HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-09-18 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CHARACTER PRESERVATION (MCLAREN VALE) BILL

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 3.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: When we left off there were some questions around the clarification of the status of the powers of the minister to intervene in the planning process as a consequence of the Hon. David Ridgway's amendments. We have sought further advice; and it is a little lengthy, so sit back. This font size is three, rather than two.

When we reported progress I was asked to clarify the precise nature of the operation of the amendments in total being moved by the Hon. David Ridgway. Before I go into that detail, I want to stress to members the fundamental difference between the proposition the government brings to the council and the effect of the amendments that the Hon. David Ridgway has before us for which this is the test clause.

Fundamentally, as the Minister for Planning has said on many occasions, this legislation is about giving parliament the power to have a say in the future of these districts rather than the minister alone. Currently, as members would know, the minister has broad discretion of oversight to development plan amendments in the planning system.

While governed by the provisions of the Development Act and subject to some parliamentary oversight, it is the minister's judgement that counts ultimately. We in the government simply do not think that that is an acceptable way to deal with these two iconic wine-growing regions in the way that the opposition proposes. These government bills will change the way that occurs.

The government bill will remove power from the Minister for Planning and give that power to parliament. That is what the bill intends to do; it intends to remove the power from the Minister for Planning and give that power to parliament. The Hon. David Ridgway's amendments do the reverse: they remove the power from the minister and give it to local councils. They do not empower parliament: they disempower the elected government of this state. I said before the dinner break that this would result in these areas being treated in an unprecedented fashion. They would be unique within the state planning system and unique within the nation in preventing the elected government of the day from appropriate involvement in rezoning decisions.

We are seeking to broaden the number of elected members who will have responsibility for protecting the character of these two particular districts. The Hon. David Ridgway's amendments, by contrast, seek to narrow it to elected bodies with fewer members—and, in fact, fewer voters. As the Productivity Commission rightly points out, planning must be a shared endeavour. This has to mean that our planning system—which, as I mentioned before the break, is regarded as a leading model across the country for its integrated approach to development—must be based on an appropriate balance, a balance of community, council and government interests.

It also has to be based on a long-term vision. The problem for both these districts, which I also mentioned before the dinner break, is that incrementally, over time, governments of both political persuasions and successive councils failed to stick consistently to a long-term plan for these areas, a plan that would ensure that their productive capacity and unique character are maintained. The government's legislation, and the amendments we bring to the chamber, will ensure that there is a legislative framework that ensures decision-makers in the planning system—councils, governments, parliament and the community—cannot repeat the errors of the past decades and allow the unique character of these districts to be casually or indifferently or, for whatever reason, eroded.

Let us be frank: we are at the tipping point where that could happen if we do not establish firm rules. Long-term population growth for the state means that we need to find ways to house people in the future. If these bills are not supported it will be too easy for future governments and councils to accommodate growth by continuing urban sprawl, a result which will, slice by slice, consign the character of these areas to history.

The amendments put by the Hon. David Ridgway will not achieve the outcome he seeks, and they will come with a number of unintended consequences that could contribute to the erosion of the character of these regions. If a council in one of these districts does not agree with the minister of the day, it will be able to thumb its nose at the will of the elected government, no matter how significant the state's interests might be. Under these amendments the minister would not be able to intervene through rezoning to protect the heritage and character of these districts. The minister will really be at the council's beck and call, and could be required to beg the council to consider their views.

What if the Natural Resources Management Board requests the government to make planning policy changes? The minister will have to go to the council. What if the government needs to reserve an infrastructure corridor for a road, railway, pipeline or other network infrastructure? The government will be at the beck and call of that council. They will have to go to the council and beg the council for consideration. What if the government wants to update zoning in the area to be consistent with zoning elsewhere in the state, making it easier for landowners to seek development approval for activities consistent with rural use of that particular district? The government is going to have to go to the council and be at their beck and call.

The Hon. David Ridgway's amendments will result in a Mexican stand-off. This is the antithesis of integrated land use planning. These are all the things that we have been working to try to pull together, and this amendment before us is the antithesis of that. It is the antithesis of the recommendations of the Productivity Commission. It is a recipe for conflict rather than cooperation, and I must add that it is not what the community wants. They want legislation which will provide the right guidance to all players in the planning system, not legislation that removes the government from a role altogether.

To give an example of legislation similar to these bills, I draw to the chamber's attention the WA example of the Swan Valley Planning Act, which sets up a similar protection for another well-known winegrowing district. Unlike the Hon. David Ridgway's amendments, this legislation still maintains a role for the elected state government minister, but it also sets out a statutory framework to guide the minister and the local councils in the discharge of their functions. Certainly I understand that the Hon. David Ridgway has looked into the Western Australian planning system. I think this example, which maintains an appropriate role for ministerial involvement, while also maintaining a crucial role for local government, is one to be mindful of.

On the technical issue, I beg the council's indulgence to briefly state the government's understanding of the effect of the Hon. David Ridgway's amendments, having had the chance during the dinner break to clarify the matter with parliamentary counsel. These amendments will prevent the minister from rezoning any part of each district without the agreement of the council. They will prevent the minister from protecting the state infrastructure and state significant environmental assets.

Technically, yes, the minister retains the right under the Development Act as a gatekeeper for council DPAs, but that is all. To the degree that my remarks prior to the dinner break suggest that this was not the case, I seek to make that clear at this point. However, as I have already said, this amendment is a recipe for a Mexican stand-off. It is a recipe for ongoing, continual conflict with those councils involved. It will fundamentally reverse the situation for the minister of the day and remove their decision-making for those districts. It will be quite an extraordinary planning system. Indeed, I am advised that it will be the only one of its sort in the nation.

As the Minister for Planning has already made absolutely clear, this is about expanding the group of people with responsibility for protecting the character of these two areas, not about narrowing it down to a small base without appropriate oversight and guidance. Ultimately it is up to this chamber to determine this amendment and the remaining amendments put forward by the Hon. David Ridgway. It is time for this parliament to hear what the community and winemakers in these districts have to say, and it is time to put in place the appropriate legislative framework that will ensure co-operation to achieve this outcome, not conflict.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I might just add by way of comment that I did go to some of the public meetings, unlike the minister opposite. I know she is not the minister responsible, but I did hear the concerns of the community. While there are some winemakers and others who have some support—

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I sat in silence while you talked. I listened to a whole range of views. In fact, the Liberal Party had a party seminar in McLaren Vale only the week before last. There is a whole range of views, so it is not only about the people you have spoken to. I have some questions. The McLaren Vale and Barossa Valley regions, are they not covered by the 30-year plan? Already there are plans for growth in those areas under the 30-year plan.

I am interested in the minister's statement that, under my amendments (the opposition's amendments), the government would never be able to come in and reserve an important corridor for transport or infrastructure. So does that mean that under the government's amendment the minister can just come in and put a road or infrastructure corridor through the Barossa Valley and McLaren Vale without any consultation?

I am very confused. I spoke to parliamentary counsel before the dinner break and sought some advice. Our intended amendments were to make sure that the status quo remains. We put a boundary around the regions, we protected towns, but the rural areas remain the same as they are today. I am a bit confused as to where the minister is getting her advice.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Just while part of the question is being checked, in relation to the 30-year plan: yes, it is covered by the 30-year plan. Everyone knows that. In relation to the second question about the ability to provide an infrastructure corridor, the opposition's amendment means that the government will be required to buy land rather than rezone it in order to reserve land for, say, an infrastructure corridor. A good example is, for instance, the northern corridor. The government does not own that land: we have simply put a rezoning caveat over the top of it. This amendment would mean that the government would then be required to actually buy the land rather than have powers just to rezone for infrastructure purposes.

On the third part of the question, I have been advised—and this is based on parliamentary counsel advice—that the Hon. David Ridgway is right. The status quo does apply for DPAs that apply to council, so the normal processes for a DPA will apply to council—status quo—however, those normal processes or the status quo will not apply to the minister. That is where the change is and that is the absolute threshold. They will not apply to the minister.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The point I have been trying to make for about two hours is that that is the difference. We want to take the minister out of the equation. It was the minister who rezoned Mount Barker, it was the minister who did Buckland Park, it was the minister who intervened down at Seaford. We have said we do not want the minister involved.

There are two questions I would like to pose to this minister. She spoke about corridors and said she would have to buy the land. My understanding is that, if somebody owns land privately and the government wants it for a corridor, they are actually required to compulsorily acquire it and pay a fair and reasonable price for it, so I cannot see what the difference is in that particular circumstance. In relation to the comment the minister made about the Swan Valley protection zone, she spoke about the minister having powers and local council having powers, but does the parliament have powers in the Swan Valley zone?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that, indeed, governments can compulsorily acquire land, but we only do that as a last resort. The provisions to be able to rezone are a much less intrusive and invasive way of dealing with those matters.

In relation to the WA example that the honourable member refers to, it is parliament that sets the boundaries in relation to that and parliament that sets the guidelines that that works within. Again, the threshold is this issue of removing ministerial powers altogether from this framework, which we are saying it seeks to narrow because it leaves out the parliamentary input.

As I said, there are very good reasons why elected governments of the day have oversight of zoning by local councils. Those reasons are things like the provision of infrastructure and services, the protection of significant environmental assets, the maintenance of housing affordability, competitive land supply to support industry and jobs, and other matters that fall within government.

So, unless the government of the day has input, all of those matters are simply left to the complete control of council, and the government of the day has to really go to the councils and hope that they can beg for mercy and have those sorts of matters addressed.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Sorry to keep labouring this point, but we are talking about ministerial oversight. We are not looking to change anything that exists today. The advice I have had from parliamentary counsel is that whatever happens today, the existing provisions, the development plan, ministerial oversight—the minister said we needed ministerial oversight; we have that today because every rezoning and development plan amendment goes to the minister—is exactly what happens now, and that is what we want to continue.

What we have argued is that we do not want the minister to be able to do major developments or ministerial DPAs in the rural zone, which is offering a level of protection. They are the points that we are arguing over. Clearly, the existing provisions that we have today have worked well. We want to put a boundary around the region, around the towns. I have spoken to parliamentary counsel and I think the advice I got earlier was still consistent, and I cannot understand why the minister does not agree.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I think that, for fear of being repetitive, I have made it quite clear that, indeed, the status quo does prevail in terms of processes for DPAs that apply to councils. However, the status quo does not prevail—these amendments change significantly the processes that apply to ministers.

What these amendments do will remove the power for ministers to be able to initiate DPAs; I have already taken pains to outline several times all of the implications and I do not need to do it again. That is the difference; that is the impact this has. I think we have repeated it now several times. I think the issues for members are clear in terms of the impact these amendments have, and I think it is time that we move on.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have one further question. Is the minister saying that if the bill is not amended the minister will be able to implement a ministerial DPA in McLaren Vale or the Barossa? Clearly, she is saying that my amendments remove the minister's rights and she is saying that, if the bill stays as the government proposes, then they will be able to do ministerial DPAs.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Yes, consistent with the legislation.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Mr Chairman, that is the very reason that we have the problem with Mount Barker. Minister Rau said that under his watch it would never happen again, and now the minister has admitted that it can happen with this legislation.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: When this debate started before dinner, it was a debate on [Ridgway-1] 1 to delete the definition of development authorisation. Since then—and certainly no criticism on your part, sir—it has now morphed into a more general debate about the whole of the legislation and the Liberal amendments in particular. So, with the indulgence of the committee, I would like to range a bit broader than just [Ridgway-1] 1.

I think the minister, in the clarification she gave us after the dinner break, did us a great service, and there were some excellent points that she made in relation to the balance that needs to be struck between different players in the planning system. The minister quoted from the Productivity Commission, and I think the phrase they used was 'shared endeavour'.

I am not normally a big fan of the Productivity Commission, or the old industry assistance commission, as it used to be called and how I still fondly remember it, but I think the sentiment is absolutely correct: it is about striking the right balance and how do we share the endeavour of planning our cities, our towns and our countryside in the public interest.

Throughout the contributions that have been made so far, there have been four players who have been identified: the minister, I guess being part of the executive; we have the parliament, and a big part of what this bill is about is the role of parliament; we have the role of local councils; and then we have the role of ordinary people, if you like, often quaintly referred to as 'third parties' in the planning system.

I will probably be the first and the loudest whenever there is a debate about whether that balance has been correctly struck, because the answer is that it has not. I think the balance between those four elements is wrong and it needs to be readjusted. The question that is before us is whether this bill is an appropriate vehicle for readjusting that balance. At one level it is, because it is before us and it is an opportunity that we have to do it. At another level, the issues that are being raised go far deeper than just the issues around the McLaren Vale and Barossa.

For example, when the minister and the Hon. David Ridgway have been talking about the relative power of the minister versus council to change the zoning of an area through a DPA, the minister had examples of where that power has been exercised for good, such as protecting heritage. The Hon. David Ridgway has come up with examples (and I could probably add to them) where it has been used for ill, for example, Mount Barker. The minister does not have a monopoly on good or bad endeavours when it comes to rezoning but one of the questions that we have to deal with is whether the answer is to write the minister out of the process, or is the answer to somehow curtail the minister's currently unfettered discretion, but I might come to that when we get to the specific amendment.

When it comes to the power of parliament, I think the minister was correct in her assessment of the government's bill versus the Liberal amendments. The minister said that their bill was giving power to the parliament. To be absolutely correct it gives some power to parliament; it is not giving all the power. Certainly the power in relation to what I think of as the black texta colour line around these districts becomes a parliamentary responsibility, and also the key prohibition which is land division, subdivision, urban sprawl if you like, is a matter for parliament. Most of the rest of the detail is still going to be left either to councils or the minister but certainly not councils without the minister on side and that is, I guess, the status quo. The buck always stops with the minister on rezonings and changes to planning rules.

The question I imagine that a lot of members are asking is: do we agree with the Hon. David Ridgway that, if you think that Mount Barker was a bad outcome, the answer is to support the Liberal amendments on this bill? I do not think that that logically follows. I think it is one fairly radical solution that would apply in these two districts but it is certainly not going to apply across the rest of the state, and I guess that goes without saying.

With regard to the status quo debate that has been had across the chamber, I think members need to be very aware of the Liberal amendment No. 12 which is the insertion of new clause 6A because I think the minister's assessment is correct. It effectively says that, if these amendments were passed, the minister would not be able to initiate any development plan amendment, any rezoning for example, unless they had the council on board. That regime by this amendment would apply across the whole of the district.

Whilst we can imagine examples where that would be a good protection for the council to have, it also stands in the way of statewide DPAs, some of which are very useful—the ability for the minister to change planning rules across the entire state using one document. Under the Liberal amendment, the whole of the state would be covered by that DPA except for the Barossa and the McLaren Vale unless those two councils agreed. Depending on whether you like the original ministerial DPA or not, that would either be a good outcome or a bad outcome. I will foreshadow at this stage that I have a similar amendment to the Hon. David Ridgway's in relation to curtailing the power of the minister to rezone land unilaterally in this area.

The difference between my amendment and the Hon. David Ridgway's is that I have limited it to the townships rather than limiting it to the whole area. Part of my rationale for trying to rejig this balance between local councils and the state government is that I have a long memory on these things. When we as a parliament, I think back in 2007, agreed to take away from local councils the power for the elected members to make individual planning decisions, we took that power from them. We gave the power to development assessment panels which were comprised of only half or less than half elected members.

There were two rationales for that. First of all, the government said local burghers, the local elected members, are not necessarily very good at making these planning decisions, and the second reason was that this would free up the elected members to do strategic planning. This would free up the elected members to think broadly about their communities and think about rezoning, building heights, setbacks and all these other things.

What has happened is that, rather than the government letting councils have their head, if you like, and do this work, it has continually interfered. In other words, councils have lost the right to make actual development application decisions, and they have not consequently been given additional responsibility in relation to strategic planning. The minister has hung on to that power very jealously and, as a result, we see very bad decisions such as the Mount Barker one.

I come back to where I started. It is a very big step to go as far as the Liberal amendments go and to remove the minister entirely from the zoning question, in terms of initiating zoning. Certainly under the Liberal amendment the council could initiate it. The minister used the word 'gatekeeper' I think, and under Division 2 of part 3 of the Development Act the minister still would have the final veto over anything that the council put forward.

That is what the minister referred to as the Mexican stand-off. The minister is not allowed to introduce a change; the council can, but if the minister does not like it, it does not happen. So effectively it is a recipe for no change. You could say that that is the right outcome for the Barossa and McLaren Vale, but it is not about no change: it is about managing change.

The only other thing that I will say briefly—because the minister did raise this question of the balance between the stakeholders, the executive, the parliament, local council and the people—is that parliament is being given miniscule responsibility in this bill, but the parliamentary oversight of the planning system is an absolute joke, as many members here would know. The parliament, under the Development Act, in theory has the ability to throw out a bad rezoning.

The heading in the Development Act is 'Parliamentary scrutiny' and, technically, the parliament has the power to do it. The fact that the parliament has never done it is partly the result of the fact that we do not get to look at planning schemes. As a parliament we do not get to scrutinise them until after they have been in operation for some months and, in some cases, over a year.

The idea that you can in all conscience put a heading in the Development Act called 'Parliamentary scrutiny' but allow decisions to be made for up to a year or more before the parliament even gets to look at it and pretend that the parliament has a genuine power of disallowance I think is an absolute joke.

Putting all these things together, whilst I will be at the barricade with the Hon. David Ridgway to try to reform our planning laws to get the balance right between the executive, the parliament, the people and local councils, I do not think the honourable member's amendments to this particular bill strike the right balance. I think it is a broader debate we need to have so, to the extent that [Ridgway-1] 1 is a test for all or the bulk of the rest of the Hon. David Ridgway's amendments, the Greens will not be supporting them.

The CHAIR: We have had a lot of debate backwards and forwards on this amendment. Minister.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Yes, I have a new issue. I accept that we have spent a lot of time debating, this but this is actually a new issue that has been brought to my attention. That is yet another consequence of the Hon. David Ridgway's amendments—and I think I need to draw this to the attention of the chamber—in that his amendments will allow subdivision for residential purposes in rural parts of the district such as a prime viticulture area. Our clause 8 prevents that from happening. The Hon. David Ridgway's amendment removes that. Our bill provides for a statutory prohibition to subdivide in rural parts, so for instance in those areas that may be deemed prime agriculture or viticulture areas our bill will prevent subdivision for residential purposes. The Hon. David Ridgway's amendment will allow that rural area to be subdivided. I just thought I would add that as well.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: That is something that Family First would be incredibly concerned about, because we initiated this bill legislatively originally, and the whole intent was to protect the regions from further subdivision, and my understanding of looking at this bill was that that protection was there. Can the minister firstly, before I come back with some further questions, specifically highlight to the committee the difference between the bill as we are debating it now, and the Hon. David Ridgway's amendments and how those amendments then would allow subdivision outside of existing township boundaries within rural designated areas for housing?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Fundamentally, it is clause 8. We have a clause 8 that specifically prevents the subdivision of rural parts of these districts for the purposes of residential development. The Hon. David Ridgway's amendment removes clause 8.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I have a question for the minister and then a question for the mover of the amendment. Regarding what the minister said earlier in the debate with respect to the Hon. David Ridgway's amendment preventing the minister from initiating and proceeding with their own DPA or some initiative within the prescribed areas, can the minister confirm that under the current draft of the bill that we are debating the minister would have that right, which I am comfortable with, but that from a check and balance point of view and process the minister would still have to go back to the council to advise or consult on a DPA that the minister is putting forward?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The bill as it stands will be subject to the normal planning processes. So, for instance, the bill will allow the minister to initiate and they would be subject to the normal consultation requirements per the Development Act. That would still remain in place as usual.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I have a question for the Leader of the Opposition. When we have a look at your amendments, we have the wine industry indicating to us when we checked on this that they supported your amendment. Initially, at least, the Barossa council with respect to the Barossa bill indicated that they supported your amendment, although I have recently been advised that they do not support your amendment. Regarding the McLaren Vale one, the City of Onkaparinga advised us when we sought their response that they 'had no concern'. So, there are discrepancies between The Barossa Council as to whether it does or does not support your amendment. Clearly, the wine industry sector supports your amendment, but the City of Onkaparinga is not really concerned about things as they stand with respect to the government's current bill. So, I would seek some sort of comment on that as I deliberate.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I thank the Hon. Robert Brokenshire. We put a set of amendments up (after we consulted with a range of people and went to some public meetings) to provide a level of protection and to make sure that the ministerial DPA, as we saw with Mount Barker, could not happen again in those areas. That was the area of contention. I am sure the government was aware that that was something the community did not like, the fact that the minister could come in and rezone a big portion of an area, whether it is the McLaren Vale, the Barossa Valley, or anywhere, and we had these two protection bills before us.

We tried to come up with a suite of amendments that gave the community some comfort and some control over their destiny, but that took the minister out of the equation. That is where, I guess, the debate is at the moment: we want to take the minister out of the equation. I am a little confused because I did not think that ministerial DPAs were allowed at all, even under the government's legislation, because that is what minister Rau wanted to remove, yet the minister was saying that ministerial DPAs are still allowed.

We tried to come up with a compromise. As all honourable members would know, you will never come up with a suite of amendments that everybody is happy with. We have tried to strike a minimalist approach. I guess it is consistent with the opposition's approach to a smaller government with less intervention and to let local communities manage their own future.

I will make a comment relating to something the minister said, that subdivision would be allowed in the rural zones under the opposition's amendments. I do not believe that to be the case because the current development plans (in the Barossa, McLaren Vale, Light and Mid Murray councils) prohibit subdivision of land. In fact, The Barossa Council has minimum allotment sizes, and, of course, changes to those development plans have to go to the minister.

At the end of the day, technically, yes, the minister is right. If the council wanted to subdivide rural land, put a development plan amendment in to the minister's office and the minister agreed, then yes, it could happen, but right now it is incorrect to say it can just happen under my amendment. What we are trying to do is, by and large, leave the status quo in place, The Barossa Council, and all the others, have, in our view, managed their affairs quite well. Local communities elect their local representatives and they can manage their affairs. We are trying to remove the minister. The minister is trying to, if you like, play Big Brother in those two zones.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I absolutely need to take up this issue about subdivisions. Honourable members need to be really clear about this because it is a threshold issue. The honourable member talks about making sure that Mount Barker never happens again, and yet he inserts an amendment that in fact allows for the subdivision of rural parts for the purposes of residential development. So, this is a nonsense because it eliminates clause 8.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Let me finish. In terms of development plans, I have already addressed that issue. Development plans make subdivisions (in the case of rural areas to convert them to residential developments) non-compliant. That is not the same as prohibiting them from giving them a legislative backing. We know, in terms of non-compliance, that it is much easier to overturn and change non-complying activities than something that is legislatively prohibited. What the bill does is give much greater power to preventing the Mount Barker situation from ever happening again.

The amendment the Hon. David Ridgway puts forward allows the very same thing to happen again. He probably does not intend it to have these consequences but the bottom line is non-complying activity versus legislative prohibition—completely two different powers—and we are saying we want to make sure that that Mount Barker situation does not happen again so that you cannot go in and zone that prime rural area and put up a housing development. This bill before us allows that to happen. The Hon. David Ridgway's amendment waters that down significantly.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Mr Chairman—

The CHAIR: I have to put this amendment very soon because you could not sell heaters to Eskimos.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Mr Chairman, you are about to retire and go from this place. This is an important issue—

The CHAIR: Yes, and surely you would—

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: —we have to deal with for the next 100 years.

The CHAIR: Surely you would have explained to members by now. Perhaps you are insulting the other members. They might understand. I have allowed a long, drawn out debate on this, so quickly.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: As I have said, the advice that we took from parliamentary counsel was not to change any existing provisions. I reject that the minister says that under our amendments we will see the Mount Barker type of rezoning. That simply cannot happen and that is inaccurate. The current council development plans prohibit a land division in the rural areas. We have minimum allotment sizes in most of the Barossa and I would advise the rest of the Barossa to do that. So, I am confused about the advice we have been getting from parliamentary counsel. I am considering reporting progress and seeking—

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I am happy to test it.

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Mr Chairman, I have the floor.

The CHAIR: Yes, order!

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: What I am considering doing is on clause 8, if that is an issue, I do not believe it is true. The minister is saying it is. I would need to seek further advice from parliamentary counsel. If we vote on this as a test clause and we lose, then none of the opposition amendments will get up. I am happy to progress it but when we get to that clause, I would like some further advice. We have come in here with the intention of not disturbing any of the current provisions that apply. We do not see broadscale subdivision happening in the Barossa or the McLaren Vale areas because it is simply not allowed by the development plan, yet the minister is saying it can happen. I do not believe that to be the case.

The CHAIR: We know that.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I advise that, based on the good debate and information from the minister, Family First will not be supporting the opposition's amendment. My understanding is that because this is a specific bill for the Barossa Valley and McLaren Vale with respect to the preservation, it will have precedent over other planning matters regarding the current situation with subdivision in those areas and that your amendment does actually knock out the limitations on land division in the district and would actually then work against what many of us had fought for over a long time and that is stopping further subdivision outside of the boundary. Whether or not it is a drafting error, it is clear to us now that we could not support the opposition's amendment and would have to vote with the government.

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (6)
Dawkins, J.S.L. Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A.
Ridgway, D.W. (teller) Stephens, T.J. Wade, S.G.
NOES (13)
Bressington, A. Brokenshire, R.L. Darley, J.A.
Finnigan, B.V. Franks, T.A. Gago, G.E. (teller)
Gazzola, J.M. Hood, D.G.E. Kandelaars, G.A.
Parnell, M. Vincent, K.L. Wortley, R.P.
Zollo, C.
PAIRS (2)
Lucas, R.I. Hunter, I.K.

Majority of 7 for the noes.

Amendment thus negatived.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Mr Chairman, I know when I do not have the numbers. My remaining amendments are consequential, so I will not be proceeding with them.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Page 2, lines 10 and 11 [clause 3(1), definition of district]—Delete:

'the prescribed day) but does not include the areas marked as townships on the deposited plan' and substitute:

26 June 2012)

This verifies the definition of 'district' to clarify the distinction between the district as a whole and the townships and rural areas contained within the district. It also amends the date for the reference to the map of the McLaren Vale district to 26 June by deleting the definition of 'prescribed day' and inserting the date into the definition of 'district'.

Both of these amendments are consistent with the Barossa Valley bill. There have been no changes to the GRO map lodged in relation to McLaren Vale and there have been some for the Barossa Valley bill. For consistency, the relevant date is the same under this bill.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Given that we are just talking about maps, I want an undertaking from the minister that, if the government has drawn the maps incorrectly and any landowner is disadvantaged because of the incorrect maps, the government will address any losses incurred by those landowners.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I think we have led by example. For instance, we took up the issues the Hon. David Ridgway raised about the boundaries in relation to Henschke and the like. Again, if there are property owners who have issues in relation to their properties, obviously we will be sensitive to those and will be prepared to take up those as well and accommodate as best we can.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The question is—and I am concerned with this—that this is likely to pass the parliament. The boundaries will be set in legislation and can only be changed if they pass both houses of parliament. Their could be significant times delays for that to happen. In fact, they may not happen within a time frame. If somebody is disadvantaged because of an error in drafting, as we have seen with a number of boundaries (Henschke's is one and I know that the Hon. Robert Brokenshire had some minor amendments to McLaren Vale), will the government take responsibility and guarantee this place that the boundaries are 100 per cent accurate, and if anybody is disadvantaged they will then make sure that they are not financially disadvantaged.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I can assure honourable members that we have verified all the boundaries and I have answered the question to the best of my ability, that is, if there are any other matters brought before us we will look at those and seek to accommodate any concerns as best we can.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I have a question in relation to the maps. It is a fairly straight-forward question and relates I think to the incorporation of maps into legislation generally. I have a copy of the map because it was given to me. The map does not appear on the SA Legislation website. If you were to look for a copy of the bill or a copy of the act, you would not get a copy of the map. I have no idea how a member of the public would go about getting a copy of the map—whether you have to pay a fee or whether you have to front up at a counter somewhere. Given that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it, how will the general public get access to the map?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that they will be downloadable from the Planning SA website free of charge.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I appreciate that answer from the minister. Can the minister say whether that is the approach that is always taken with maps incorporated into legislation? I am fairly familiar with the Planning SA website, and I do not think I would know where to start looking for it. Certainly maps that are part of the DPA will certainly be on the planning department's website, so if those maps are identical to the ones in this legislation that could be cross-referenced. Can the minister elaborate further about exactly how people can get maps that are referred to in legislation?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the maps are too detailed to be able to attach, for instance, as a schedule in the legislation, so that is why it is not done that way. However, they are available and I have been advised that it will be in a very user-friendly way to be able to download off the Planning SA website; and I am also advised that copies are available through the general registry office as well, and that is fairly usual practice.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I appreciate the minister's answers: they get better all the time. When drafting legislation, given that most people who would access this act are going to go to the SA legislation website and download it and the act itself is not going to tell them that information, is there any problem with putting a note in this bill referring people who want to know how to get a copy of the map that is referred to in the definition of 'district' in clause 3 of the bill to a website, or at least giving some guidance as to how it could be found? I appreciate that the minister is saying the government has every intention of making this information available, but most people will get to it via the bill, and the bill has no reference to how you go about getting the map.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that parliamentary counsel has said they can put a note in the legislation—they will consider doing that—and we are very happy to explore that as an option. Obviously, we do not want it inserted into legislation in a way that means every time we change a website or web address we have to open up legislation. That would not be prudent. I understand counsel has said there is a way to put in a notation without doing that and we will explore that, and we are happy to accommodate that if possible; so, thank you for that suggestion.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: My question relates to something that has been brought to my attention in relation to the government's amendment. Barossa Council supported one of our amendments not to have included the areas marked as townships as being in the district. I want to know why the government wants to include the townships as part of the district.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that we have included townships to make it clear that the planning strategy volume, which will be developed after this legislation, can apply to districts as a whole, because we want to be able to—

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order, minister! Voices to my right, I cannot hear the minister.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that it is too difficult to differentiate the character of a township from the characteristic of a district as a whole.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I have a question for the minister regarding the GRO amendment. The Barossa Council indicated, minister, that it would prefer to have the date as at 26 June, and you have it set at 6 June as the relevant planned date. Is there any reason the government would not support the 26th?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The honourable member is right: this does amend it to the 26th.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Yes, thank you; it is covered in there.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Page 2, lines 13 and 14 [clause 3(1), definition of 'prescribed day']—Delete the definition of prescribed day

This amendment is consequential on my last amendment.

Amendment carried.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): The Hon. Mr Ridgway, you are not moving your amendments?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: No, Mr Chairman, I will not be proceeding with my amendments. The first amendment was a test clause, as disappointing as the lack of support was.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Page 3, line 2 [clause 3(1), definition of 'relevant authority']—Delete 'or a provision of this Act'

This amendment is linked to the proposed amendment to clause 8 set out in government amendment No. 11. That amendment will restore the Onkaparinga council's development assessment panel as the relevant authority for the purposes of assessing land division applications under the Development Act 1993. However, it will make approval of a land division creating a new allotment subject to the concurrence of the Development Assessment Commission.

The bill as it stands provides for the Development Assessment Commission to be the relevant authority for the purposes of assessing land division applications, removing this role from the local councils. This amendment restores these rights to the councils, subject to the concurrence by the DAC.

These amendments are being proposed consistently with the Barossa Valley bill, following discussions with the Barossa, Light, Adelaide Hills and Onkaparinga councils, and reflect similar land division arrangements in the Hills Face Zone.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Page 3, after line 4 [clause 3(1)]—After the definition of relevant authority insert:

relevant council means a council whose area includes part of the district;

I believe this amendment is consequential on my last amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Page 3, lines 5 to 8 [clause 3(1), definition of 'residential development']—Delete the definition and substitute:

residential development means development primarily for residential purposes but does not include—

(a) the use of land for the purposes of a hotel or motel or to provide any other form of temporary residential accommodation for valuable consideration; or

(b) a dwelling for residential purposes on land used primarily for primary production purposes;

rural area means the area of the district not including townships;

This amendment varies the definition of 'residential development' and introduces a new definition of 'rural area'. The new definition of 'rural area' is consequential upon the change to the definition of 'district' set out in government amendment No. 1. It assists to clarify the distinction between the district as a whole and the townships and rural areas of the district. The definition of 'residential development' is in this amendment proposed to be varied to clarify that the prohibition on land division for residential purposes contained in clause 8 does not apply to dwellings ancillary to a primary production purpose.

For this purpose it also clarifies that residential development is to be regarded as residential development where the development is primarily for residential purposes rather than wholly or partly residential purposes as outlined in clause 8. A consequential amendment to clause 8 is set out in the government amendment No. 12.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: How does this amendment affect bed and breakfast developments?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The advice is that it will allow B&Bs to occur in rural areas. We believe that, in the past, B&Bs have been allowed to occur in rural areas, but my understanding is that there has been some ambiguity around that, and this provision now provides a certainty and clarification.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: What abut temporary workers' accommodation? I am aware of developments in the Mount Lofty Ranges, in the Adelaide Hills, in vineyards where B&Bs—any sort of accommodation—were not allowed but workers' accommodation was allowed; so, will that still be allowed?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that this provision will also allow for temporary workers' accommodation in rural areas.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: As a point of clarification just regarding this amendment, in the meetings that occurred, and certainly in general discussion in the public meeting that I attended, there was always the argument that hotel/motel/convention-type accommodation by and large still be encouraged within these zones. With respect to (a), I understand that the Barossa Wine Association opposed that particular part. Does the minister have any concerns about any of this being detrimental to any sort of opportunities for tourism accommodation and convention-type infrastructure?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: No. The short answer is no. In fact, we believe that it provides much more clarity for those businesses. It allows for those types of accommodation developments in rural areas; so it should, in fact, enhance tourism and enhance clarity and therefore confidence in investment in those developments.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Maybe I do not understand it properly, but 'residential development' means:

...development...primarily for residential purposes but does not include the use of land for the purposes of a hotel or motel or to provide any other form of temporary residential accommodation for valuable consideration;

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the whole definition has only one function, which is linked to clause 8. What we are considering at the moment is only linked to clause 8, and clause 8 is the prohibition of residential subdivision in rural areas. What we did not want was to capture inadvertently things like temporary workers' accommodation and other B&Bs and suchlike and prohibit those as well. So it only pertains to the prohibitions around clause 8.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Page 3, line 11 [clause 3(1), definition of 'township']—Delete 'the prescribed day' and substitute:

26 June 2012

This amendment is consequential.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Page 3, line 13 [clause 3(2)]—After 'characteristics of the district' insert:

and locations within the district

This amendment is also consequential.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 4 passed.

New clause 4A.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 3, after line 19—After clause 4 insert:

4A—Administration of Act

This Act is to be administered by the Minister responsible for the administration of the Development Act 1993.

The purpose of this amendment is to remove the possibility for an additional minister for character preservation. One could argue that the amendment is innocently drafted as a matter of legislative drafting to address that ministers, as corporations sole, wear different hats. The minister may well be the same minister, but be tasked with considering separate concerns; in this instance, the Development Act on one hand and character preservation on the other.

However, this drafting does advert to the issue that the minister responsible for character preservation could—in theory, if not in the government's actual plans—be a minister other than a planning minister. In Family First's view, the planning minister should be the minister seen to have responsibility for this legislation because we believe that it would be untenable, for instance, for a local member to be the minister for the character preservation legislation relating to their electorate. This would give rise to far greater potential for conflicts of interest or for one political party to push its agenda against another for electoral purposes in a character preservation area.

In summary we do not see, even if, for all intents and purposes, the minister would be the same minister as the planning minister, that there is the potential for there to be a separate minister, as we have been briefed, have read and understand this. We want to take that out. We have supported the government in ensuring that the minister has management and oversight, but that was with the intent of it being the planning minister, not another minister being delegated the ministerial responsibility in cabinet.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government supports this amendment. The amendment seeks to make the planning minister the responsible minister for administration of each character preservation law. When first drafted it was intended that these bills would be capable of being administered by another minister. This reflects existing linkages in the Development Act to legislation like the River Murray Act. The intent has changed somewhat as a result of the revised bill, and therefore we are happy to support this amendment.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The opposition supports this amendment as well.

New clause inserted.

Clause 5 passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Page 3, line 35 [clause 6(1)(a)]—After 'rural' insert 'and natural'

This amendment varies the character values of the district to ensure that they include reference to both the rural and natural landscapes of the district. This amendment is being proposed at the request of the Onkaparinga council with the support of the Adelaide Hills, Barossa and Light councils.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The opposition will be supporting this amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Page 4, line 5 [clause 6(2)(b)]—Delete 'or a township under this Act'

This amendment is consequential.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

New clause 6A.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I move:

Page 4, after line 5—Insert:

6A—Development Plans relating to townships to be prepared or amended by councils

Despite Part 3 Division 2 of the Development Act 1993 (including section 24(1)(fbb) of that Act), a Development Plan, or an amendment to a Development Plan, that—

(a) applies to any part of a township; and

(b) does not apply outside the area of the council where the township is located, may only be prepared under that Division by—

(c) the council for the area where the township is located; or

(d) the Minister (within the meaning of that Division) acting with the consent of the council for the area where the township is located.

As members would be aware—because I circulated a very brief note to this effect—this amendment addresses the same issue as the Hon. David Ridgway's amendment, which he is not moving on the basis that it was agitated earlier. I will just explain briefly the difference between my amendment and the one the Hon. David Ridgway—

The CHAIR: You have explained earlier.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I am sure the honourable Chair remembers the difference clearly, but I will summarise it in a very few words. What this amendment proposes is that, for decisions about land use planning inside townships, that should overwhelmingly be the responsibility of the local council. It is not as broad as the Hon. David Ridgway's amendment, which was covering the whole of the district. My amendment is worded in such a way that, if the minister were to do a statewide DPA, the minister could still do that. However, what this amendment says is that, if the only purposes of the DPA is to affect land within that township, then that is not an appropriate use of ministerial power and that should really be the responsibility of the local council.

Of course, that does give rise to exactly the same Mexican stand-off we talked about earlier, where the minister might knock back council's plan to rezone yet the minister him or herself is not allowed to rezone. I accept that the same issue arises. The difference is that this is far narrower in its scope. The minister, in her contribution straight after the dinner break, talked about it being a unique situation where the minister was written out of the ability to do DPAs over a particular area.

I accept that this would probably be the only place in South Australia—with the Hon. David Ridgway's amendment these two districts would have been the only places in South Australia. Under this amendment it is just the townships which are regarded as a special case, and the minister under this amendment is to butt out, as it were, and leave the planning in those townships to the council, unless there is an amendment that is going to apply across the whole state or across multiple councils, in which case the minister does have a legitimate role.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government rises to oppose this amendment for pretty much the same reasons as those I have already outlined. This amendment does apply it in a more limited way, but our concerns are pretty much the same, so I will be very brief.

As I said, the amendment is similar—although limited to townships—to that moved by the Hon. David Ridgway. The amendment provides that the DPA can only be initiated by the council or by the minister with the consent of the council. Final approval of the DPA would, however, still rest with the minister. It is impractical to legislate for a system that could result in a council commencing a DPA that, depending on the policy goal, may have no prospect of being approved by the minister.

Ministerial approval of the DPA is predicated on the fact that the minister of the day supports the intent of the DPA and that it aligns with the overall state strategic planning objectives. Without the initial agreement of the minister, it is inappropriate to allow a council to commence a DPA, given the costs and the resources involved and the fact that it may unduly raise community expectations that have no prospect of being approved by the minister. It is for those reasons, and for the other reasons I have already outlined, that we oppose the amendment.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I have a very brief observation that what the minister is effectively saying is that councils should know their place and that it is not appropriate to raise the expectations of local people that their council might actually hold the day when it comes to rezoning. I accept that the minister is not supporting this, just as she did not support the Hon. David Ridgway's amendment. If this amendment is not successful today, then my offer to all members is that I am happy to sit down and work with you to try to come up with a regime that does redress the balance between the councils and the minister across the whole of the state, not just limited to these narrow areas.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate that, in the interest of trying to get something that I was crying for, the opposition will be supporting the Greens' amendment, although I think a better approach would have been to support me in the first place and then amend our position back to this. Nonetheless, I indicate we will be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I just have a question to the mover, the Hon. Mark Parnell. I think I understand where he is coming from and I am certainly prepared on behalf of Family First to put on the record that we would look at engaging with the Hon. Mark Parnell and the Hon. David Ridgway to address the general concerns with planning that the Hon. Mark Parnell recently articulated in this debate—as soon as possible, I might add, but perhaps in another format.

Has the honourable member consulted with the relevant industry sector groups and the council on this amendment? The unintended consequence of the Hon. David Ridgway's amendment which concerned us was inadvertently opening up subdivision in the rural areas and the extension of township boundaries and so on.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: In relation to discussion with stakeholders, certainly the word that I have from The Barossa Council and also from stakeholders down south is that they do not believe that the balance is correctly struck. In fact, I moved this particular amendment at the request of and following a discussion with The Barossa Council.

In terms of unintended consequences, the big difference between this amendment and the one that the Hon. Rob Brokenshire refers to is that part of the Hon. David Ridgway's suite of amendments was the removal of that clause 8—the limitation on land divisions in the district. My amendment has nothing to do with removing clause 8. Clause 8 stays in there.

All this amendment says is that, when it comes to initiating a rezoning in a township that only applies to that township, it can only be prepared by the council or it can be prepared by the minister with the consent of the council. Effectively it puts the council back in the driving seat when it comes to changes to zoning inside the township boundaries. It does not affect the rural areas, it does not affect outside the township boundaries and it does not do anything to open up urban sprawl.

In fact, if the council was to put forward inappropriate plans, then the minister has the veto. The minister can always knock it off. It does actually elevate the status of council and it does require the minister and the council to work more closely together if there are to be changes to zoning. I use the word 'zoning' loosely. We are also talking about building heights, setbacks and a whole range of other planning considerations.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Does the minister concur with the detail of the Hon. Mark Parnell's response to that?

The CHAIR: Do you concur with it?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: But they have had a chance to listen now.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Yes, we are satisfied that it does not capture clause 8 and therefore does not go to that issue of subdivision, which we are pleased about. However, we have those other concerns that I have outlined.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Brokenshire, do you intend to support it or not? Do you want to indicate to the Chair what you are doing?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Yes, sir, we will support the amendment.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I will be supporting the amendment as well.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Supporting.

New clause inserted.

Clause 7.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes this clause. This is linked to government amendment No. 23 which seeks to amend section 46 of the Development Act 1993, to impose a limitation on the declaration of major projects in the rural area of a character preservation district. This amendment removes the correlative limitation from the bill.

The combined effect of these amendments is to transfer the prohibition of major projects within the districts to the Development Act. This will make for better administration of the development assessment process but is otherwise policy neutral in its effect. This amendment is being proposed consistently with the Barossa Valley bill, following the discussions with the Barossa, Light, Adelaide Hills and Onkaparinga councils.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I seek clarification, Mr Chairman. So, major developments will still now apply in both the McLaren Vale and Barossa districts, and the government of the day will be able to implement one in either the township of the rural zone?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Not in the rural zones, but in the townships; we will still have powers to do that.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I understand the minister's explanation. They have taken the same principle out of clause 7 and they have put it elsewhere in the bill—they have put it in the schedule—and they have limited the application of the major projects provision to the township areas, in effect. In other words, you cannot declare a major project over a rural area. I was racking my brain as to what major projects had been declared in the rural areas of either the Barossa or McLaren Vale. The only one I could think of was a bottling plant, I think, in—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Well, that is my question: was that bottling plant that was declared a major project in the Barossa area? I know we are doing the McLaren Vale bill, but I think we are cross-referencing.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: You can't have wine without the bottles.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The advice I have received is that we cannot recollect any, but this adds absolute certainty that you are not able to. It is possible that there could be some bottling plant, or something that wants to operate, and major project status could be put in place. This prohibits that.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: But not the rural zone.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have already clarified that: it only pertains to restricting major projects in rural districts.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I thank the minister for her answer. I think that I will be supporting the government on this, but I just make the point that, of all the inadequacies in the planning system that we can think about, one of the main ones is that the only way to get an EIS on a big project that is deserving of an environmental impact statement is for it to be a major project.

So, the dilemma is that, if someone wanted to come along in one of these rural areas with a major project that was directly relevant to the wine industry, or the fruit industry, or whatever, the minister would not be able to declare it a major project and thereby insist on an EIS. By the same token, the major project is a double-edged sword, because it also enables the minister to completely override the zoning and all the planning rules and effectively do his or her own thing, so it is a two-edged sword.

I just make the point that one of the amendments that I think this chamber in the future should be looking at is a trigger for an environmental impact statement that is other than declaration of a major project. Otherwise, we could find a project which we all support, which creates jobs and creates wealth and which is directly relevant to the Barossa and McLaren Vale and yet, because of this glitch, an EIS cannot be declared. I would just like to make that observation.

Clause negatived.

Clause 8.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Page 4, lines 10 to 14 [clause 8(1) and (2)]—Delete subclauses (1) and (2) and substitute:

(1) This section applies to a proposed development in the rural area that involves a division of land under the Development Act 1993 that would create one or more additional allotments.

(2) A relevant authority (other than the Development Assessment Commission) must not grant development authorisation to a development to which this section applies unless the Development Assessment Commission concurs in the granting of the authorisation.

(2a) No appeal under the Development Act 1993 lies against a refusal by a relevant authority to grant development authorisation to a development to which this section applies or a refusal by the Development Assessment Commission to concur in the granting of such an authorisation.

This amendment is consequential to amendment No. 3.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I put up an amendment prior to the government moving this amendment and I would like to put the reasons for that on the public record so that it is there for the history. That was after writing to the minister because I was concerned, and I am still concerned, and I foreshadow discussion on a further amendment regarding the noncomplying factors of the DPA. Having investigated that, and the fact that there is a big difference between land subdivision per se and realignment of a boundary, in the interests of viable agriculture we need to be able to realign boundaries of existing titles without creating additional titles.

I have never known a situation where we have not had that opportunity within general planning before and, clearly, the government has now corrected their position to be supporting this so I thank the planning minister for seeing the wisdom of it. I want to put on the public record that we should always be able to realign boundaries to allow one farmer to get larger and another one to reduce holding or to set up for retirement. You are not creating any additional housing or anything like that. So, with those words we support the government's amendment. I move my amendments to the minister's amendment as follows:

Page 4—

Lines 10 to 14—After proposed new subclause (2a) insert:

(2aa) If the Development Assessment Commission is the relevant authority, the Development Assessment Commission must not grant development authorisation to a development to which this section applies unless the council for the area where the proposed development is situated concurs in the granting of the authorisation.

Lines 10 to 14—Proposed new subclause (2a):

After 'Development Assessment Commission' insert 'or a council'

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: We support the amendments.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire's amendments to the amendment carried; the Hon. G.E. Gago's amendment as amended carried.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Page 4, line 16 [clause 8(3)]—Delete ', wholly or partly,'

I believe this amendment is consequential.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

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