutely critical series of appointments that you need to make. The skill set requirements of those people are immense and they have a great challenge before them. For example, I know you have just advertised recently for Development Assessment Commission members on a short-term basis to continue, but the people that you attract to this planning commission role are going to have to be the best of the best. They are going to have to know how to engage and how to be involved in the creation of a vision for the state and the city for all of the 1.7 million people who live in South Australia, and it will be a hard job. I do not envy you in trying to make the appointments, because I know they will be subject to much scrutiny to ensure that the outcomes are strong ones.

We are lucky—and I think the last eight months or so has demonstrated to me—that there are people among us who have the capacity, and I have no doubt about that. No doubt you will look widely for those that you seek to appoint. I hope, in those that you do appoint, that there will be a significant level of knowledge about South Australia, because I think to some degree a knowledge of the history of our state is important to making decisions for the future, too.

I wondered if this day was ever going to come. I knew the legislation would come back in some form, minister, but I was not sure if I was going to be able to digest it all, because I nearly got to a stage where it was doing my head in, I have to be honest with you about this. It was very challenging, because in total we are considering 208 amendments today, which have been subject to something like 13 days of debate in the Legislative Council. All up, there were about 400 amendments to go through and all had to be considered and given justice on the appropriate merit of them.

I do recognise that, in the 200 or so amendments that came from the government, many of those were from you, minister, and the request made from those within the development industry for the 'depoliticisation' of it—indeed, minister, you have transferred, via your own amendments, responsibility from you as minister to the Planning Commission. The opposition has taken this opportunity, as we always intended to do, to look at some of the areas, and the government has supported that, so I thank it for that.

Can I say, minister, that I sincerely appreciate—even though it goes back some time now—the fact that, when we were in committee, you were here for something like 10¾ hours going through the legislation. In talking to others I have said that the minister and I do not necessarily agree on things, but I respect you for having done that because I think that showed a commitment to ensuring that the outcome of the legislation was a good one, and for that I say, 'Well done.'

I still have considerable concerns, though, when we look at issues such as the lack of real information that was needed. Now, I know that you have talked about the three to five-year implementation period and the fact that subsequent legislation is required, but, you know, I am reminded that, with respect to the environment and food protection area, we first saw a plan when we were discussing clause 50 in committee in this chamber. Indeed, it was a subsequently filed plan (and I cannot quote the exact number) on 1 December 2015 which came as part of the amendments as part of the recommittal in the Legislative Council and which had some slight variations to it.

However, it is an example of the fact that, for me, the Liberal Party and for many South Australians, to be sure of what would be occurring from now on it would have been desirable for some additional information to be available—even if it were things such as a charter for community engagement, minister. How are we ensuring that the front-ended focus of this reform ensures that the community is involved in a serious way and that the outcome reflects its vision for the future? That will be an absolute key issue.

There will be a significant amount of effort involved to ensure that cross sections of our society—I hope it is as many people as possible—are involved in it at a local level and at an overall level as to how that is to occur. With respect to the regulations, minister, there are 46 different areas and three or four lines at most as an abstract on what the intention is for those to achieve, but I have always considered that the legislation sets the framework for how it works but the regulations actually dictate how it is intended to work. So, that is very much an evolving continuation of work that will need to happen, but it is a significant area that, no doubt, there will be debate on.

In terms of the design codes, I do recognise that much of that comes from existing development plans and I understand that, and I recognise your self-imposed challenge of trimming it down from 25,000 separate pages to one-tenth of that. I have always considered, I suppose, that, of those 25,000 pages, there are as many common components of the various development plans that exist. So, there is a natural opportunity, I think, to condense it down to an improved version; but even today, minister, you talked about the 30 or 40 different areas, so it will be significant.

I want to pay some level of particular thanks to the efforts of the Hon. David Ridgway. He is a former shadow minister for planning and has upskilled himself considerably on this, and the debate that he led for the opposition's perspective in the Legislative Council was significant. I also want to recognise the efforts of former minister Gago, initially before Christmas, and minister Maher since.

I actually shook minister Maher's hand because I thought that, as a new minister in an area in which I am not sure he had some previous experience, he grasped it rather well. Still, differences occur, and that sort of thing, but I thought that he was in a position to provide a reasonably fulsome level of answer, with the valuable support of your staff, minister, to ensure that that information flow is there, but it allowed the debate to occur in the Legislative Council.

I am pleased that the minister decided to accept the bill in its amended form; I was wondering, minister, what was going to occur. I was very strongly expecting that there might be a requirement from you to insist on changes particularly in those five areas that you highlighted as part of your speech, which would have resulted in a deadlock conference, and, not having previously been involved in one of those, I was trying to upskill myself ready for that. It will be part of the fulsome, ongoing debate.

I also thank those who have engaged with me and other members of the opposition to ensure that we had their opinions put to us. They do not always agree and, minister, you would certainly recognise that, too. There is no person who I sought to contact who did not make themselves available very quickly, and that is across the complete section including community groups, very much at local level; community groups that represent a wider level; the Local Government Association; industry groups; and individuals.

It has been refreshing to ensure that across the political divide no matter what the basis of their thoughts might be, they have been prepared to be involved in the discussions on it. I was at the national conference of the Urban Development Institute of Australia (UDIA) and as part of the dinner held that evening, minister Koutsantonis on your behalf, I believe, minister, made a speech. I sought the right of reply on a couple of things because it was relevant to the debate that was occurring on this.

At the end of that speech, I expressed my sincere thanks for Mr John Stinson and Mr Pat Gerace from the UDIA who have been exceptional in providing feedback. I also thank Daniel Gannon, from the Property Council, who has done the same thing, as have Ian Markos and Russell Emmerson from the Master Builders Association. The HIA have also been in regular contact with the Liberal Party, as the minister has reflected in his own contribution. They were not involved in the discussion about the infrastructure levy area because they are very strongly opposed to it.

That is an example of where choices are able to be made. I am pleased that we are now finding ourselves in a position where this significant piece of legislation which will have profound impacts upon the future of South Australians is finally back before us again and that we will at least now have some guidelines about what we do over the next three to five years. No matter what the election result in a little under two years' time, it is likely that it will continue to be discussed for some time about what needs to occur because there is a need for change, and it is appropriate that we do it.

I thank my Liberal colleagues. They are probably sick of the fact that within our party room and our portfolio meetings I have presented something like 30 briefing papers on a variety of things. They have attempted as much as humanly possible, given the detail of some of the amendments in the legislation, to be engaged with that, so it has been refreshing for me to see people from a wide cross-section of society who have had the opportunity of being in parliament to be involved in the discussion about the position that we should take on such a complex area.

In many ways you could argue that it is not that challenging because it should be common sense. It is not always the case, though, and nuances occur as a result of individual words sometimes. When I stood up yesterday in the joint party room I hoped that this was my last briefing paper to the group, and it has proven to be, on this bill that we are debating. It has proven to me that the parliamentary members, when engaged, will ensure that the outcomes are there. Minister, no doubt, you have had some rather interesting discussions with your own colleagues about the format of the legislation and what it should say.

So, we are here. I have tried to thank everybody involved in the process and recognise the efforts of the minister and the commitment that he has to planning, development and infrastructure and what will occur over the next two years. I hope that by the grace of God and the wisdom of others that I have an opportunity to still be involved in the debate as a shadow minister to ensure that we get outcomes that benefit South Australians because that is what this place should do a lot more than it already does.

Mr PENGILLY: I have listened to this morning's offerings with great interest. I have followed this debate for months on end with great interest, and judging from comments from some of my colleagues on the other side of the house they have not been overly impressed either with the way this bill has been brought to the house and the mess that it descended into in relation to amendments in the other place and where we have got to now.

My principal reason for making some comments this morning is in relation to the boundaries that have been put in place on the Greater Adelaide growth area. This has caused a lot of concern in my electorate and I think, quite frankly, it is a bit like shutting the gate after the horse has bolted. A number of primary producers down there are highly agitated and annoyed that this has gotten through. For the life of me, I do not know what Mr Darley in another place was offered over this as a Xenophon man and, given that the Xenophon candidate in Mayo, for example, is tied up with Peter Manuel from FLAG, it is all going to get a bit murky, I would suggest, to say the least.

Having said that, one of the issues, minister, is this: the farming community do not get paid large salaries. They do not get paid ministerial salaries or MP salaries. At the end of the day, many of them have their properties to either sell or to make alterations to to provide for themselves some form of superannuation or something in their retiring years. Where it gets very messy—and I think you and I had a discussion some months ago about this—is the different zones under different councils and how murky that gets as well.

Zoning is going to be the issue now. I have primary producers on the Fleurieu who have, over the years, had parcels subdivided into four hectares or 10 hectares, or whatever, with a view to at some stage in the future being able to sell them off to fund their retirement. Simply running lines around the place does not account for the geography of the district.

Where you have patches of scrub or hilly country or whatever, that is non-productive in farming terms—it might look nice, but is not much use to the farmer apart from looking at or for environmental purposes—they have cut some of these areas up for future sale. Where it is going to get messy is that because of the zoning change they may or may not be able to do anything with that, and if they want to sell if to a neighbour or somebody from the city who wants a lifestyle block and then they cannot put a house on it, it is no good to them. That is the problem.

It is no good to them whatsoever, so I anticipate that you will see the requirement for an age pension increase on the Fleurieu Peninsula farming community in due course. That is just the way it is. Just drawing lines on maps in an office in Adelaide does not work in the rural area and I think there is a complete lack of understanding of exactly how that does work.

As I said, the farming community, particularly dairy farmers, are under an enormous amount of pressure at the moment. I have one dairy farmer, whose power bill runs at around $7,000 to $9,000 a month to keep his operation going, who has not been able to pay his bill for seven months. How on earth it is still going I really do not know and that is something that has to be dealt with in another place. I am concerned about that. That is my principal area of concern. Some of the other matters that have been discussed here this morning we can live with.

I have probably sat on planning committees and planning panels for 17 years, as much as anybody in this place, so I have some idea about planning and outcomes and it is the most controversial thing in local government and councils. Planning used to have more fights over it than anything else, quite frankly, and it will probably continue to into the future. So I am not sure, minister, that this bill we are discussing this morning is the answer but, in fairness to my constituents who are feeling highly aggrieved, I needed to put a few words down in the house this morning on that matter. I do not think it is good enough.

I say again that why John Darley in another place fell over absolutely amazes me because John is not one to fall over on things as he has a firm view. I can understand also that some of my colleagues who sit on this side of the house do not have the same concerns as I do, but it is too late down on the Fleurieu. The impact on the farming sector over decades has been made more and more difficult.

We are trying to get some common sense into arguments over and above this bill. Underpasses for moving dairy cattle across the road are things that are almost impossible to achieve through departmental stupidity a lot of the time, I would suggest, whereas in Victoria you can put them in. They will not agree to it in South Australia, although it would make life easier and make it easier for traffic. There is a host of issues and I do not want to go on now, but it will be interesting to watch the outcomes of this bill and how they relate to South Australia.

I suspect that in three or four years' time, more than likely, the government of the day will be making further alterations to planning. I note what the minister said about 'page after page'. I think he said there were something like 25,000 pages of plans. I find it ridiculous, quite frankly. You should be able to have something in about four pages. It is just stupid that we have got ourselves so bogged down and planning has become so cumbersome in this state.

If any of this assists, I will be the first one to agree and say that it has been a good move, but my final comment is that these boundaries are going to make life very difficult. I will be extrapolating what the minister has said this morning about those boundaries and giving it to my constituents as they raise it with me, but it is going to lead to a lot of pain for quite a large number of people.

The CHAIR: The member for Hammond has indicated that he has some questions on amendment 6.

Mr PEDERICK: I just want to make a brief contribution before I do that, if that is okay.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Just to make it clear, I am not intending to go through each amendment, because I am accepting them all. That is not to stop the member for Hammond speaking, but I have no intention of going through the whole thing.

The CHAIR: We understand that. Member for Hammond, if you have questions, then we have to ask them, but are you are making general comments rather than asking questions?

Mr PEDERICK: I will lead into the questions that way, if that is okay, Madam Chair.

The CHAIR: We will have some quick general comments and then we will move into questions on amendment 6.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you, Madam Chair, for your forbearance. This bill has been a shemozzle and, even inside government, I think they would have to admit that. The bill came before us with 232 clauses, and then over 200 government amendments were moved, with over 400 amendments moved altogether since it was introduced late last year. Before I go on, I will just acknowledge the massive work that has been done in the background. I am sure the people supporting the Deputy Premier have done a huge amount of work.

I fully acknowledge the work that the member for Goyder has done. He has been frustrated at the short notice and that kind of thing. I do hope that legislation can be dealt with in a much more straightforward manner into the future and with more readiness. I know that a lot of legislation spends years in the making, but to have this come forward in this way has been a real issue. I do commend the member for Goyder, Steven Griffiths, for his forbearance and his hard work in keeping us briefed and making sure that we are across all the issues.

Before I ask some questions, the biggest thing I am concerned about, as is the member for Finniss, is the environment and food protection area, where a boundary basically runs almost to Eudunda and then down to the coast around Goolwa and Victor Harbor and incorporates the character preservation areas of the Barossa and McLaren Vale. The first time we saw it was in clause 50 in committee and when I asked the question about what this would mean for that environment and food protection area, the Attorney-General indicated that these areas have just basically become a large character preservation area.

Not only does the boundary head almost to Eudunda, it heads right out to Boundary Road bordering Naturi, which is a place I have had some farming experience with near the boundary of the Rural City of Murray Bridge and, without being too unkind, compared to my country at Coomandook it was a bit yield-resistant, lower production. I am amazed that these lines have been drawn on a map that would encompass many different soil types.

I have said in this place before that some of the best soil in the state is right under this building. We range from country up towards Eudunda, around Wild Horse Plains and back through Mallala and it does vary a lot there. You can go from what is now, sadly, drifting sand since the Pinery fire to some heavy country heading back towards the city through Gawler.

The intent may be fine so that we do not have a Mount Barker, but you have to wonder why we have to have this legislation put in place to contain ministers and their zest to develop. I had a quick look at the different development zones in the Rural City of Murray Bridge and, from memory, there are about 12 or 15 different zones now and this adds another level to planning. I am quite concerned about what impediments this will put into the future.

Motion carried.

Amendments Nos 6 to 208:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendments Nos 6 to 208 be agreed to.

Mr PEDERICK: What briefings has the minister had with councils in regard to this environment and food protection area?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There have been discussions with the Local Government Association all the way along in relation to this. Whether there have been conversations with particular members of the LGA I cannot really say, but I understand that the department has been briefing individual affected councils, so there have been discussions of that nature.

From the contribution the member for Hammond has made, and the questions he is asking, I think it is obvious that we are coming at this particular conversation from a different perspective. That does not mean that the member for Hammond's perspective is incorrect; it is just different.

My perspective is simply that we are interested in proper planning of the City of Adelaide and we are interested in the protection of environmental areas and food production areas. That does not necessarily have to follow soil types, terrain or anything else. It is an attempt to, in effect, put a buffer around Adelaide so that Adelaide just does not sort of ooze out of its pores endlessly in every direction. To do that, we also have to ring fence individual townships to their current boundary extensions so that they do not become, in effect, proxy growth spots for the city outside of the city.

This is why, in a character protection area, the Barossa and McLaren Vale—work that was done some time ago—we have, for example, a circle drawn around the town of McLaren Vale and it can grow as much is it likes within that circle. There are other towns you will see on the map that I know the member for Goyder has there. To the north, we have towns like Roseworthy and others where they can grow but up to only a certain point. The purpose of this legislation is that if that point is to be breached then there is a process, and the process is transparent and it is public.

This is a complex proposition, but the comments made by the member for Hammond and the member for Finniss I think look at the land that is currently disposed as agricultural land as if the sole interest in that land is the person who happens to be the titleholder at that moment in time and that they should be able to do with that land pretty much as they wish whenever they want. Obviously, even under the system we are hoping to replace, planning rules prevent that happening. Planning rules say—

Mr Pederick: Already.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: They already say that. They say, 'No, this is farming land; you can't put a factory here,' or 'No, this is farming land; you can't put a house here,' but what has been going on is there has been gaming around the edges, which is basically a combination of, I think, people in agriculture who would like to perhaps exit, and exit with some cash, and people who are speculators in land who want to try to push the boundary so they can make money out of land speculation. There is an unhappy mutual interest that collides there, and what we get is an incentive for agricultural land to be ultimately chopped up and rendered useless.

What this seeks to do is actually say to everybody—the farmers and the speculators—that that game is finished, that if you want to start moving the boundaries of where the city ends, you are going to have to do it in public, in this place, and explain to everybody why it is necessary to do that and why the land that is already inside the city is not big enough to be able to accommodate growth for the city.

What that is intended to do is give certainty to the farming community who are in the environmental protection area that they are not going to have encroachments by housing. They are not going to discover that their crop suddenly has a bunch of houses next to it and they cannot use a crop duster anymore, or that they cannot spray their grapevines because a bunch of houses is suddenly just down the side of the road and they cannot use their sprays anymore because they are going to upset residents in the house. This protects them from that sort of stuff.

It is a balancing act. It depends what way you look at it, but I can assure you that the outcome of this should be that people who are in a farming region should be quite settled that they are not going to have to deal with interface issues with houses, and they are not going to have to have speculators knocking on their door, making all sorts of promises to them and pumping their tyres up. It might actually mean that one of the most damaging things I have noticed in the planning portfolio, which is the chopping up of viable agricultural land into little pieces which are euphemistically described as 'lifestyle'—

Mr Griffiths: Rural living.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, rural living. 'Rural living' is a euphemism for destruction of reasonable agricultural land and rendering it useless for anything other than weeds.

Mr Knoll: My grandparents lived there for 30 years.

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: So, anyway—

The CHAIR: No, order! Sit down.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: But anyway, we are not here talking about rural living: we are talking about housing.

The CHAIR: Minister, sit down. I remind members that interjections are totally out of place and that members need to be heard in silence. We are all being really flexible here, but I am not going to be that flexible. Attorney.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: In the interest of harmony, I will not persist with my views about so-called 'rural living', but I can tell everybody that if it were not for that we would not have had Mount Barker, but let's leave it—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —at that. Anyway, that is the situation, in answer to the member's question.

An honourable member interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! The member for Hammond has a second question.

Mr PEDERICK: As I lead into the second question, what has been happening with agricultural land has happened for the last 180 years.

The CHAIR: That is not a question about this; come on.

Mr PEDERICK: Well, it is entirely related, Madam Chair—

The CHAIR: Alright, let's have the question.

Mr PEDERICK: —because, in raising my question about development on agricultural land, I just want to acknowledge that my father was old enough to understand how much country was bare land between Adelaide and Gawler—Salisbury, Elizabeth, etc.—and in fact my forebears first settled at Plympton when it was farming land; I just make that brief point. In regard to this environment and food production boundary, what extra hurdles will any industrial development have to go through in regard to this area? I am especially looking at intensive farming like chicken operations or potential feed mills and the like.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have some good news for the member for Hammond on that one. This EFPA has the lightest of all touches, in the sense that it prohibits one thing and one thing alone, which is subdivision and housing; otherwise, it makes no difference whatsoever. If you are in a region which presently has a zoning which enables you to build an intensive farming thing—chickens, or pigs, or whatever it is—if that is presently okay, this has no impact on it whatsoever. Another example which maybe the member for Schubert might—if you were wanting to put some wine processing facility on your—

Mr Knoll: Mixed tourism.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, absolutely. An interesting point, actually, is that Seppeltsfield has been substantially improved and invested in—or at least invested in—in the circumstance in which it is part of the Barossa—

Mr Pederick: Character preservation.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —character preservation.

Mr Knoll: Are you sure?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. If somebody were wishing to put a bottling plant out there, or anything of that nature, then provided the zoning currently permits it, that is fine; there is no problem.

Mr PEDERICK: This will hopefully be my last question. In regard to residential development, subclause (14) provides:

In this section—

residential development means development primarily for residential purposes but does not include—

(a) the use of land for the purposes of a hotel or motel or to provide any other form of temporary residential accommodation for valuable consideration; or—

and this is the one I am most interested in—

(b) a dwelling for residential purposes on land used primarily for primary production purposes.

My question is about that subclause. In relation to 'primary production purposes'—from memory I think this was an issue that came up with the character preservation legislation—does this mean that, so long as a farmer has the appropriate title and they want the opportunity to build another dwelling for a son or daughter and their family, they will be able to subdivide a small section if they do not have the title in hand?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: This is an interesting question. Let me start with the bits that are very clear. It is very clearly intended that if you had a largescale piece of agricultural land which was being used for farming purposes, you would have the right, provided by that, to be able to put a dwelling on that. At the other end of the spectrum, if all you have is—what is the euphemism for those things again?

Mr Griffiths: Rural living.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Rural living, yes—which is clearly under no conceivable definition of primary production purposes, that provision would not help you with the rural living block because it is not primarily about producing anything except weeds. The situation then is that it gets down to this: there is nothing to prevent realignment of boundaries of titles.

If you have multiple titles—say, three titles which are all together but are in three different certificates of titles—it is acceptable for an application to be made, using the usual processes, to realign the boundaries of those three titles. If that means that you wind up with a particular title which fills these definitions, then you can build, subject to whatever policy is in place, obviously.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I might just continue the question line, if I may, because between you and me, minister, there is a significant difference of opinion on rural living and the appropriateness. I actually see many of these properties in the regional communities that I have the honour to represent. They are exceptionally well-maintained and provide an ideal opportunity for a lifestyle that people wish to choose on the outskirts of the residential area. A question, though: with the realignment of titles, what is your position on the minimum size of the new allotment created? What does it have to actually be before it is allowable to build a home upon it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is a matter for the zoning that sits there. I guess that conversation will start coming up when we get into the new planning library and the refinements that sit under that. For the time being, the answer to that question lies with whatever the existing zoning is.

Mr GRIFFITHS: As part of the upgrade and changes to it, is that where the charter is going to ensure that community input will assist in determining the guidelines for it, or will it be based entirely upon what the planning library says it will be?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There is a two-stage thing here. The first stage is that we will have to work up the initial 30 or 40, or whatever it is, major categories in the planning library and then, using the engagement charter, we will go to communities and say, 'Look, which one of these bits and pieces do you think is suitable for you?' We then have the ability to have refinements or variations, modest tweakings of it, to accommodate the concerns of particular communities, which are called subzones in the legislation.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you for the answer earlier on the multiple titles scenario, but I am thinking about a scenario where perhaps there is just one title on a property. It can happen now; 40 hectares is usually the amount in agricultural farming land, and if people want to subdivide that it will usually have a dwelling on it, so the farm is excised. Sometimes—and I am well aware of this—it can be negotiated downwards through your local council, so you may not need to have the whole 40 hectares. I guess my question is whether there is the potential ability for a farming family, which wants to expand and which does not have another title to use, to essentially do the same process, and even have the potential to create, say, a 40-hectare title and build another dwelling.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: You might recall that when we were having the Barossa and McLaren Vale conversation some years back I mentioned (and I mention it again) that there are some people who find it convenient to pretend to be what the member for Hammond has just described—

Mr Pederick: There might be some real need, too.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There might be, but let me make it clear. The risk is that they say, 'Oh look, I just want to build a house for my son or daughter and I want to put it there, and I want to be able to have a separate title for it.' Okay, they do it. Then, 'Oh, Aunty Gert wouldn't mind living here either, so I'll do another one,' and then they start selling them. I understand what the member for Hammond means, but I am just saying that we have to be wary of those people who try to exploit things like that. That is the first point.

The second point is that the legislation actually says that if the current zoning permits that, a person can, within two years of the commencement of this legislation, seek to take advantage of that if they wish. If they wish to take advantage of it and they make their applications and they are approved, they can do whatever they can do now. However, that is not going to go on indefinitely; they have two years.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Can I just clarify that? The two years is the time for an approval of an application, I take it. Given that beyond an application being approved—

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Two years to lodge.

Mr GRIFFITHS: To lodge, okay. Then it is a process of one year to commence, three years to complete the actual building work after that then, okay.

Motion carried.

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