HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-10-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Community Engagement

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (15:34): Over the years, I have stood in this place and in our communities to raise a concern that cuts to the heart of democratic planning: the erosion of meaningful community engagement in the code amendment process. Across my electorate of Light and the duty electorate of Frome, I have seen firsthand how residents feel sidelined and disempowered by the processes that should centre their voices. Whether it is a weekday consultation window that excludes working families or councils claiming they have no role due to legal advice given behind closed doors, the result is the same: communities are left out of decisions that shape their future.

Let me be clear: this is not about opposing development. It is about ensuring development is done with communities, not to them. That is why I have written to the Minister for Planning, the Hon. Nick Champion, requesting a formal review of the standing process required for community engagement in the code amendment framework, because what we have seen is a pattern, one that cannot be ignored. In Dublin, residents were blindsided by a proposed rezoning for an employment zone. Many remember the legacy of the Integrated Waste Services proposal under the Olsen Liberal government, a proposal that left a lasting scar on that community.

When the Adelaide Plains Council declined to undertake its own consultation, residents felt abandoned. The developer claimed their engagement was robust, but residents have told a different story: too much jargon, too little time and no real opportunity to shape the outcome. The consultation forums were held on a single weekday afternoon, hardly accessible for working families. The council, meanwhile, supported the amendment without even considering the infrastructure cost to ratepayers. That decision has set a dangerous precedent.

In Evanston Park, the Town of Gawler initially claimed it had no role in a proponent-led code amendment to rezone a residential area to commercial use. Councillors were reportedly told they could not engage with their own communities and, worse, that doing so might expose them to legal action. This legal advice was considered behind closed doors, leaving the public in the dark. It took a grievance in this chamber and a response from the minister to clarify that councils do, in fact, have a role to play. To its credit, the council reversed its position, but the damage in public trust had already been done.

Another example is the Stanley Flat code amendment, where 30 hectares of farmland were rezoned despite clear concerns from residents and the Clare and Gilbert Valleys Council. I offered a survey to every household in the area. Only three supported the proposal outright, while most wanted larger allotments to preserve local character. I also appeared as the sole elected witness at the Environment, Resources and Development Committee's public hearing to voice their concerns. The final decision ignored both council and community feedback, a missed opportunity for collaborative, thoughtful growth.

These are not isolated incidents. They point to a systemic issue: a planning system that has become too developer led, too opaque and too dismissive of the people it is meant to serve. Under the current rules, code amendments can be initiated and managed by private developers. Councils are not required to consult their communities. In some cases, they are actively discouraged from doing so. Once a proposal is lodged, the process becomes very defensive. Developers are locked in to their positions, and communities are left reacting rather than shaping.

This is not how we build trust. This is not how we build good public policy. This proposal to improve community engagement is not about adding red tape: it is about restoring confidence in the system. It is about ensuring that any amendment to the Planning and Design Code carries not just technical merit but social licence, because when communities are heard early, issues surface sooner. Developers can adjust their proposals before investing heavily. Councils can advocate for infrastructure needs, and residents can feel that their voices matter.

If a proposal has merit, it should welcome scrutiny. If a council is elected to represent its people, it should never be gagged from doing so. We need to move from consultation to engagement and collaboration, from secrecy to transparency, from disengagement to dialogue. Developers may come and go, but the impact of their work is felt by locals for generations. We owe it to these communities to do better. This is not just about planning, it is about trust, and it is about time we rebuilt it.