HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-10-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

COMMONWEALTH NATION BUILDING PROGRAM

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. M. Parnell:

That the regulations under the Development Act 1993 concerning Commonwealth Nation Building Program, made on 26 February 2009 and laid on the table of this council on 3 March 2009, be disallowed.

(Continued from 13 May 2009. Page 2305.)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (17:22): I rise on behalf of the opposition to speak to this motion. The Hon. Mr Parnell moved this disallowance motion some months ago, I think in response to some concerns of the community, although I think the concerns that have been raised have been found to be not as significant as perhaps the Hon. Mr Parnell first indicated.

COAG met on 5 February 2009, and the outcome of that meeting was the national partnership and agreement on the Nation Building and Jobs Plan. The role of the states under that plan is to ensure that design, application and assessment processes (for these projects) are fast-tracked with minimal red tape. Subsequently, the development approval process, previously requiring the input of several government and/or local government agencies, will be removed for projects funded by the Nation Building and Jobs Plan and will be managed through a recently established Office of Coordinator-General.

Some concerns were raised at that time because of the uncertainty with which this program was being rolled out. In order to maximise the benefits of this fund, the state government will have to meet strict deadlines, which would be unachievable under the usual planning system. It is interesting to note that we have undertaken significant planning reform under this government. The minister is often beating his chest about the reforms he has led, yet clearly the system still does not allow for a fast approval process.

Admittedly, some of these projects are quite large, but I have had evidence that, with respect to the Residential Code (which is for residential buildings), we have not seen the promised improvements by the government in processing times and times for decisions to be made by local planning authorities. I think that is something that we need to look at in the future. If we are streamlining development codes we need to make sure that not only are the obvious checks and balances in place but also that we get the outcomes that we were all hoping to get from it.

I was a little distracted, but I will get back to the regulations. Only the projects approved by South Australia's Coordinator-General, Rod Hook, for funding through the Nation Building and Jobs Plan are to be exempt from the planning rules consent. This arrangement is due to expire in December 2012. These regulations are consistent with those put in place in other jurisdictions and allow for a quick flow of federal resources for the good outcomes of South Australia. I think that, after the global financial crisis hit, around the world there was a view that a stimulus package of about 4 per cent of GDP was seen as a way forward.

Certainly at the time the opposition supported this particular building program. We saw it as an opportunity to get some investment into some of our schools, which sadly has been lacking, especially under this government over the past 7½ years. It is interesting to note that the Local Government Association agreed to a checklist, which I will read. This checklist is called the 'Nation Building Economic Stimulus Plan. Checklist Criteria for Building the Education Revolution Applications'. The document states:

Applications to South Australia's Coordinator-General for development proposals are required to complete this checklist so that the Coordinator-General is aware of any planning impacts arising from proposals.

Should an applicant meet all the checklist requirements, no further assessment is necessary by the Office of Coordinator-General. Failure to meet the checklist requirements means that applications will require further assessment and may be delayed.

Applicants are required to indicate compliance with the checklist by ticking the box adjacent to each criteria. If an applicant cannot meet the criteria requirement, supporting commentary will be required to explain why the criteria are not met.

There is then a range of checklists. 'Setback', for example, states:

6 metre setback from road or reserve frontage—unless:

There are existing school buildings forward of that setback, in which case the setback of the existing building should be applied.

The proposed building is six metres or more from the land reserved for widening on a road subject to the Metropolitan Adelaide Road Widening Plan, or DTEI has issued consent for building works under the Metropolitan Road Widening Act.

Setback from boundaries (other than roads or reserves) as follows:

one metre for single-storey buildings (to a maximum wall height of four metres).

four metres for two-storey buildings (to a maximum wall height of eight metres).

six metres for buildings greater than two storeys (or above eight metres of wall height).

Shade structures—no setback for road and reserve frontage, two metres for boundaries other than roads or reserves.

2. State Heritage

The proposal [obviously a building] does not directly affect a State Heritage place or does not materially affect the context within which the State Heritage place is situated.

3. Local Heritage

The proposal does not physically alter a local heritage place, or if alterations are proposed, the applicant certifies that specialist heritage advice has been sought and incorporated in the design of the building.

The proposal is not located a minimum of five metres from a listed local heritage place, or if within five metres of a local heritage place, the applicant certifies that specialist heritage advice has been sought and considered in the design of the building.

4. Carparking

The buildings do not result in a reduction in the amount of existing formalised carparking.

The applicant has certified that demand for additional carparking has been considered and the amount of available parking is considered acceptable.

5. Access Points

The proposal [for a new building] does not create a new access point to an existing road, or change the nature of movement through an existing access point, or:

If the new access point is proposed, or the role of an existing access point is significantly changed:

the applicant has submitted a certification from an accredited road safety auditor that the access arrangements are acceptable from a traffic management and safety perspective, and

if access is proposed to a controlled-access road under the Highways Act 1926, DTEI has certified that the access point is acceptable.

The new access point is suitable in relation to street trees, street furniture and stormwater drainage installations.

6. Noise impacts

Any building proposed to be used for sports, entertainment or music teaching will not be used after 9pm, or if used after 9pm the applicant has certified that acoustic advice has been sought and incorporated into the building design to achieve EPA noise policy requirements under the Environment Protection Act 1993.

7. Significant Trees

New buildings do not require removal of a significant tree, or tree damaging activity and are not located beneath the canopy of an existing tree.

8. Electricity Infrastructure

The applicant has certified that the building would not be contrary to the regulations prescribed for the purposes of section 86 under the Electricity Act 1996.

Members can see that the Local Government Association agreed to a significant checklist, and members can see that the comprehensive nature of that checklist provides, if you like, the checks and balances for the vast majority of the building education revolution buildings. As I said earlier, the opposition supported that program, and we relaxed when we saw that the LGA had accepted that particular checklist.

The focus of this program has been on education type developments. For government schools, which constitute the bulk of the projects being dealt with, developments under $4 million are already sent to the Development Assessment Commission.

In the July Environment, Resources and Development Committee meeting, the Hon. Mark Parnell implied that he believed that these regulations were the beginning of a move to eradicate many of our current development laws and that the planning system will basically end up as a free for all.

At that same meeting, the Coordinator-General, Mr Rod Hook, gave what I see as being some very compelling evidence that these regulations were not being abused. In essence, there is probably the potential for council and public consultation to be completely ignored under this arrangement, but Mr Hook provided several examples of how the government is actively working with councils and residents. There is always the case that laws allowing a significant amount of discretion can be abused. However, he said:

I think in this case these regulations are being used with good intentions and have been very beneficial.

He recounted a couple of examples, such as a Colonel Light Gardens school wanting to remove a significant tree. The Coordinator-General encouraged the council to work with the school because of the heritage status of the area. Also, there were a few concerns at a Christian school in Verdun, so Mr Hook visited the school and the council and suggested a more appropriate position for the hall, which was to be positioned in a spot previously opposed by the council under the regular process. So, rather than giving exemptions, the school actually worked with the local council.

Another example which I know has been much debated in the community—even Matt and Dave on 891 have turned some attention to it—is Walford School, where it turned out that a neighbour's concerns could have been resolved quite easily with better communication between him and the school. It appears that the matter has finally been resolved, and the department facilitated the resolution. Clearly, that was one instance where I do not believe the school, the council and the community actually sat down and worked through the issues as well as they could have.

The National Building Program is aimed at creating jobs as soon as possible and reducing what could potentially be two to three month approval times down to a few days. I think that has been important. I am not sure whether the minister will respond to this disallowance motion. If he does not respond, I might put this as a question on notice. I will put the question and he may ponder whether he answers it at some stage.

I would be interested to know the number of projects that were to be initiated, in addition to particular deadlines that were put in place for projects to be started and then completed. I would be interested to know exactly how that time line is running because, certainly, there were some concerns in South Australia about whether we had the capacity in the construction industry to actually deliver all these projects in the time line laid out by the federal government. We are all a little cynical, as it appeared to be a time line that coincided with the timing of the federal election that may happen later in 2010.

A lot of polling booths are situated in schools, and it would be quite convenient to have a brand new hall with a plaque bearing the name of the education minister, the Deputy Prime Minister or the Prime Minister. I think there is a banner saying, This building is provided under the federal government's Building Education Revolution.

I would be interested to know just how many such projects there are in South Australia and how the time line is going in terms of whether the buildings have been started in the time frame about which the Premier, the Deputy Prime Minister and minister Conlon made some statements. There appears to be about $1 billion worth of activity being undertaken over a very tight time frame. I think it was a state initiative to implement this system. The opposition has a view that this is the sort of commonsense approach needed to try to facilitate this spending program. It is not often that a federal government makes a decision to unlock such large amounts of money. The opposition certainly saw that it was an opportunity to create some stimulus and also get some lasting benefits for some schools in our communities.

There have been some issues involving little schools about to close or schools with a low number of students expecting to have large and expensive buildings constructed, which seems a little unnecessary. I am aware of a school in the South-East with a large classroom that had a divider put in. I think a local builder did it for about $30,000. They had another classroom with which they wanted to do the same thing and, under the Building Education Revolution, the quote was about $130,000. So, clearly, there are some issues with the value for the dollar being spent.

I think on the West Coast—I cannot recall the name of the town—the community wanted to build a school hall. The community was told that it could do it for something like a couple of hundred thousand dollars, but they were told they could not build it that way; they had to build it under the Building Education Revolution program, and I think the cost was something like $1.2 million or $1.3 million. That was the design they had to accept, whether they liked it or not.

So, while the opposition has supported the broad principle of the initiative, sadly, in all these cases, when you have a one-size-fits-all approach, there will be times when the federal taxpayers' money probably has not been spent as wisely as it could have been. I think that, several generations to come, people will be dealing with paying off the debt incurred with other aspects of the stimulus program, which will increase the federal debt significantly. Nevertheless, the opposition indicates that it does not support the Hon. Mark Parnell's move for the disallowance of these regulations.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (17:36): The Leader of the Opposition asked some questions about the program. I do not have that information with me, because it is not strictly within my portfolio. Obviously, the Coordinator-General, Mr Hook, from the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure may have that. I will see whether I can get that information for the honourable member.

If one looks at one part of this program, obviously the largest capital injection is for school buildings. Of course, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, most of those public school buildings would have been on government land and would have been handled under section 49 of the Development Act and, therefore, through the Development Assessment Commission. Obviously, a lot of the money was going to private schools, and I suppose that is where this particular measure would have had the most impact, because those private school programs would more likely have been held up through local government consideration rather than the public school system.

The other part of the stimulus package related to housing. If one looks at housing on Aboriginal lands, I do not think a single public building has yet been built on government land in the Northern Territory; that is not the case in South Australia. Admittedly there are much more complex questions relating to ownership that apply in the case of Aboriginal lands, but I believe we were able to ensure the more timely spending of the stimulus package in this state. That is why I am pleased that the opposition will support the thrust of it; as the Leader of the Opposition said, as with any one-size-fits-all package there have been some problems, but I believe that the Coordinator-General, Rod Hook, and his team have treated this very sensitively.

Of course, this is subject to a sunset clause anyway and, from memory, the stimulus package program will be complete in 2012. However, I believe the evidence is that this program has been properly and sensitively handled by the office of the Coordinator-General. As the Leader of the Opposition said, if there are any problems they are more to do with the commonwealth guidelines being one-size-fits-all than they are problems in relation to the decision-making process here within the state.

In fairness to the commonwealth government, I guess if you are to get a lot of money out quickly for capital works then you will have to have a program that has one or two anomalies arising in it, but I think that, overall, the economic evidence shows that the stimulus package has been very good for the economy of this country, and for this state in particular. That is why this motion should be negatived so that the remainder of the program can be rolled out. In relation to the number of buildings that have been started, I will try to get that information for the leader.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (17:40): I thank the minister and the Hon. David Ridgway for their contributions. In relation to the contribution made by the opposition spokesperson on planning, I am disappointed that he has not seen fit to support the motion. I must admit I scratch my head sometimes to understand the position of the Liberal Party; it is incredibly critical of the stimulus package one moment, yet happy to see measures in place that abandon all our planning laws when spending is involved.

The debate around the stimulus package has been controversial, but for the last little while it has focused on it being wound back, so it may well be that these regulations do not have much more work to do because there may not be big chunks of money to be distributed. However, members need to know that, with the sunset clause that has been referred to by the minister, these regulations will stay in place until 2012. That means that, if at any time between now and the end of 2012 the Coordinator-General determines that it is a commonwealth Nation Building Program project, none of our state planning laws apply; our significant tree laws do not apply; and the need to consult agencies such as the CFS does not apply.

The government has said, 'Sure, that's what the regulations say, that none of these planning laws apply, but trust us; we have Rod Hook in charge and we will make sure he does the right thing.' Now, I know that the Hon. David Ridgway pays careful attention to documents tabled in this place, and he would be aware that yesterday regulations were tabled that allow Rod Hook to delegate all his powers to deputies. So, whilst people may have confidence in Rod Hook—Mr Fix-It, as he is often described, for his considerable abilities to manage government projects (and I have no criticism of what he has done in relation to his job so far)—the point is that we have on our books of delegated legislation three more years of no planning laws applied—not relating to the merits of the project, but simply where the money comes from. If the money comes from the feds then our planning laws do not apply.

The fear that I had when I first moved this motion was that there would be abuse of this system. I will not cite any examples of abuse in South Australia but, just so that people do not think I am barking up the wrong tree when I move motions such as these, let us have a very brief look at what has happened interstate, because they have moved exactly the same provisions in Victoria and New South Wales. The Australian of 31 August this year referred to—

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I know that the Hon. Bernard Finnigan reads The Australian, and this would have been fairly high up. The headline is 'State planning action leaves neighbours with nightmare'. The article reads:

A peak local government body has slammed the Victorian government for stripping planning powers from councils for school upgrades done under the commonwealth Building the Education Revolution program. The attack came as it emerged that New South Wales had also suspended council planning powers for BER projects, although New South Wales councils have accepted the move amid assurances from the government.

So, the same situation as here. The article continues:

The Municipal Association of Victoria's comments follow revelations in The Australian that schools are using the planning bypass offered by the BER to construct projects rejected in earlier form by councils and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

In other words, schools in Victoria are revisiting failed development application projects that have been rejected by the local council, and rejected by Victoria's equivalent of our Environment, Resources and Development Court, the court that deals with planning matters. However, because the planning laws are suspended and because it is commonwealth money, they are being passed by bureaucrats in Victoria. That is at the expense of local communities. The two examples that The Australian highlighted were Alphington Grammar School and the King David School in Melbourne, which basically used a loophole created by the Victorian version of these regulations to get their projects approved when they had been rejected as being inconsistent with normal planning laws.

So, let members not think that the move to disallow these regulations was misguided. The fears that I had for South Australia have been well and truly found to be valid in Victoria. However, I have heard the debate, and I understand that the will of this council is that these regulations will not be disallowed, so I will not divide on the matter.

Motion negatived.

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