HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-10-15 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS) (URBAN RENEWAL) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 26 September 2013.)

Clauses 1 to 7 passed.

New clause 7A.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Ridgway–1]—

Page 3, after line 29—Insert:

7A—Insertion of section 5A

After section 5 insert:

5A—Limitation on powers and functions of Minister

Despite sections 4 and 5, the Minister must not initiate, undertake or manage development for the purposes of urban renewal unless the Minister has used his or her best endeavours to engage a private sector body to initiate, undertake or manage the development.

This amendment is something the Liberal Party believes in very strongly, that is, when we have urban renewal and urban development the private sector plays a significantly large role in it, and we want to make sure that when a precinct is declared by the government, using this new Urban Renewal Authority and a declared precinct, that it does not exclude the private sector. We have already seen somewhat of a track record of failures, and that is why we support having an Urban Renewal Authority.

We had the Newport Quays development, which could have been done very differently under a model where you had some competitive tension, if you like, between rival developers to actually get diversity of product, price and a whole range of things. We saw the more recent example of Clipsal or Bowden Village, which is very much a government-initiated project. That site may be a little more complicated because there were multiple landholdings, multiple ownership, multiple soil types and some issues with contamination. However, I guess the one that spooked the Liberal Party the most was the Caroma site, which was bought by Renewal SA or the government, and I am sure that if it had been rezoned and dealt with differently you could have allowed the private sector to buy it and develop it, even under a renewal authority.

What we are concerned about is that this allows the government to compete, almost unfairly, with the private sector, because the government does not pay payroll tax, land tax, stamp duty and a whole range of very onerous taxes. Especially when it comes to doing business in this state, the government is competing with the private sector on, if you like, a very unfair playing field. The Liberal Party believes that, if the private sector can do something and do it cost effectively and provide a service to the community, why should the government and the taxpayers be competing with the private sector?

With those few words I ask members to support this amendment, because it does not preclude the government from doing the work. The amendment states, in part 'the Minister must not initiate, undertake or manage developments for the purposes of urban renewal unless the Minister has used his or her best endeavours to engage a private sector body to initiate, undertake or manage the development'. That is the key. We are not saying the government cannot do it, because there may be areas like the Bowden Village where, in the end, the government is the best body to do it, but we are very keen to make sure the private sector gets an opportunity to take a risk, to be involved in a renewal project and a new urban precinct, borrow some money, create some jobs, grow the economy—all the things the development industry is renowned for around the nation.

We all know that we are in a very unfortunate financial state at present, and the more we can get the private sector motivated to take a risk and have a go at some development, employ some people and build, whether it be residential developments, commercial developments or a combination of the two, and the quicker we can get that to happen, the better this state will be. I urge members to consider this: we are not prohibiting the minister or the government from doing the project, but to use their best endeavours to get the private sector engaged, because the private sector will drive this economy and help pull us out of the financial mess we are in. I urge members to support the amendment.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Mr Chairman, with your indulgence, I might just take a moment to update the chamber on events that have transpired since we last met and then go to the amendments filed by the Hon. Mr Ridgway and outline why the government will be opposing it. On Friday 11 October, members would have received a memorandum from the Local Government Association outlining the LGA's support for the bill and the amendments being moved by the government. I will not read all of the letter into the record. However, I note that the LGA appreciates the broad consultative approach taken with this bill and has welcomed the strong level of engagement and negotiation between the LGA and the government. The LGA also appreciates the resultant amendments to a number of the submissions that we have made. The LGA's memorandum then goes on to discuss various aspects of the bill and the amendments the government has prepared and concludes that:

In the light of the above and the government's commitment to work with the LGA on the associated regulations, the LGA supports the passage of this bill.

I note the LGA refers to a minor additional amendment which the government has since agreed and will be moving further in committee deliberations.

As a matter of interest and in response to those who have concerns about the level of consultation undertaken by the government in relation to the bill, I can confirm that since the bill's introduction the government has met more than 15 times with the various stakeholders regarding the bill and public domain support for the bill has been expressed by a variety of groups, including the Civil Contractors Federation, the Property Council, the Urban Development Institute and the Local Government Association and, in addition, we have received submissions from Community Alliance, the Environmental Defenders Office, the Law Society, the Planning Institute, the Urban Development Institute, the Local Government Association, the City of Adelaide and the City of Charles Sturt.

In relation to the recent correspondence from the LGA supporting the bill, members also will have received a letter from the South Australian branch of the Urban Development Institute of Australia on 26 September indicating its continuing support for the bill, including the amendments proposed by the government. I also note media from the UDIA last week supporting passage of the bill and opposing calls for the bill to be withdrawn pending the outcome of the planning review being undertaken by the Expert Panel on Planning Reform.

I also note that Community Alliance has indicated its continued opposition to the bill on these grounds. However, I have addressed these matters in detail at the close of the second reading debate. The government believes there are good reasons for this bill to be proceeded with at this stage. I should also emphasise that we are proposing a number of amendments that directly address points raised by Community Alliance in earlier correspondence and in the two meetings we have held with them on the bill. I should also add that last Friday the government also briefed representatives of the Property Council on the government's amendments, and I understand the Property Council continues to support the passage of the bill.

Finally, in addition to the government amendments already filed which members will be aware of, I also draw members' attention to the three additional amendments that have been filed earlier today. One of these amendments will replace an amendment in the initial set of government amendments and I will explain each of these as we come to them during the debate.

I now turn to the Hon. Mr Ridgway's set of amendments, the first of those being at 7A but I think there are probably consequential amendments to follow. The government will be opposing this amendment, which is the first of several. These amendments will go further than government amendment No. 1, which seeks to insert an express requirement on the URA in carrying out its functions in relation to urban renewal to take into account existing or proposed development by private sector bodies and consider involving such bodies in urban renewal projects the URA proposes to undertake.

Government amendment No. 1 responds to concerns raised by the Urban Development Institute to ensure that the operations of the URA do not crowd out private sector development and are crafted, wherever practical, to facilitate opportunities for private sector involvement in urban renewal. Ultimately, the question of how to involve the private sector is best handled as a matter of administrative policy on a case-by-case basis. We have chosen to put forward this amendment as a way of reinforcing that point but not unduly fettering the URA in its operation as the government's principal development arm.

There are two key differences between Mr Ridgway's amendments and the government's amendments. First, Mr Ridgway's three amendments will prevent the minister, the URA or a statutory corporation from initiating, undertaking or managing a development for the purposes of urban renewal unless best endeavours have been used to engage a private sector body to initiate, undertake or manage a precinct development. These amendments would place procedural obligations on public authorities to undertake an urban renewal that we believe is unrealistic and burdensome. The nature of the test proposed, which goes further than the government's amendment, could, in some instances we say, lead to judicial challenges. More likely, however, it will simply add costs to government operations.

Were these amendments to have been applied to a number of the URA's current projects, they may have resulted in longer time frames, higher costs or deferral of the projects altogether. The requirement to use best endeavours prior to initiating, undertaking or managing urban renewal development, suggests that active steps will be required to offer opportunities to the market at each stage of a project. This could take the form of a tender, an expression of interest or the gathering of market intelligence. All of these take time and cost money.

In the case of the Bowden and Tonsley developments, for example, the master planning and remediation work undertaken by the URA could fall within the meaning of initiating urban renewal in this amendment. However, advice from the URA suggests that without government de-risking of this project, it could be difficult to secure private sector investment for either project to proceed any further. Importantly, with these initial de-risking steps having been taken, there are now significant opportunities for private sector investment and involvement in both of these precincts.

In the case of Lightsview, these amendments could cast doubt on the joint venture arrangements entered into with the private sector to manage the development. On one view, the effect of these amendments on a project of that nature would be to require the URA simply to offer the land for development as an en globo land sale without the ability to achieve higher density or award-winning design that has been achieved through careful collaboration in the rollout of the development.

Advice from the URA is that many private sector bodies believe that this style of joint venture arrangement is the preferred delivery model for urban infill development of this nature as it shares risk and enables the achievement of public policy outcomes that could not be realised through en globo land sales. The government believes that the Ridgway amendments could inadvertently negate the ability of the URA to enter into these kind of creative arrangements.

Additionally, it is unclear how these amendments would affect other URA functions, including its work with Housing SA in the redevelopment of precincts with high levels of government land ownership. For example, how would these amendments affect the process of expressions of interest for innovative redevelopment of Housing SA sites or development proposals that the URA has underway at locations such as River Street, Marden, Evanston and a host of other locations owned by Housing SA.

Secondly, Mr Ridgway's amendments would bind the minister, the URA and any statutory corporation. This goes beyond the concerns raised by the industry which were exclusively related to the operations of the URA. The government takes the view that this amendment, which would bind the minister, and Ridgway amendment No. 5, which would bind the statutory corporation, are unnecessary.

Indeed, as a consequence of government amendment No. 3, which will remove the ability of the minister to initiate a precinct declaration of his or her own volition, the first of these amendments may have no direct work to do. We believe that Ridgway amendment No. 5, which would apply to a statutory corporation, would limit the usefulness of the statutory corporation model available in this bill to support joint venture and other like arrangements.

I would like to reinforce that the government is strongly supportive of the principle that the URA is not intended to compete with the private sector. We want private sector investment in development and we want the URA to be a principal agent for unlocking opportunities for those investment dollars to flow. We see the URA's purpose as to coordinate, initiate and manage the delivery of development-ready urban renewal opportunities to the marketplace. That is why the government has agreed to put forward its own amendment which reinforces this role.

In that sense we are in agreement with the intent of the opposition's amendment to a point. However we are concerned that in unduly limiting the URA's ability to bring land to market for urban renewal, the Hon. Mr Ridgway's amendments could in fact compromise the ability of the government to facilitate urban renewal investment opportunities for the private sector. We believe that our amendment is a preferable option and will help ensure that this important principle is addressed while avoiding additional costs or delays.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I might follow the lead of the minister and make a few preliminary observations before addressing the amendment that has been moved. The first thing that I would note is that all members of the crossbench especially would have received a letter from the minister (Hon. John Rau) on 3 October which I describe as a classic hurry up letter. The letter quotes the Hon. David Ridgway; Minister Rau reminds us that the Hon. Mr Ridgway had said:

'...I am sure the opposition will be ready to complete debate on that particular bill' [when we next sit, probably Tuesday 15 October.]

Minister Rau then goes on to say:

As such, I am writing to all non-Government members of the Legislative Council to attempt to ensure that all members are ready for debate to be brought to completion on Tuesday 15 October 2013.

Here we are: it is the day in question and what do we find sitting on our desks after question time has commenced? That is yet another set of amendments from the government time-stamped 2.16pm. Notwithstanding the rapid pace at which Legislative Council staff work, I am assuming that we probably got it at least 10 minutes after that. What can we say? The government needs, I think, to lead by example and not seek to chastise members for not being ready when clearly the government itself was not ready. Having said that, we are proceeding with the debate and so we proceed.

Coming to the Hon. David Ridgway's amendments, the others are consequential on the first. It is really just the one issue. I note the origin of this amendment is in the Urban Development Institute of Australia's submission, and that is the lobby group for the large scale property developers. What they asked of this parliament was an amendment that the minister was:

[minister] to consider a proposal from a private sector entity for establishing a precinct. This would be an obligation by the minister to consider within a reasonable time frame.

Clearly, at the request of these lobbyists, the government has introduced an amendment which basically says that the minister will take into account existing or proposed development proposals by the private sector (I am paraphrasing), so the minister has gone some way. The Hon. David Ridgway's amendment goes further than the UDIA asked for and effectively obliges the minister to seek best endeavours to make sure that there is a private sector body that would undertake the development.

It seems to me this is fairly clearly ideologically driven, in that the opposition amendment assumes that the government is more capable of messing things up than the private sector. I disagree; the private sector can mess up development just as well as the government can. You only have to look at things like the Newport Quays development to see that getting things terribly wrong is not just the domain of the government; the private sector can do it as well.

Ultimately, I think this is an ill-conceived amendment, because it has at its heart an assumption that private sector bodies will be doing development. We know, for example, in the area of public housing that South Australia was proudly at the forefront of the development of public housing; we used to build them. We do much less of that now, but that is not to say that there is no role for the state in urban renewal.

Having said that, we will be opposing the Liberal amendments. I will also say at this stage that even with the government's amendments, which I expect will get up, the bill is still fatally flawed in the eyes of the Greens and we will be voting accordingly when we get to that point.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: It is interesting that the Hon. Mark Parnell had a very similar thought process to my own in considering these amendments and yet we have come to precisely the opposite conclusion, which may take me a very long time to explain. I think the considerations that the Hon. Mr Parnell raises are valid. I think the point where we differ, however, is our philosophical position.

The Hon. M. Parnell: Bob Day would never forgive you.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Indeed. As to the extent to which the private sector development is desirable against government sector development, the bottom line is they are both desirable, but if one has to choose, it is the private sector that creates wealth; government distributes that wealth. For that reason, we will be supporting the Liberal amendments.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I want to respond to a couple of comments the Hon. Mark Parnell made. He suggested that we were moving this amendment because the UDIA had written to everybody expressing flaws in the bill from their perspective. I want to put on the record that this was the position that we came to the day the bill was tabled in the other place, before any lobbyist or anybody had written to us. It was clearly a decision made from the principal point of view that we think the private sector should always be given an opportunity (where possible) to develop, and it is a coincidence that the UDIA have now written to everybody saying this is what they would like.

The other point I would like to remind members of is that the Hon. Mark Parnell says that the private sector can mess things up just as easily as the government, but the one big difference is that when the government messes up, everybody in South Australia pays the price in taxes and charges, and we are nearly at $14 billion of debt because of the number of cock-ups from this government, Mr Parnell. I know that the Tonsley project is expected to be significantly over budget; nearly every project the government undertakes is over budget. It will be no different if they are urban renewal projects—they will be over budget and the taxpayers have to carry the can every time. It is time we put a stop to that and let the private sector take some risk, and if they get it wrong, they lose their money not our money.

The committee divided on the new clause:

AYES (9)
Brokenshire, R.L. Dawkins, J.S.L. Hood, D.G.E.
Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I.
Ridgway, D.W. (teller) Stephens, T.J. Wade, S.G.
NOES (12)
Bressington, A. Darley, J.A. Finnigan, B.V.
Franks, T.A. Gago, G.E. Hunter, I.K. (teller)
Kandelaars, G.A. Maher, K.J. Parnell, M.
Vincent, K.L. Wortley, R.P. Zollo, C.

Majority of 3 for the noes.

New clause thus negatived.

Clause 8.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [SusEnvCons–1]—

Page 5, after line 42 [clause 8, inserted section 7C]—After subsection (1) insert:

(1a) The URA must, in carrying out functions related to urban renewal, take into account relevant existing or proposed development by private sector bodies and consider involving such bodies in urban renewal projects the URA proposes to undertake.

This amendment will insert a new subsection (1a) into proposed new section 7C relating to the functions of the URA. The new subsection will require the URA in carrying out its functions relating to urban renewal to take into account existing or proposed development by private sector bodies and consider involving such bodies in urban renewal projects the URA proposes to undertake.

This amendment responds to concerns raised by the urban development industry through its peak body, the Urban Development Institute. The government has always been of the view that urban renewal must be undertaken in close collaboration with the private sector. I have already explained the government's reasons for this amendment and in relation to the Hon. Mr Ridgway's amendment and I commend it to the council.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate that, while this is not quite what we had looked for in moving our own amendment and we have not achieved success with that, the opposition will be supporting the government amendment.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Just to confirm, you are no longer moving your own amendment?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I beg your pardon. I saw that previous division as a test for four or five of the seven amendments that we have filed. The first five are all consequential to that, so I will not be moving those.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 2 [SusEnvCons–1]—

Page 6, lines 33 and 34 [clause 8, inserted section 7G, definition of precinct authority]—Delete 'precinct authority appointed by the Minister' and substitute:

URA, another statutory corporation constituted under this Act, a council or a subsidiary of a council appointed by the Minister as the precinct authority for the precinct

This amendment will vary the definition of a precinct authority set out in proposed new section 7G. The revised definition has two roles. Firstly, it relocates the definition of a precinct authority from the proposed new section 7H(4)(c) in the bill. This is principally a drafting issue, I am advised; however, it will remove any doubt that a precinct authority may only ever be a public body. This responds to a concern put by the Local Government Association, the Community Alliance and the Environmental Defenders Office that the legislation appeared to leave this question ambiguous. To be clear, the government has always been of the view that as a precinct authority will potentially exercise public powers, it is pivotal that they are always constituted as public bodies. This amendment will put any ambiguity around this point to rest.

It is also important to note that this is not intended to prevent private sector participation in undertaking precinct development. The URA, for example, is empowered to enter into joint-venture arrangements under a proposed new section 72 and councils already have similar powers under the Local Government Act. However, such arrangements are to be subject to the accountability of a precinct authority as a public body.

Secondly and importantly, while maintaining the ability for a precinct authority to be one of the URA, a council or a statutory corporation established by regulation under the act, this new definition clarifies that a precinct authority may also be a subsidiary of a local council established under the Local Government Act. The appointment of a council subsidiary as a precinct authority may be a more convenient governance model in some instances for a council. This amendment will allow a single council to establish a subsidiary, but it will also allow two or more councils to establish a regional subsidiary to act as a precinct authority and this could be quite useful, for instance, where a precinct crosses council boundaries.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the government's amendment. That was also one of our concerns, that somebody could be, if you like, a planner and a developer. From our perspective, we think this makes it clear that only the government can have that role and so we support the amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 3 [SusEnvCons–1]—

Page 7, line 2 [clause 8, inserted section 7H(1)]—Delete 'on his or her own initiative or'

This amendment will vary proposed new section 7H(1) to remove the ability of the minister to initiate a precinct declaration of his or her own volition. As a result of government amendment No. 4, this will mean that all precinct proposals will be required to be submitted in the form of a business case. The Local Government Association has cogently argued that the minister is better served as the arbiter of urban renewal proposals. The government has accepted this view.

In practice, this will mean that proposals to declare precincts will come from government agencies, councils or private sector parties and the minister will then have accountability to make a judgement as to whether these proposals should attract government support through the urban renewal process.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 4 [SusEnvCons–1]—

Page 7, after line 13 [clause 8, inserted section 7H]—Insert:

(1a) A request under subsection (1) must—

(a) be in a form determined by the Minister that complies with any requirements prescribed by the regulations; and

(b) be accompanied by—

(i) a business case in a form determined by the Minister that—

(A) proposes a name and identifies the area for the proposed precinct; and

(B) proposes the objectives of the precinct that are to apply for the purposes of subsection (4)(b)(i); and

(C) proposes the body that is to constitute the precinct authority; and

(D) proposes the manner in which consultation with the community relating to the precinct should be conducted; and

(E) identifies any assets or infrastructure that might be expected to be transferred to another entity in connection with the establishment or development of the precinct, or if or when the precinct plan is revoked under this Part; and

(F) sets out proposed arrangements for the provision of services provided (as at the time of the request) within the proposed precinct by the relevant council (including any agreement with that council); and

(G) addresses any other matter, or complies with any other requirement, prescribed by the regulations; and

(ii) the fee (if any) prescribed by the regulations.

This amendment will vary proposed new section 7H by inserting new subsection (1a). This amendment will require every proposal to establish a precinct to be in a form determined by the minister and accompanied by a business case, together with a prescribed fee. At a minimum, a business case must propose a name and identify the area of a proposed precinct, propose the precinct objectives, propose the body that is to constitute the precinct authority, propose the manner of consultation with the community, identify assets or infrastructure that may be expected to be transferred to another entity in connection with the establishment or development of a precinct, or if (or when) a precinct is revoked set out proposed arrangements for continuing service provision in the precinct by relevant councils, including details on any agreement with the council. A business case must also include any other details required by regulation.

The government proposes to consult with the Local Government Association and industry in relation to the format and content of the business case. For example, it would be appropriate, in our view, for the business plan to identify issues such as financing arrangements and whether there will be any need for the use of rating or other revenue powers. This amendment has been developed following feedback from the Local Government Association. The LGA's submission was also supported by the Community Alliance and several councils.

Fundamentally, the purpose behind this approach is twofold. Firstly, it creates greater transparency about the use of the precinct declaration power. Together with the proposed changes to parliamentary oversight, this responds to a number of calls to clarify the criteria for declaring a precinct. The government is of the view that it will be problematic to unduly narrow the criteria for a precinct for which we believe a reasonable degree of ministerial discretion is warranted. However, parliamentary oversight, coupled with the requirement for a business case, will ensure the process is seen to be transparent and accountable.

Secondly, we believe by bringing forward the discussion of precinct issues, such as consultation, infrastructure, servicing and the like, many of the downstream issues in managing the rollout of a precinct development can be resolved. Most notably, the business case will require upfront discussion and analysis of community consultation to be a feature of each business case, acknowledging that community engagement must be a central concern in effective urban renewal.

I should also acknowledge that we have, in our discussions with the LGA, canvassed the need for a business case process to be informed by appropriate financial modelling in circumstances where revenue and servicing costs are at stake. To be clear, we are not suggesting such rigour would be required where such issues do not arise. Nonetheless, this is a body of knowledge that will need to be progressively developed and we are keen to work with both industry and the local government sector to build this knowledge base to support the business case process.

Importantly, the introduction of a business case requirement will also clarify the pathway for private sector proponents to seek government support for a potential urban renewal project. While the final decision to establish a precinct will remain a matter for ministerial discretion, the clear pathway will provide greater certainty for the private sector in pursuing precinct opportunities. The government wants to be very clear that it fully expects to receive private sector proposals, and we encourage that. As I said at the close of the second reading debate, the precinct planning process is a framework which enables a joint venture style approach on a tripartite basis between government, councils and the private sector in the pursuit of urban renewal. We will always respond to private sector proposals and we look forward to working with the private sector in identifying future opportunities that this bill will help to unlock.

Finally, I would like to draw members' attention to the provision which allows for a fee to be set by regulation for a business case. This provision does make the business case process akin to an application process, although we have been at pains to make clear that the ultimate decision remains a matter of ministerial discretion and this is not an 'as of right' style application process. At this stage the government does not intend to use this power; however, we believe it is reasonable to have the ability to enable cost recovery for the initial assessment of precinct proposals. As members would know, this can guard against speculative proposals coming forward. That said, we do not believe it will be necessary in the near term to use this fee-setting power.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 5 [SusEnvCons–1]—

Page 7, line 15 [clause 8, inserted section 7H(2)]—Delete 'specified by the Minister' and substitute 'prescribed by the regulations'

This amendment varies proposed new section 7H(2). The bill as it stands provides that time frames for consultation with local government on a proposed precinct declaration are to be specified by the minister. The Local Government Association submitted that this time frame should instead be prescribed by regulation. The government has accepted this argument. I am aware of calls by some sectors for a business case and a precinct declaration to be subject to public consultation, as well as consultation with local government. This is not supported by the government.

First, it is important to note that a precinct declaration, like a statement of intent under the Development Act, is simply a gateway to the next stage—the next stage being the development of a master plan proposal requiring community consultation. In that sense, discussion between councils and government at this stage is a form of intergovernmental negotiation not amenable to wider dialogue. Moreover, it is likely that there may be sensitive, confidential material involved in aspects of this dialogue.

I am also reminded by the LGA that councils are well-placed as representatives of their local community at this stage, informed as they are through their own consultation on council strategic directions and the like.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: To speed things up I will add that the opposition is supporting all the government amendments, so when you are looking for contributions be aware that I will not be making any because we support all the government amendments.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): I am sure the committee appreciates that communication.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [SusEnvCons–2]—

Page 7, after line 21 [clause 8, inserted section 7H]—Insert:

(2a) The Minister must not publish a notice under subsection (1) that relates to land that forms part of the Adelaide Park Lands within the meaning of the Adelaide Park Lands Act 2005 unless the Adelaide Park Lands Authority has consented to the publication of the notice.

This amendment will vary proposed new section 7H by inserting a new subsection (2a). The effect of this subsection will be to include an additional requirement if the minister proposes to declare a precinct which would affect the Adelaide Parklands.

This is in response to a submission from the Adelaide City Council. The amendment will ensure that no precinct development can include the Parklands without the consent of the Park Lands Authority. As we know with the Bowden project, the ability to invest in the Parklands can be a very useful way to manage an effective urban renewal project which adds value to the community. This amendment will not prevent that but it will add an appropriate check and balance to the system which is respectful of the unique importance of the Parklands in our city's fabric.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I have had a discussion today with the Lord Mayor, and many of us I think have received emails from the city council urging us to be vigilant about making sure the Parklands would not be included within the scope of this legislation, and I can see that this amendment does in fact provide an extra check and balance. My question of the minister on this clause is: did the government consider exempting the whole of the Adelaide City Council from the scope of this legislation, and as a secondary question, given that the government has been active over the last little while and is currently active in rezoning areas of the City of Adelaide (and I am referring of course to the capital city DPA, and I think there is a pending residential DPA under consideration), and given that those existing processes under the Development Act are either very recent or underway, why does not the government exempt the whole of the city council from this bill?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that the answer to the honourable member's two questions is, firstly, no, the reason being that future opportunities may arise from time to time within the bounds of the Adelaide City Council, and we should not be in a position today of ruling those out for a future decision.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: This was a new amendment tabled at 2.16, so I was referring to all the earlier amendments, which we have had time to consider, unlike this last rushed one. My understanding is that the old Royal Adelaide Hospital site is in an institutional or medical zone. Is this a site that is on what was formally Parklands but now has changed? Is that a site that the government might see that the Urban Renewal Authority may operate to bring forward some development at some point in the future?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: It is true to say that that site may well be a potential site for the future, but I believe that site is still classed as Parklands. My advice is that under the act that area is treated as Parklands and, unless it is particularly exempted, it will continue to be treated as Parklands.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: In relation to future development once the medical facilities are no longer required, how will it be treated? It is an institutional zone in the Parklands, so is it still parkland and therefore will present some problem for any future use, or what mechanism will be used to develop it?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that it will be dealt with as a development plan amendment with the normal processes involved in a development assessment.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: In relation to an institutional zone adjacent to the Riverbank (I understand we will have a riverbank development authority at some point, whether in operation now or will be at some point in the future), can the minister explain the interaction between that authority and the legislation we are debating today?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My understanding is that the riverbank development authority would have to be established by separate legislation. Those details, I understand, are still under consideration and discussion. This amendment that we are dealing with today would prevent that happening. This legislation could not be used to go to the riverbank area and authorise some development: it would have to be under the authority that would have to be established under legislation.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: We would require a separate act of parliament to establish an authority, so you would not be able to establish a precinct: it would have to be done through the legislative framework that an independent authority would give?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that that is correct.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Given that we only have 11 sitting days of parliament left this year, are we likely to see that piece of legislation? The form of the government over the last decade has been to rush things in at the eleventh hour so we have to pass it before we rise.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I do not presently have that advice for the member. I will seek it for him.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I have been following the toing and froing between the minister and the Hon. David Ridgway. The minister might want to clarify his comments, but I would have thought that you do not need special legislation. If you want to create a precinct on the old hospital site, you just get the Adelaide Park Lands Authority to consent, and I would have thought that is your entrée into this bill.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that is an alternative method.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Would that also allow for a riverbank precinct to be declared if the Park Lands Authority also agreed?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is: yes, but only with a consent.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 6 [SusEnvCons–1]—

Page 7, after line 24 [clause 8, inserted section 7H]—Insert:

(3a) Subject to subsection (3b), the Minister must, when publishing a notice under subsection (1), also publish (in the case of the establishment of a precinct pursuant to a request under subsection (1)) a copy of the business case that accompanied the request to which the notice relates.

(3b) Subsection (3a) does not require the Minister to publish any part of the business case that, in the opinion of the Minister, contains commercial information of a confidential nature.

This amendment will vary proposed new section 7H by inserting new subsections (3a) and (3b). The substance of these changes suggested by Community Alliance and the Environmental Defenders Office will require a business case to be published, with the exception of any commercial-in-confidence information, at the same time as the publication of a precinct declaration. This will ensure the process of receiving and considering proposals is seen to be transparent, while also providing valuable information to the community as the first stage of a precinct planning process is undertaken.

To ensure full transparency around the commercial-in-confidence restrictions, on publication, the government will work closely with the LGA and industry to ensure that the form of the business case (which is to be specified by regulation) treats general information separately from commercial-in-confidence information. We certainly believe it is important that as much information as possible is published while also recognising that, by its very nature, a business case will also include financial, investment and other market-sensitive information which should be treated with care. This amendment will strike the right balance around this issue.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 7 [SusEnvCons–1]—

Page 7, lines 32 and 33 [clause 8, inserted section 7H(4)(c)]—Delete 'the URA, another statutory corporation constituted under this Act, or a council to be the' and substitute 'a'

This amendment is consequential on government amendment No. 2.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 8 [SusEnvCons–1]—

Page 7, after line 34 [clause 8, inserted section 7H]—Insert:

(4a) The Minister must, within 28 days of the publication of a notice under subsection (1)—

(a) provide a report setting out the location, extent and reasons for the establishment of the precinct to the Environment, Resources and Development Committee of the Parliament; and

(b) publish a copy of the report on a website determined by the Minister.

This amendment will vary proposed new section 7H by inserting new subsection (4a) requiring the minister to report to the Environment, Resources and Development Committee upon publication of a precinct declaration, providing details of the declaration and the reasons for it and publishing that information online.

This directly responds to a suggestion put forward by the Community Alliance and Environmental Defenders Office in discussion with the government. It is one of a number of amendments that relate to parliamentary oversight and transparency of the precinct planning process enunciated in a number of submissions. These have included submissions from the Local Government Association, the Planning Institute, the Environmental Defenders Office and Community Alliance.

In essence the scheme proposed under these amendments will ensure that the Environment, Resources and Development Committee is provided with reports at each stage of the precinct planning process which will also be transparently published online and also will retain a right of disallowance on the same basis as that applying for a development plan amendment, the critical stage of the precinct planning process being the precinct master plan. Further amendments giving effect to these arrangements include government amendments Nos 18, 19 and 20.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Whilst I do not particularly want to comment on just this amendment, the minister in his answer alluded to the fact that there are some consequential ones to follow, so rather than take up the time of the chamber then, I might just mention it now. What the minister said was that, under this amendment No. 8, the statutory committee—the Environment, Resources and Development Committee of parliament—will be receiving a report and then later on they will be given a copy of the precinct master plan and they will be given the ability to disallow that plan as the minister said on the same terms as it has the power to disallow a development plan under the Development Act.

The point to note, of course, is that since 1994 when the Development Act came into operation, the parliament has never disallowed a development plan because the Environment, Resources and Development Committee of parliament is a House of Assembly-controlled committee where the government chair in most cases has a casting vote and, as a result, the laughingly named heading in the Development Act 'Parliamentary scrutiny' means very little.

The only reason I am saying that is that most members would appreciate that—a bit like a red rag to a bull—they would be expecting an amendment from the Greens at this point which says that these precinct master plans do not come into effect until after parliamentary scrutiny has been completed, because that is the amendment that I have been moving for the best part of the last eight years whenever the Development Act comes up for review.

I just want to put on the record that the only reason that I am not moving that amendment in relation to this bill is that I did not feel that it would be appropriate because if by some chance it were to pass, then I would feel some obligation to support the bill, which I do not intend doing. So, I am choosing not to waste the time of the house with an amendment, but I just bear in mind that, as parliamentary scrutiny is a joke in relation to development plans under the Development Act, it is just as big a joke in relation to precinct master plans under the Housing and Urban Development (Administrative Arrangements) (Urban Renewal) Amendment Bill.

Amendment carried.

The ACTING CHAIR: We now move to amendment No 9 [SusEnvCons–1] in the name of the minister. It is clause 8, page 8 and we have just amended the line—it is actually 26 and not 27.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move the amendment thus corrected:

Amendment No 9 [SusEnvCons–1]—

Page 8, line 27 [clause 8, inserted section 7H(9)]—Delete 'may, and must at the direction of the Minister' and substitute 'must, other than in circumstances prescribed by the regulations'

This amendment will vary proposed new section 7H(9). It is linked to government amendments Nos 10 and 11. The current subsection provides that a precinct authority may establish a design review panel or a community reference panel and must do so if directed by the minister. In addition, the authority may establish other panels and may be directed to do so by the minister.

Submissions from the Community Alliance, the Planning Institute, the Environmental Defenders Office and the Local Government Association all suggested that the establishment of a design review panel and a community reference panel should be a default requirement. The government has accepted this view, but believes that it is important to retain some flexibility in the legislation. For this reason, the government is proposing to provide that a precinct authority must, other than in circumstances prescribed by regulation, establish a design review panel and a community reference panel. In other words, it will be a default requirement to establish these panels and this will only be able to be varied by regulations subject to parliamentary oversight.

This will ensure a degree of flexibility is maintained to cater for those projects where there may not be a need for a panel or where there is a better or more appropriate method of design review or engagement. For example, if a council is undertaking a precinct development, it may be that the council already has a range of community engagement mechanisms, which obviates the need to establish a separate community reference panel.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No. 2 [SusEnvCons–2]—

Page 8, line 27 [clause 8, inserted section 7H(9)]—Delete '1 or more of'

This amendment corrects a slight anomaly in the drafting consequential upon government amendment No. 9. It clarifies that the obligation to establish a panel requires a precinct authority to establish both a design review panel and a community reference panel. I would like to thank the Hon. Mr Parnell for bringing this issue to the government's attention for rectification.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I thank the minister for thanking the Greens for discovering this anomaly. I just wanted to say a few things about it, because what we have seen in the amendment that just passed and the amendment we are now considering is that in one of the most important sections of this bill to the community sector, the creation of community reference panels and the ability to engage in the process were flawed. They were flawed from the outset and they have required two separate amendments on two separate occasions to fix them up.

A number of us spent lunchtime down at the Intercontinental Hotel at a forum on the upper house and how it might be improved. The Hon. Chris Schacht, former senator, got up and moved for the abolition of the upper house of state parliament, and a number of us were thinking—I know the Hon. Dennis Hood was thinking the same thing—that we have fixed up government legislation so many times. If not for the upper house, the legislation would be the poorer.

I think the other thing I need to say is that I received an email yesterday from the Cheltenham Park Residents Association, a group that I think you could best describe as having been through the wringer of planning ever since the racecourse was rezoned for housing. In an email which I think has gone to all members of the Legislative Council, Trevor White, the chairman, and Carol Faulkner, who is a committee member, set out a number of concerns that they have with this bill. Neither of those people is a lawyer; I know for certain they are not lawyers. One of the things that they pointed out in their submission to us yesterday was that it is not mandatory for the precinct authority to establish a community reference panel.

It strikes me that here we have some laypeople who have identified, fairly late in the piece, that there is a flaw in this legislation. The government has accepted that it is a flaw. I am not claiming it is a conspiracy. If this bill had gone through without this amendment, the government would have had a choice about whether to set up a design review panel or a community reference panel. They would not have been obliged to set up both. I will accept that it was the government's intention to set up both, but that is not what the bill says now until we pass this amendment in the next few seconds.

I just make the point that here we have some mistakes we have found; I bet there are mistakes we have not found. I bet there are and that is why I think in the call from a number of community groups—the new Coalition for Planning Reform that has been established recently involving the Conservation Council, the National Trust and others; and the Community Alliance, whom the minister has cited with approval a number of times—their default position is, 'Let's not pass this bill now; let's wait until the Expert Panel on Planning Reform considers the whole of our planning law regime, and let's do the job properly.' I am glad that the minister has accepted that here is a mistake. I am happy that the Greens have pointed it out to them. They have fixed it up, but I bet you there are more mistakes. I just want to make that observation as we proceed with the committee stage.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 10 [SusEnvCons–1]—

Page 9, lines 5 to 8 [clause 8, inserted section 7H(9)]—Delete paragraph (c)

This amendment is consequential upon previous government amendment No. 9.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 11 [SusEnvCons–1]—

Page 9, after line 8 [clause 8, inserted section 7H]—Insert:

(9a) The precinct authority may establish any other panel considered appropriate to provide advice relating to planning and development within the precinct.

This amendment is also consequential upon previous government amendment No. 10.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 12 [SusEnvCons–1]—

Page 9, after line 35 [clause 8, inserted section 7H]—Insert:

(15) The Minister must, before acting under subsection (13)(b), be satisfied that the precinct authority has consulted with any council within the area of the precinct about—

(a) the transfer of any assets or infrastructure to the council on the revocation of the notice (including, if relevant, in connection with the operation of section 23); and

(b) other matters that appear to be relevant to the council in connection with the provisions of this Part no longer applying in relation to the precinct.

This amendment responds to a concern raised by the LGA regarding the transfer of infrastructure assets and a precinct to a local council upon revocation of a precinct declaration. The bill as it stands relies on the existing section 23 of the principal act which makes it clear that any property or assets can only be transferred to a council with the agreement of that council. This is reinforced by clause 9 of the bill which further amends this section. However, the government accepted the LGA's view that this clause could be strengthened.

This amendment will ensure that in order to revoke a precinct declaration, the minister must be satisfied that the precinct authority has consulted with a local council about the voluntary transfer of infrastructure assets in accordance with section 23. This will provide a critical checkpoint prior to the winding up of a precinct, and reinforces a council is not under an obligation to assume the precinct assets without agreement.

Additionally, as part of the business case for the precinct, the government has—at the suggestion of the LGA—included a requirement to identify up-front the likely infrastructure assets to be developed as part of the precinct and likely arrangements for their transfer to local government.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 13 [SusEnvCons–1]—

Page 10, after line 13 [clause 8, inserted section 7I(2)]—Insert:

(da) specify design guidelines for development, which may include specific design criteria relating to buildings or classes of buildings; and

(db) make provision in relation to any matter which a Development Plan under the Development Act 1993 may provide for, including specifying classes of development within the area that will be taken to be complying development for the purposes of the Development Act 1993; and

(dc) provide for the provision of open space or the making of payments (insofar as it is relevant to development within the precinct) in connection with the requirements imposed under section 50 of the Development Act 1993; and

This amendment varies proposed section 7I(2). As part of the scheme of parliamentary oversight, the government has proposed in government amendment No. 18 that a precinct master plan be subject to parliamentary disallowance on a similar basis to a development plan amendment under the Development Act. To give effect to this, certain provisions which form part of a precinct implementation plan under the bill as it stands is proposed to form part of a master plan instead. This will ensure they are subject to the scrutiny and disallowance procedures.

The provisions to be transferred relate to design guidelines, complying development principles and open space requirements, and are part of the precinct plan which, in effect, will displace or override the underlying development plan to some extent. Because of this, it is appropriate that they are subject to closer parliamentary scrutiny.

This amendment responds directly to submissions put by the Planning Institute, the Environmental Defenders Office, the Community Alliance and the Local Government Association in relation to parliamentary oversight. It is part of a set of amendments which will implement a scheme of oversight including reporting to the Environment, Resources and Development Committee and a potential disallowance of precinct master plans by that committee. It is also a link to government amendments Nos 8, 14, 15, 18, 19 and 20.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 14 [SusEnvCons–1]—

Page 10, lines 23 to 25 [clause 8, inserted section 7I(4)(a)(i)]—Delete subparagraph (i)

This amendment indicates the government's view that it is consequential upon government amendment No. 13.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 15 [SusEnvCons–1]—

Page 10, line 33 to page 11, line 4 [clause 8, inserted section 7I(4)(b) and (c)]—Delete paragraphs (b) and (c)

I put the view that this amendment is consequential on government amendment No. 13.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 16 [SusEnvCons–1]—

Page 11, lines 8 and 9 [clause 8, inserted section 7I(5)]—Delete 'relevant provisions of any Development Plan applying in the area to which the precinct plan relates.' and substitute:

—

(a) relevant provisions of any Development Plan applying; and

(b) the Strategic Directions Report of any council,

in the area to which the precinct plan relates.

This amendment varies proposed new section 7I(5). Currently the bill provides for a precinct authority to have regard to the underlying development plan in undertaking the development of a precinct plan. This will ensure that relevant information contained in the development plan is able to be considered and responded to. For example, it may be desirable that the flood mapping set out in the development plan is incorporated in the precinct plan.

In response to a suggestion by the Local Government Association, the government proposes in this amendment to make it clear that a precinct authority should also have regard to a council strategic directions report under section 30 of the Development Act in addition to the development plan itself.

Additionally, I can confirm that the government will encourage council to consider the use of the precinct planning process as a mechanism for the delivery of their strategic directions reports. This does not require an amendment, but for those councils wishing to undertake urban renewal, it is important that the government indicate it is open to this business.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 17 [SusEnvCons–1]—

Page 11, line 36 to page 12, line 4 [clause 8, inserted section 7I(8)(c) and (d)]—Delete paragraphs (c) and (d) and substitute:

(c) —

(i) in the case of a precinct master plan—

(A) by public advertisement, give notice of the place or places at which copies of the draft are available for inspection (without charge) and purchase and invite interested persons to make written representations on the proposal within a period specified by the precinct authority; and

(B) hold a meeting where members of the public may attend and make representations in relation to the proposal, if the Minister considers it necessary or desirable for such a meeting to be held; or

(ii) in the case of a precinct implementation plan—undertake such public consultation on the proposal as is determined by the Minister to be appropriate.

This amendment varies proposed new clause 7I(8). Submissions from the Community Alliance and the LGA, among others, call for the public consultation requirements in the bill to be strengthened in relation to the preparation of a precinct plan. The bill leaves a deal of discretion in the hands of the minister in relation to the conduct of such consultation.

Submissions suggested that certain steps and public consultation should be mandatory upon a precinct authority rather than discretionary. The government has accepted these submissions. This amendment will make it a mandatory requirement for public consultation on the precinct master plan to include a public meeting and a public advertisement of the proposed precinct master plan, with submissions invited from the community.

This also reflects the fact that the master plan will now carry more of the detail of the precinct plan and also be subject to parliamentary disallowance as proposed in government amendment No. 18. The corollary of this is that the consultation process for precinct implementation plans has been simplified given that they now have less work to do and will be required to be consistent with the master plan.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 18 [SusEnvCons–1]—

Page 12, after line 38 [clause 8, inserted section 7I]—Insert:

(13a) Section 27 of the Development Act 1993 (other than section 27(2)) applies to the adoption or amendment of a precinct master plan as if references in that section to an amendment to a Development Plan under Part 3 Subdivision 2 of the Development Act 1993 were references to the adoption or amendment of a precinct master plan under this section.

This amendment varies proposed new clause 7I by inserting new subsection (13a). This new subsection will introduce parliamentary oversight of precinct master plans with the potential for disallowance on the same basis as the development plan amendment. This forms part of a series of amendments which will increase parliamentary oversight and transparency of the precinct planning process.

This responds directly to submissions made by the Environmental Defenders Office, the Planning Institute, the LGA and the Community Alliance. Importantly, this will apply the same standards for parliamentary scrutiny as already apply for development plans. There have been some suggestions that this process requires review. In the government's view, this is best handled through the expert panel on planning reform as it is a broader initiative touching the system as a whole and must be considered in the light of overall system dynamics.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 19 [SusEnvCons–1]—

Page 13, after line 7 [clause 8, inserted section 7I]—Insert:

(14a) The Minister must, as soon as is reasonably practicable after the adoption of a precinct plan, publish on a website determined by the Minister—

(a) a copy of a report provided to the Minister under subsection (10); and

(b) any advice received from the Development Assessment Commission under subsection (12) on the report.

This amendment varies proposed new section 7I by inserting a new subsection (14a). This amendment will require the publication of the precinct authority's report to the minister and any advice by the Development Assessment Commission to be published transparently online. This responds directly to a suggestion made by the Environmental Defenders Office and the Community Alliance. It is one of a series of amendments relating to improved parliamentary oversight and transparency, including government amendment Nos 8, 18 and 20.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 20 [SusEnvCons–1]—

Page 13, after line 12 [clause 8, inserted section 7I]—Insert:

(17) The Minister must, within 28 days of the adoption of, or an amendment to, a precinct implementation plan, or the revocation of a precinct plan—

(a) provide a report on the matter to the Environment, Resources and Development Committee of the Parliament; and

(b) publish a copy of the report on a website determined by the Minister.

This amendment varies proposed new section 7I by inserting a new subsection (17) requiring the minister to report to the Environment, Resources and Development Committee upon the adoption or amendment of a precinct implementation plan or the revocation of a precinct master plan or precinct implementation plan. This is one of a series of amendments relating to improved parliamentary oversight and transparency, including government amendment Nos 8, 18 and 19.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 21 [SusEnvCons–1]—

Page 13, line 21 [clause 8, inserted section 7J(1)(a)]—Delete 'section 7I(4)(b)' and substitute 'section 7I(2)(db)'

This is consequential on government amendment No. 13.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 22 [SusEnvCons–1]—

Page 13, line 33 [clause 8, inserted section 7J(3)]—Delete 'section 7I(4)(c)' and substitute 'section 7I(2)(dc)'

This amendment is consequential on government amendment No. 13 as well.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No. 23 [SusEnvCons–1]—

Page 14, after line 1 [clause 8, inserted section 7K(1)]—Insert:

(ca) to make by-laws under the Local Government Act 1999 or the Local Government Act 1934; or

This amendment is part of a series of amendments clarifying the operation of powers relating to council by-laws and rates. These include government amendments Nos 24, 25, 26 and 27. This amendment varies proposed new section 7K(1) by inserting new paragraph (ca). The amendment will make it clear that the ability to confer statutory powers on a precinct authority extends to the ability to confer by-law making powers. While this is implicit under the bill as it stands, it is desirable to make this power express. Importantly, by doing so it will provide a rationale for the inclusion of consideration of such powers upfront as part of the business case. As already indicated, the government will work with the LGA and other stakeholders to frame the format and content of the business case for inclusion in the regulations.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I withdraw government amendment No. 24 in set 1, and replace it with government amendment No. 3 in set 2. I move:

Amendment No. 3 [SusEnvCons–2]—

Page 14, after line 30 [clause 8, inserted section 7K]—Insert:

(2a) If a precinct authority makes a by-law under the Local Government Act 1999 or the Local Government Act 1934 under subsection (1)(ca), the by-law—

(a) cannot be altered without the consent of the precinct authority; and

(b) is revoked if—

(i) the regulation under this section giving the authorisation to make by-laws is revoked; or

(ii) the relevant precinct is dissolved.

(2b) Without limiting subsection (1), a precinct authority may, if authorised by the Governor to do so by regulation, in relation to raising revenue for the purposes of the management, development or enhancement of a precinct established under this Part—

(a) impose a rate under the Local Government Act 1999 (as if it were a council); and

(b) require a council to collect the rate on behalf of the precinct authority.

(2c) If a rate is imposed under subsection (2b)—

(a) Chapter 10 of the Local Government Act 1999 will apply subject to any modifications prescribed by the regulations; and

(b) the council must comply with the requirement made by the precinct authority (and make a payment to the precinct authority of the amount recovered on account of the imposition of the rate); and

(c) the precinct authority is liable to pay to the council an amount determined in accordance with the regulations on account of the costs of the council in complying with the requirements imposed by the precinct authority (which may be set off against the amount payable by the council to the precinct authority); and

(d) if the precinct to which the rate relates is dissolved—the council may, for a period of 5 years, or such longer period as the Minister may allow, continue to impose any rate imposed by the precinct authority under subsection (2b)(a) and applying at the time of the dissolution (and, to avoid doubt, a rate continued under this paragraph is to be treated as if it were a rate imposed under subsection (2b)(a)).

This amendment is part of a series of amendments clarifying the operation of powers relating to council by-laws and rates. It is included in government amendments Nos 23, 25, 26 and 27. This amendment varies proposed new section 7K by inserting new subsections (2a), (2b) and (2c). New subsection (2a) is consequential upon government amendment No. 23. It makes clear that a by-law made by a precinct authority cannot be altered by a council during the life of a precinct without the consent of the precinct authority. It also ensures any such by-laws are revoked upon dissolution of a precinct unless continued by a council under the Local Government Act.

New subsections (2b) and (2c) provide for the collection of rates within a precinct. Taken together, the regime proposed allows for rates to be collected by a council and passed onto the precinct authority for the purposes of management development or enhancement of the precinct. Councils may charge administrative costs involved in the collection on a similar basis to the Natural Resources Management Act. Importantly, the general provisions relating to the exercise of rating powers under the Local Government Act are to be applied to a precinct authority in exercising any local government rating powers, but subject to modifications that may be made by regulation. This important ability will allow flexibility in the application of rating powers.

Councils who act as precinct authorities will have the benefit of this ability to modify rating powers to propose innovative rating arrangements currently beyond the framework envisaged with the Local Government Act, provided these can be related to urban renewal purposes. The use of rating as a way of supporting financing for adaptive re-use arrangements could be one way this power could be applied. It can also be used to ensure that greater notification requirements are imposed on precinct authorities in relation to rating powers. This could, for example, require landowner notification as suggested by the Urban Development Institute.

New subsection (2c) also provides that any innovative rating arrangements applied within a precinct may be continued by a council with the permission of the minister. Members will note, in correspondence from the LGA last week, that councils would like to have a five-year period in which consent of the minister is not required. The government has agreed to this and the new amendment lodged in my name will give effect to this. It is otherwise the same as the original amendment filed.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 25 [SusEnvCons–1]—

Page 14, line 33 [clause 8, inserted section 7K(3)]—After 'matter' insert:

(which must include details of any submissions made by a council in consultation under subsection (5))

This amendment varies proposed new section 7K(3). Councils are to be consulted under proposed new subsection (5) proposed to be inserted by government amendment No. 26 in relation to the conferral of rating powers on a precinct authority. This amendment ensures that any submissions made by councils in response to such consultation are reported transparently to parliament. This responds to a direction suggestion by the Local Government Association.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 26 [SusEnvCons–1]—

Page 14, after line 37 [clause 8, inserted section 7K]—Insert:

(5) A regulation cannot be made under—

(a) subsection (1)(c) authorising the exercise of a power under the Local Government Act 1999 in relation to the imposition or recovery of a rate, levy or charge; or

(b) subsection (2b),

except after consultation with the relevant council.

(6) The Subordinate Legislation Act 1978 applies to a regulation made under this section as if references in that Act to the Legislative Review Committee of the Parliament were references to the Environment, Resources and Development Committee of the Parliament.

This amendment varies proposed new section 7K by inserting new subsections (5) and (6). New subsection (5) requires consultation with any relevant council in relation to a proposed regulation enabling a precinct authority to exercise a local government rating power. This amendment responds to submissions from the Local Government Association. New subsection (6) places responsibility for scrutiny of regulations under this proposed new section 7K with the Environment, Resources and Development Committee instead of the Legislative Review Committee. This is because such regulations will closely align with the oversight functions of the ERD Committee in relation to precinct developments.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I am advised that amendment No. 27 is consequential. I move:

Amendment No 27 [SusEnvCons–1]—

Page 15, after line 8 [clause 8, inserted section 7L]—After the present contents of section 7L (now to be designated as subsection (1)) insert:

(2) A regulation cannot be made under subsection (1) in relation to rates or charges imposed under the Local Government Act 1999 except after consultation with the relevant council.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 28 [SusEnvCons–1]—

Page 15, after line 33 [clause 8, new section 7N]—Insert:

7N—Consultation with LGA on prescribed classes of regulations

(1) A regulation of a prescribed class cannot be made for the purposes of this Part unless the Minister has given the LGA notice of the proposal to make the regulation and given consideration to any submission made by the LGA within a period (of between 3 and 6 weeks) specified by the Minister.

(2) In this section—

LGA means the Local Government Association of South Australia.

Rather than go through the whole spiel I have been given by my very good adviser, I think the amendment speaks for itself.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 9.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Ridgway, we are just checking. We have an amendment No. 5 [Ridgway–1] new clause 8A.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: No, that is consequential.

The CHAIR: You are not proceeding with that one?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: No, and in fairness, I think it came after 27 but before 28 so I thought that you had realised it was consequential and we were expediting things.

The CHAIR: I'm completely confused, so keep going.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Amendment No. 5 referred to the private sector and the minister must use his best endeavours to engage the private sector to initiate or undertake or manage developments. We discussed that in my first amendment. We divided and we lost it and so this is consequential. My amendment No. 6 is an amendment to the schedule where I am just adding a word.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Ridgway, you will not be able to do that at this stage. First, we have to deal with the minister's amendment No. 29.

Clause passed.

New clause 10.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 29 [SusEnvCons–1]—

Page 15, after line 20—Insert:

10—Review

(1) The Minister must cause a review of the operation and impact of this Act to be conducted and a report on the results of the review to be submitted to him or her within 2 years after the commencement of this Act.

(2) The Minister must, within 6 sitting days after receiving the report, cause copies of the report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

Again, I think it speaks for itself.

New clause passed.

Schedule 1.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I move:

Amendment No 6 [Ridgway–1]—

Schedule 1, page 15, line 28 [Schedule 1, clause 1, inserted paragraph (d)]—After 'precinct' insert 'master'

This is to insert the word 'master' after the word 'precinct' in line 28 of that page. It is simply for clarification.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I might speak for it. This amendment varies clause 1 of the schedule. The effect of the amendment combined with the Ridgway amendment No. 7 would be to alter the use of section 29 of the Development Act. The effect of these amendments will be to require any changes to a development plan consequential upon adoption of a precinct implementation plan to be made within a month while preserving flexibility for the minister in relation to a precinct master plan. The government, on reflection, is inclined to support this amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I move:

Amendment No 7 [Ridgway–1]—

Schedule 1, page 15, after line 30 [Schedule 1, clause 1]—

After the present contents of clause 1 (now to be designated as subclause (1)) insert:

(2) Section 29—after subsection (3) insert:

(3a) The Minister must, within 1 month of the adoption of, or an amendment to, a precinct implementation plan under the Urban Renewal Act 1995, give effect to the adoption or amendment (as the case requires) by amending the relevant Development Plan by notice in the Gazette.

This effectively puts a deadline on the minister on amending a development plan after a precinct implementation plan has been finalised. I think the minister indicated that he was comfortable with it and it is consequential to amendment No. 6 so I will sit down and let the council do its work.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The amendment is consequential.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I will not disagree that it is consequential; I just wanted to say that I will have a very brief third reading contribution to make when we get to that point.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I need to put on the record some comments about schedule 1, part 2, clause 3(1)—Transitional provision. This clause proves for a transitional period of 12 months during which the Governor may by regulation exempt any precinct authority from consultation requirements in relation to a precinct plan. The purpose of this provision is to allow for council or government projects which have already undergone consultation to be transitioned into the precinct planning model without repeating those steps. Sites like Bowden, for instance, have already involved significant public consultation in development of the master plan.

Similarly, councils that are partway through a public consultation process may wish to convert their urban renewal projects into a precinct without having to duplicate those steps. The exercise of this power will be subject to parliamentary oversight, of course. With those few remarks, I commend the remaining stages of the bill to the committee.

Schedule as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (17:02): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (17:02): I rise briefly on the third reading to put on the record that the Greens will not support the passage of this bill. As I have said before in this place, the government has hidden behind its review into planning law conducted by Brian Hayes QC as a reason for rejecting every proposed amendment to the planning system that the Greens have put forward in the last 12 months or so, and I expect we will hear exactly the same excuse again in relation to the next three bills I have.

In fact, the minister has already said today that, in relation to the sham that is parliamentary scrutiny of planning schemes, he thinks that that is a matter that the expert panel on planning law should look at. It seems that this is a case of double standards. The minister, in speaking to a number of the amendments, pointed out that some had been made at the request of groups such the Environmental Defenders Office and the Community Alliance. Yet, I want to put quickly on the record the Community Alliance's position as of 4 October—so pretty recently, and I know their position has not changed. They say:

The Community Alliance SA remains opposed to the urban renewal amendment bill and its intended use as a significantly different and new way of carrying out planning and development in designated areas. The bill is very unpopular amongst communities at large, and putting it on hold, pending the outcome of the planning review process, would restore some faith in the process.

A very similar submission from the Cheltenham Park Residents Association I mentioned yesterday. They conclude their submission with the following:

Putting people back into planning is not counterproductive to development. On the contrary, involving local communities to achieve results that everyone can happily live with will engender confidence in the planning system and create a smooth path for development outcomes. Wouldn't that be better than the widespread dissent and opposition that has galvanized the residents of this state into action? The formation of Community Alliance SA and the Coalition for Planning Reform is an unprecedented show of unity and evidence that something is seriously wrong with the present system.

Again, they have urged putting this bill on hold. They mention the newly formed Coalition for Planning Reform, a group that involves the Conservation Council of South Australia, the Community Alliance and the National Trust. Again, in this last week, that body has asked the Legislative Council not to pass this bill. In fact, if I can quote from the media release put out by the Community Alliance in the last couple of days, they say:

The Coalition [for Planning Reform] is calling for the Premier to rein in his Planning Minister and instruct him to refer the Bill to the Expert Panel for consideration in its review of various options for reform of the planning system.

'It appears to the CPR [Coalition for Planning Review] that the Minister is determined to ram this Bill through Parliament as quickly as possible, in defiance of the many serious concerns raised in relation to it.'...'Putting this Bill on hold pending the report of its Expert Panel next year would be a good way for the Premier to demonstrate his commitment to community engagement and that he understands the unrest that has led to the creation of this new Coalition.' The Premier's credibility is on the line over the way the Government handles this Bill.

There is widespread concern in the community. The groups I have been referring to are the residents' groups, the ratepayers' associations and the community groups all over this state. They do not like this bill and they do not like the process it has gone through. They see the government as hypocritical in applying one standard to itself and another standard to every other planning law reform. For these reasons, the Greens will not be supporting the passage of this bill.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (17:06): I rise to indicate I will not be supporting this bill, either, for all the reasons the Hon. Mark Parnell went into. I am not going to keep the council long, but I do hope the Liberal Party will reflect on what has been passed here today and the fact that process has been completely done away with. As the Hon. Mark Parnell said, there is a review process underway. One has to ask oneself why, when we are now legislating in relation to matters that would be taken into account by that very review process.

I wonder if anybody took notice of what happened at the federal election just a few weeks ago when minor parties and new parties basically ripped the guts out of the expectations of political analysts regarding what the outcome of that election would be. I will put on the record now that our state election is going to be no different because people are sick of this—absolutely sick of being ignored, and sick and tired of having to start up lobby groups in order to have their concerns heard. Labor and Liberal join together on this and ram this through without any consideration at all of the objections of the people who actually pay them to be here.

I just give a word of warning: don't think that the state election is going to fare any differently to the federal election until people can see there is actually a difference between the Labor Party and the Liberal Party in this state. Right now, I think you have come together on a bill that is not only going to offend but absolutely separate you from a voting base that will be very disappointed to learn that you have gone along with this without waiting for a proper review process to be done and without the recommendations of that review being able to be taken into consideration.

The council divided on the third reading:

AYES (17)
Brokenshire, R.L. Darley, J.A. Dawkins, J.S.L.
Finnigan, B.V. Gago, G.E. Hood, D.G.E.
Hunter, I.K. (teller) Kandelaars, G.A. Lee, J.S.
Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I. Maher, K.J.
Ridgway, D.W. Stephens, T.J. Wade, S.G.
Wortley, R.P. Zollo, C.
NOES (3)
Bressington, A. Franks, T.A. Parnell, M. (teller)

Majority of 14 for the ayes.

Third reading thus carried; bill passed.

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