HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-03-04 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Commencement of Code) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 20 February 2020.)

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (17:43): I indicate that I am the opposition's lead speaker on the bill. I did not expect that this bill would be debated in this chamber at this time. When we learned that the government would prorogue parliament, I did not expect that this bill would be restored in this house, having already been passed by the other chamber. At least I did not expect that the bill would be restored following the Hon. David Ridgway's emphatic rejection of it in the other place.

Given the state we now find ourselves in, it is worth recalling what Mr Ridgway said in the debate in the other place on behalf of the Marshall Liberal government. Mr Ridgway implored members in the other chamber that, because of the reputed improvements to the planning system contained in the Planning and Design Code, the code should be 'introduced without undue delay' and 'as quickly as possible'.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Point of order, Mr Acting Speaker: I seek your advice as to whether it is appropriate to quote from Hansard the debate on the bill in the other place.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Cowdrey): I will caution the member that, while you may potentially reference it, generally standing order 120 requires that a member not refer to any debate in the other house of the parliament or to any measure impending in that house.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: It is not impending. It has been there already.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Cowdrey): I am advised that you cannot reference directly a debate in the other house.

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner: You can describe it.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I can describe it, I can paraphrase it—

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Cowdrey): But not directly quote. Proceed, member for Light.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: A certain member in another place—whom I will not name and I will not mention the place—implored those members, who do not have names, in the other place—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: That is why we call it 'the other place'.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: That is right. I can paraphrase the general tone of the discussion in the other place.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Cowdrey): That is permitted under standing orders.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Generally speaking, the member in the other place suggested that the bill should be introduced without delay because it was so important, and that perhaps it should happen as quickly as possible. The member in the other place explained that this government did not support such a proposal because it would provide uncertainty around the time frames for the delivery of the code. The member in the other place also, I understand, without quoting—

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Cowdrey): Please do not.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Led to believe.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: —I am led to believe, could perhaps have spoken about the rigorous process of public consultation, which allegedly took place in the process of the code's preparation, and potentially argued that the code would not necessarily need to be well designed when implemented as it would be improved over time.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Are you opposing this bill?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: No, we supported the bill. We supported the bill in the other place. It was a Greens bill.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Cowdrey): Please do not respond to interjections, member for Light. Continue.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: In the other place, the bill was moved by the Greens, supported by SA-Best and the Labor Party and opposed—I understand, allegedly—by the Liberal Party in the other place. We had to deal with it very quickly, so the matter was not advanced in this place. It is my view that this sort of cavalier approach is responsible for so many of the problems the code has encountered, and I will have more to say in a moment. The first thing I would like to point out is that, when debating legislation in the parliament, it may be customary to point out specific flaws a bill features before perhaps suggesting amendments and ultimately supporting the bill's passage through parliament.

We would generally support this bill but, as I have indicated to the minister already, we will be seeking to move an amendment to the bill as well. This type of debate reflects well upon a healthy legislature and demonstrates our ability to refine bills and remove from them potentially damaging unintended consequences. It is rare that a political party, especially the party of the government, outright rejects a piece of legislation in the other place only to support it and champion its passage in this place in less than three months.

It is interesting to note that, when speaking to this bill in this place only a couple of weeks ago when he introduced it, the minister said that he had received information from a number of sources over the last five months and feedback indicating the widespread concern about the introduction of the code by 1 July. It is interesting to note, though, that he knew about this five months ago yet only three months ago, when the bill was actually considered in the other place, he was still opposing it.

How did it get here? Why has the Marshall Liberal government performed this humiliating backflip on this matter? Why has the minister been dragged kicking and screaming to support a bill which was always sensible and supported by us in the other place and also SA-Best but opposed by the government? The answer is that the government's Planning and Design Code, its ePlanning system and the public consultation process, which is meant to support both, are in disarray.

The government may not have wanted to admit it when the bill was debated in the other place in December last year but, as the implementation dates grew nearer and nearer, the minister was forced to face the reality and the facts before him, which are damning. The facts are that the draft Planning and Design Code is still not finished; and that the ePlanning system is still not finished. As it stands, the draft code features thousands of separate errors and omissions, which have been discovered by councils, concerned residents, community organisations and other stakeholders where the application of planning policies from the development plans and other planning instruments have not accurately been translated into the draft code.

There are also many unanswered questions. We have been inundated with a number of questions by different community organisations. These include whether the large volume of local policy content not transferred from council of development plans into the draft code will be included in the final version of the Planning and Design Code. This is no small matter. In fact, a number of councils have raised this matter. Only a few weeks ago I was speaking with the cities of Mitcham, Unley, Marion and West Torrens. They all raised concerns about the loss of potential character in their councils' area because of the removal of council-wide planning objectives.

I am advised, for instance, that the code's exclusion in the Mount Barker region of the explanatory policy necessary to bring the concept plan for the Mount Barker growth area into effect will likely have the consequence of not requiring developers to fund the ring road featured in strategic planning for the area. The long-term consequence could be elaborate roads to nowhere, where patches of the ring road exist, but the project remains unfinished. Other questions are:

Will those areas currently zoned for residential development accommodate large (potentially multistorey) commercial developments under the code?

Will the code allow excessive out-of-centre commercial developments away from main street precincts in regional towns and cities?

Will council staff receive the effective face-to-face training for the ePlanning system, which has been previously promised by the minister, or will it only deliver online training?

Does the department have an ongoing budget to continue to develop the Planning and Design Code and ePlanning system to support the system which it says is a live document and, therefore, can be updated on a regular basis?

What specific information will be available on the planning portal to support and assist development applicants and interested members of the public?

How will the process operate for code variations, both minor and significant?

How will development application fees be raised and distributed?

Perhaps most telling of all is that we have learnt that several high-profile members of the department's planning and reform team have resigned in recent months, including those specifically employed to develop and implement the ePlanning system.

On top of these concerns, there is also widespread community concern and anxiety regarding the draft code's inadequate protections for heritage, character and local streetscapes—and, in particular, the government's refusal to transfer contributory items to the Planning and Design Code when they begin advice by a number of councils, including legal advice, on what could be done to achieve that.

There are many problems with the Planning and Design Code and the ePlanning system, but there is one simple reason why the government is supporting this bill and had it restored to the Notice Paper: their code and their planning systems are not ready as promised. I do not begrudge allowing ministers to acknowledge when they have made mistakes, but at least when you make a mistake and you change your policy course, have the character to be honest about it.

When the minister announced that he would move to delay the implementation of the code, he again passed the buck. He did not acknowledge that the code and the ePlanning system had to be delayed because they were not ready. He said in this place that the advice from the State Planning Commission is that stakeholders, councils and the community are asking for more time to understand the code and become familiar with the new planning system.

As I said earlier, people have been saying that for five months—at least five months—yet the minister opposed this proposal in the other place less than three months ago. According to the minister, councils and other stakeholders are to blame for the code's delay, not him. The minister was not honest; he did not admit that his department was running behind schedule. He said that the councils needed more time to familiarise themselves with the draft code and the ePlanning system, and that he had been told for at least 12 months.

We agree that councils and other stakeholders will require more time to familiarise themselves with the finished code and ePlanning system, something which should have occurred during a public consultation process. As foreshadowed, I will be moving an amendment to ensure that councils are provided with sufficient time, at least one calendar month, to familiarise themselves with the finished code and the ePlanning system before it goes live.

During the committee stage, I will be asking a number of questions because there is lack of clarity of this process, despite the bill being introduced, on when the matters will (a) be gazetted and (b) go live. In fact, the minister attended a regional meeting only last Friday where he indicated that the phase 2 elements of the code would be gazetted in April and then would be introduced or go live on 1 July. That was a change in policy again. None of the councils were aware of it. I have tried to find out from the department whether they were aware of it. It certainly was some policy on the run.

However, this is not the intent of the government. I understand that it is important to note that, while the government is moving to delay the implementation of the Planning and Design Code, it did not intend to extend the public consultation process, nor will it conduct another round of public or stakeholder consultation. There is still too much uncertainty surrounding the Planning and Design Code and the ePlanning system. Uncertainty undermines business investment, as the Housing Industry Association has been warning.

There are too many unanswered questions regarding the code and the ePlanning system. The minister himself acknowledges that this is a generational reform of the state's planning system. We need to get the policy detail of the Planning and Design Code right because bad planning decisions have long-term consequences. Bad planning decisions can take years and a lot of money to rectify and sometimes take generations to rectify. For this reason, the Labor Party will support the bill but propose minor amendments to improve it. With those comments, I support the bill.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 22

Noes 22

Majority 0

AYES
Basham, D.K.B. Chapman, V.A. Cowdrey, M.J.
Cregan, D. Ellis, F.J. Gardner, J.A.W.
Harvey, R.M. Knoll, S.K. (teller) Luethen, P.
Marshall, S.S. McBride, N. Murray, S.
Patterson, S.J.R. Pederick, A.S. Pisoni, D.G.
Power, C. Sanderson, R. Teague, J.B.
Treloar, P.A. van Holst Pellekaan, D.C. Whetstone, T.J.
Wingard, C.L.
NOES
Bedford, F.E. (teller) Bell, T.S. Bettison, Z.L.
Bignell, L.W.K. Boyer, B.I. Brock, G.G.
Brown, M.E. Close, S.E. Cook, N.F.
Gee, J.P. Hildyard, K.A. Hughes, E.J.
Koutsantonis, A. Malinauskas, P. Michaels, A.
Mullighan, S.C. Odenwalder, L.K. Piccolo, A.
Picton, C.J. Stinson, J.M. Szakacs, J.K.
Wortley, D.

The SPEAKER: There being 22 ayes and 22 noes, we have a tie. I cast my vote with the ayes, so the ayes have it.

Motion thus carried; debate adjourned.

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