HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-07-17 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

DEVELOPMENT (MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 July 2009. Page 2899.)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (17:33): I will not make a very long contribution on this as it is late in the afternoon. The major development part of the Development Act was established under the Liberal government when the Hon. Diana Laidlaw was the minister. I know that there has been some concern in the community that this current government has been abusing the major project status by declaring projects almost willy-nilly. There has been some criticism of the government on that basis. I do not believe that happened under the Liberal government and I am sure that, after 20 March next year when the Liberal government will be returned, it will not happen under the next Liberal government.

It is interesting to note that the minister had carriage of some significant reforms to the planning system here in South Australia. I consulted with a range of stakeholders and one of them was the HIA. This was a couple of years ago. Their response to major developments was that it is clear that there has been an increased number of government-declared major developments under section 46 in the past 12 months. They do not believe this is because the criteria is too ambiguous; rather, it is a recognition by the government that the South Australian planning system is dysfunctional and will not or cannot produce efficient results from an economic development perspective.

When you look at the definition of 'major development', I think it is important that the minister can declare a proposed development or a major development if he or she believes such a declaration is appropriate or necessary for proper assessment, or the proposal is considered to be of major economic, social or environmental importance. I think that is the key thing, if the government of the day is straying away from the ideals of major economic, social and environmental importance—and I have to say that I do not believe that some of this government's major projects have fallen into those criteria.

At the end of the day, I think it has probably used this a little too much; however, having said that, we have supported some wide-ranging changes to the planning system. The HIA's view and its submission state that the planning reforms announced in June 2008 had been implemented through a three year program and that, potentially, some components had been introduced to tackle some of the deficiencies in our planning system.

Therefore, the opposition believes that it would be appropriate to hold fire and observe the effects of these reforms over a considerable period of time. Of course, given that we will have a Liberal government after the next election and return to more sensible use of major development status, we do not believe that it will be a problem. I indicate the opposition will not support the Hon. Mark Parnell's bill.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (17:36): I will start by thanking the Hon. Carmel Zollo and the Hon. David Ridgway for their contributions, but I will say that I am absolutely gobsmacked that one of the simplest bills you could possibly see, which calls for nothing more than the minister to offer the courtesy to councils of consulting with them before making a major project declaration, is not capable of support. It absolutely amazes me.

I will not repeat my second reading explanation, but I want to acknowledge the correspondence I have received from local councils since I introduced this bill. I particularly want to put on the record my thanks to the following councils who have written to me in support of the legislation: City of Norwood, Payneham and St Peters; Tatiara District Council; City of Port Lincoln; Naracoorte Lucindale Council; City of Mitcham; District Council of Karoonda East Murray; District Council of Grant; Town of Gawler; Mid Murray Council; District Council of Peterborough; Barossa Council; City of Mount Gambier; District Council of Mount Remarkable; City of Victor Harbor; City of Port Augusta; Berri Barmera Council; Port Pirie Regional Council; District Council of Yorke Peninsula; City of Onkaparinga; City of Tea Tree Gully; Corporation of the City of Whyalla; and Southern Mallee District Council. I also thank the Local Government Association.

The support amongst local councils for a simple measure that states 'Please consult with us before you declare a major project' is overwhelming. I will not read every piece of correspondence I was sent, but I will read a few salient quotes to give members a feel for the views of local government. For example, correspondence I received from the General Manager, Urban Planning and Environment for the City of Norwood, Payneham and St Peters includes the following:

The council believes that it is critical that councils be consulted as part of the declaration process to ensure that the minister is making a fully informed decision in relation to a major development declaration.

He goes on to say:

…councils have to deal with the broader consequences of major developments to ensure that they are integrated into surrounding localities. If the minister was required to consult with councils…it will enable councils to provide the minister with information relating to the council's strategic planning and implementation of projects within localities affected by major projects.

He continues:

Major developments tend to have major impact on local communities and it therefore makes sense that councils are able to articulate a response in such cases on behalf of those affected communities before the minister makes a decision.

The Town of Gawler was also very supportive. It stated:

The proposed amendment would strengthen the current legislative process and make it more transparent, thus creating an environment that is more conducive to collaboration between councils and the department of planning and local government. Council's daily association with the local community and environment means the department would benefit substantially from the input of these professionals at an early stage in the assessment process…[We are] concerned with the decline in…collaboration and consultation between local government and the state in recent times, and have felt ill-informed with regard to major developments and the motivation of the government...Passage of the Development (Major Developments) Amendment Bill would therefore be a welcome step forward.

The City of Port Lincoln says:

It is with some irony that the state government seeks continuing improvement with openness and transparency from local government and through public consultation with its constituents, yet shows slight regard to consultation between tiers of government regarding planning matters of community significance.

Yorke Peninsula said the following:

Given our recent experience with the proposed Stansbury marina being granted major project status, our council is in full support of the amendments to the major developers section of the Development Act. The emphasis on the minister consulting with the council before making a declaration is certainly council's preference. As with the Stansbury proposal, our first knowledge of this project was from being contacted by the media for comment on the proposal, proving it to be a very awkward situation.

There are a few more, which I will not read, but the City of Victor Harbor said this:

The current major project announcement process is almost entirely based on the proponent's argument for support for their project. Council, as representative of the community, is a major stakeholder and should be involved at a much earlier stage than the current process provides.

Port Augusta said the following:

It is considered that open communication between state and local government is an essential part of building better communities, and you are to be congratulated on introducing this amendment bill before the state parliament.

I have one final quote from the mayor of Tea Tree Gully. Talking about developers, she states:

They are coming in banging their fists on the table at the council saying, 'Well, if we don't get this up and this doesn't happen within the time frames' that are what they consider fair and reasonable, they will then take that to the state government.

That is a description of the abuse that has been talked about before where proponents are threatening—

The Hon. P. Holloway: Which development did they do that with?

The Hon. M. PARNELL: If you want to go through a list of the major developments for the past several years, we can go through the ones where developers have gone to the government because they do not want to have to deal with local councils.

I will mention briefly that there have been some criticisms of my bill from councils. They universally say, 'Go further. The consultation you are calling for doesn't go far enough.' A number of councils do not trust an open consultation provision. They say, 'Build time lines into it, build in an automatic 30 day response period, because we don't trust that the government will consult in a genuine fashion.'

I drafted my bill with as much flexibility as possible trusting that, if it passed, the government would do the right thing. Clearly, councils believe that we could have gone much further. So, with those comments, I can see that the government and the opposition are combining to keep local councils out of the picture. I will enjoy writing to the local councils and reminding them of the position of the major parties in relation to important developments in local areas but, given that the two old parties have put their position on the record, I will not be dividing on it. I may well seek to bring back a strengthened provision when parliament resumes.

Second reading negatived.

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