HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2016-03-23 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill

Recommittal

In committee (resumed on motion).

New clause 7.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have a couple more questions in relation to amendment No. 6, which is the sort of parliamentary scrutiny part of the plan. I just noticed towards the end of that clause, subclause (18) states:

In this section—

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.

I want to know why a hotel or a motel is not considered to be part of the residential development.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The intent of this part of the scheme is to limit residential development in these areas, but to allow things to occur. Things like a hotel or motel are consistent with the previous character preservation laws both houses have passed for other areas in South Australia, so it would allow for things like a hotel or motel, but for those it would still need council and commission permission to do so.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: So a hotel or a motel or, I assume, a convention centre or tourism facility can be built anywhere provided the commission and the council agree. Is that what the minister is saying?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that something like an ecotourism venture or a convention centre with residential elements would not necessarily be precluded, but it would require all of the usual requirements both from council and the commission.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I recall a conversation I had with minister Rau. If you had an industry—I cannot think of one off the top of my head—that wanted to build a factory somewhere in this particular area under this legislation, how would the construction of a factory—

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Like a wine-bottling plant?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: It could be a wine-bottling plant, it could be meat processing or it could be a warehouse facility for produce. I just wonder how this legislation interacts with that given that we are trying to create employment and grow the economy.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that it would not be precluded. It would need the relevant approvals from council and the commission. I think subclause (18), which is being discussed at the moment, makes it clear that residential development means development primarily for residential purposes, but does not include hotels or motels. Something like a warehouse, an abattoir or a wine-bottling facility would not be residential development, as proposed in this scheme, so it could be possible but would require the relevant approvals from the council and from the commission.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: So, what you are saying, minister, is it would not require a change of the environment and food protection area boundary. It could happen in the area, but will not require a change.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, my advice is, if it was appropriately zoned within that area, then yes, that could go ahead.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Subparagraph (b) provides:

a dwelling for residential purposes on land used primarily for primary production purposes.

Is the minister meaning there that it is a farmhouse on a farm? I notice later on in the amendments a new schedule 7—Rural living areas. Maybe the minister could refresh me by being refreshed by his adviser as to what the definition is of land used primarily for primary production. Of course, you can put a one-hectare greenhouse on your two-hectare property, have a house and be absolutely a primary producer producing tomatoes, capsicums or something.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Gladiolus.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Or gladioli. No, you need a bit more than two hectares to make a living out of that; nonetheless, there are things you could do. I just want to know what the actual definition is. Rural living is later in the debate, but I want to know whether this paragraph (b) is just purely about a farmhouse, and are there any size limits or allotment limits in relation to that point?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is there are no size or allotment limits, but what this proposed amendment contemplates is, exactly as the honourable member is pointing out, a farmhouse on a farm.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: So, if it does not contemplate any size limits, could it be possible, where a landowner might have multiple titles, for them to actually shift those titles and have, let's say, half a dozen sites where you could put a greenhouse on four or five hectares, and then have them on a property so that you could sell them, go into some greenhouse development but still have the remainder of the property, and effectively then be able to build your four or five houses and be there because they are primarily for primary production because the intention is to grow tomatoes?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will look to the advisers to nod or shake their heads as usual as I am going through the answer. My advice is that historically plans have allowed for dwellings on farms and have specified sizes. The act does not give a definition of a size; however, the code, as it is developed, may do that and may specify a size, which would answer your question about what size, essentially, a farm has to be and dwellings per hectare or however the code might work it out. Certainly, the legislation does not define that but, as has been in the past, it is contemplated that the code could do that.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: With the discussion we had around McLaren Vale and Barossa, there were minimum allotment sizes in those council areas. I am wondering how it is envisaged that the new code would interact with current council development policies around allotment sizes. Are they going to be at odds with each other? Is one going to override the other? Are there going to be special provisions where case by case it will be managed differently?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that as the codes develop there will be consultation and what are currently in the plans will form the basis of what goes into the code. In due course, as the code is developed, what is in the plans will become part of the code. There will not be a plan and a code that could be at odds with each other; what is in the plans will help inform what is in the code.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I am just trying to explore the concept of a landowner who has multiple allotments or titles and their ability to change those boundaries so that they can, if you like, create some allotments, sell them maybe for rural living or maybe for primary production. Will that be able to occur anywhere in this particular Greater Adelaide region and in what circumstances could it occur?

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Yes, let's say you have 1,000 acres with 10 titles and 100 acres: can you realign it to one of 900 acres or, let's say, nine of 11 acres each

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Not the changes of title but realign the—

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Realign the boundaries, yes, and how that would take place.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The capacity would remain to realign the boundaries. If you have 10 titles you can realign those boundaries within those 10 titles. The size and ability and whether you can put a dwelling on them will depend upon the code that is there, so the ability will remain to realign boundaries within the number of titles you have over that given area.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The size will be determined by the code—how many hectares. Let's say you are going to put a one-hectare greenhouse on it, at what point will a decision be made on what is primary production, and what is residential and it cannot be used for primary production? We have examples all over the state where there were small farms, hobby farms, market garden areas where they are not viable now and they are, if you like, in no-man's-land. You have houses on 10 acres, they cannot subdivide them any further, there is no economic productivity with them, but they are too big to look after but not big enough to do anything with. I am interested in exploring that a little further.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that in the example that we are talking about, although you can realign your boundaries if you have a number of titles—and we have established that—you cannot create additional titles. The phrase that was used was 'no-man's-land', where it is too small for an efficient and effective primary production at 10 or 20 acres (too small to sell for primary production), but it is not big enough to be an efficient farm.

Although you cannot divide any further into new titles, you could always amalgamate titles and make it bigger. So that is stuck in the middle: you cannot go down but you can certainly go up in terms of combining titles into new much bigger titles to make it a valuable primary production concern with much more land involved.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: In those examples that you used, minister, where you could perhaps amalgamate titles or properties to make them bigger—we have examples north of the city, landowners effectively jammed between Gawler and the Barossa. I cannot remember the exact location of their properties. Government has said, 'Go into intensive animal husbandry.' It might be chickens or pigs but, of course, they are close to a residential zone and the EPA says, 'Well, hang on, you can't do that because there's going to be a smell and there's going to be some issues.' So they are really caught in an awkward situation.

How will the new legislation allow those people some flexibility to exit farming? They have viable farming operations on the margin because of the scale. They would probably be happy to change their land use but they are not allowed to because of EPA and other restrictions, so they are really caught between a rock and a hard place, if you like, caught between Gawler and the Barossa. There is really nowhere for them to go. I know some efforts have been made to try to come up with some solutions for those people, but how do we deal with those sorts of situations?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I appreciate the points that have been raised. Certainly these are issues that I have heard firsthand. Before becoming a minister, I spent 12 months as the parliamentary secretary to the agriculture minister and spent quite a lot of time in particularly the north of the state and in areas of Yorke Peninsula, particularly with the agricultural advisory bureau, where these sorts of issues were raised.

The problem being described—the size of the farm not being big enough in today's primary production world to be as efficient as it needs to be—is a very important issue. All the issues that the honourable member has just raised are not contemplated to be solved by this legislation. There are further important policy issues to be dealt with. What this does, though, is give some certainty over the use of the land in the areas that we are talking about, that the land will continue to be used for primary production.

It will give certainty where there might not have been certainty before in terms of what that future use of the land will be. The new scheme will define what the land is to be used for. It is to be used for primary production. Certainly some of those issues are important issues that I am sure we will continue to discuss and look for solutions, but not all of those issues are directly to do with the planning system.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: This has been a very unusual bill. I might just ask a couple of questions in relation to amendment No. 9 to give your advisers a chance to get this information. Looking at schedule 7—Rural living areas, subclause (2) provides:

(2) In this clause—

Rural living area means—

(a) an area that is defined as a rural living zone by a Development Plan under the Development Act 1993 on 1 December 2015; or

(b) an area that is defined as an animal husbandry zone by the Development Plan for The District Council of Mallala

I would like to know where those animal husbandry zones are. I am not quite sure what paragraph (b) under subclause (2) means. Also, the following paragraph provides:

(c) any of the following areas or zones defined by the Development Plan for Alexandrina Council under the Development Act 1993 on 1 December 2015:

(i) Residential Airpark Policy Area 2 in an airport zone;

(ii) Precinct 11 Hindmarsh Island North in a primary production zone;

(iii) a coastal settlement zone.

To perhaps expedite things after dinner, I also mention that it says:

(3) This Schedule expires 2 years after the day on which it comes into operation.

I am interested to know why that is. I do not expect an answer now. If I ask a question without notice on those matters, your advisers will not have that information to hand, I would think, so I would be interested to have those answers when we get to schedule 7—Rural living areas.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Minister, the bill talks about land used for primary production but it does not talk about land used for the business of primary production. Would you agree that, if one of the farmers realigned one of their titles to, say, four hectares or 10 acres, they could run four sheep, 10 chickens and perhaps two cows and that would qualify?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for the question. I am advised that the issue of 'primarily for primary production' has certainly been agitated over many years in many different areas of legislation, both state and federal. This bill does not seek to change any of those balances and those sorts of definitions that already exist.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: The land tax act talks about land used for primary production and their definition is as broad as what I have just suggested. As long as it is used, it does not have to be used for the business of primary production.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the member for his question. Paragraph (b) talks about a dwelling for residential purposes on land used primarily for primarily production. I think the honourable member would understand the points he is making when it talks about just 'primary production'. This does qualify it by talking about 'primarily for primary production'. I have 13 chooks at home. I do not think anyone would argue that my house is used primarily for primary production, even though we get a lot of eggs. I think the term 'primarily for primary production' indicates that that is the primary use of that land.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Of course, minister, your property that you are talking about is in a residential area in the city. I have some tomatoes in my backyard, but I am not a market gardener, so—

The Hon. K.J. Maher: I've got pomegranates.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Well, you understand. The ATO, the tax office, has a definition, I think, that you actually have to earn more than a certain percentage of your income from primary production to be designated a primary producer for taxation reasons and write off your tractor and your ute and your telephone and all that stuff.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Your BMW four-wheel drive.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Whatever—obviously, you know some friends who have done that. You are not saying that the definition of 'primarily for primary production purposes' will be the same as the ATO's measure: it is just some definition that is envisaged or contemplated by this act.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I advise that it is the ordinary plain language meaning of 'primarily for primary production'.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: It means that, if it is rural land, it does not have to be profitable. You can have a couple of sheep or an alpaca and it is primary production. You do not have to make a profit out of it. There is no minimum size, so you can actually do basically whatever you want, provided it is in a primary production zone.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is about on the land that is used, so it is about the use of the land and not how successful or otherwise you are at doing it, but if the land is used primarily for primary production.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: What the Hon. Mr Darley is saying is that you could have someone realign a boundary. As I mentioned, you have no interest in what size that is, so you could have—

The Hon. K.J. Maher: The code.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The code would specify that, but it will be consistent with the local council or it could be a new size? We are aware that there are people all over this area who will have multiple titles and will say, 'Here's an opportunity for us to realign our titles,' and basically put large allotments along a road somewhere and sell them off because they can say that they are primarily used for primary production because this is a farm. Under what circumstances will they be able to do that?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The purpose of this scheme is to stop this land in this area, in the circumstance we are talking about at the moment, that is used for primary production being wholesale split up into small allotments for the sole purpose of residential housing. As the plans are now that will inform the code, and that will dictate what are the requirements in terms of land that is used, but it still comes back to the land being used primarily for primary production.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I want to better understand how this provision will operate in a couple of areas. If one looks at subclause (8), the commission having done certain things can issue a notice, and under subclause (9) the commission may only act under subclause (8) if the commission has conducted an inquiry and then furnishes a report to the minister or, under paragraph (b), conducts one of these five-year reviews. I am assuming that someone asks the commission, under the provisions of subclause (9)(a), to vary the boundary, the commission then conducts an inquiry and furnishes a report on the outcome of the inquiry to the minister. The commission cannot issue a notice under subclause (8) until the commission has done the inquiry and furnished a report to the minister.

Does the minister have the power to direct a change in terms of the report that the commission has given to the minister? All that subclause (9) requires is that an inquiry is conducted and a report is submitted, and then a notice can be issued under subclause (8). What prevents the minister from directing the commission, subsequent to receiving the report?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that that would require an ability under the act for a specific direction, which he does not have the power to do. In the circumstance you have given, I am advised that the steps you have set out are in fact the steps as these provisions contemplate, but for the minister to be able to give that direction my advice is that it would require a provision in here saying so, and there is not that provision, so the minister does not have the power to do that.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Would the minister indicate whereabouts in the act the minister is prevented from issuing a direction in relation to this area? In a number of early discussions we talked about the commission providing advice to the minister, etc., but ultimately decisions were left to the minister and the cabinet, so what provision in the bill actually says that the minister cannot?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that in subclause (8) that we are talking about, the notice referred to is the commission's notice; it is the notice of the commission. In subclause (12) the minister must cause a copy of 'the notice' within six days; it talks again about 'the notice'. My advice is that the drafting of it refers to 'the notice' and it is the commission's notice. It specifically does not contemplate the minister having a power of direction in what is 'the notice', being the commission's notice.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: But when one looks at subclause (9), all that happens is that the commission has conducted an inquiry and furnishes a report. It certainly does not indicate a notice. It just says that someone has asked for a change in the boundary and the commission has an inquiry and furnishes a report on the outcome of the inquiry. Then under subclause (8) it provides, 'The commission may, from time to time, by notice published in the Gazette.'

The process that is outlined here is that the commission has an inquiry and it furnishes a report; it does not actually say that the notice or the proposed notice shall be forwarded to the minister. The commission just conducts an inquiry and reports on the outcome of that to the minister. One would assume the commission is going to say, 'Hey, someone wants to change the boundary in this particular way. We agree (or we don't agree) in relation to this boundary change.' It does not actually require that in terms of subclause (9), it just says must furnish 'a report on the outcome of inquiry to the minister,' but let us assume that is what has occurred.

There is nothing in subclauses (8) or (9) that actually says that the minister cannot direct a change. I assume that if we are saying that the minister cannot change there is another provision in the bill which talks about the powers of the minister and the powers of the commission, and which says that the minister cannot direct the commission in relation to certain issues. There is certainly nothing in this new provision which says that the minister cannot direct the commission, so I assume there is another section somewhere else in the bill which says that the minister cannot direct the commission in relation to these particular issue.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice from those who draft legislation is that the commission has to be satisfied on matters referred to in clause 7(3)(a) in order to vary a boundary, the things the commission has to be satisfied of in order to vary a boundary. We were referring to subclauses (12) and (13), so if you go back to subclauses (8) and (9) that we were talking about—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: It is in the amendment?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes. The commission has to be satisfied of these matters in order to vary its boundary. My advice is that, given there are specific things that the commission has to take into account in doing it, a minister cannot give a direction to undermine those specific requirements. In any general provision, anywhere that the minister may have to do anything like give a direction, given that there are specific things that have to be taken into account, any minister's direction cannot override those specifics.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It may well be that the minister believes that those particular provisions are complied with; that is, the minister takes advice from the planning department and says, 'My decision complies with the requirements of clause 7(3)(a); it just happens to be different to the position of the commission.' I just assume there must have been some other provision in the bill which says the minister cannot direct the commission.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is in the act under section 3 that the commission must ensure, not that the minister must ensure. It is very specific that the commission must ensure these things are taken into account, not that the minister may at some later stage take these things into account himself or herself. It specifically says the commission is the one who must ensure that, not the minister, not the commissioner or the minister, or that the minister may do it, but the commission must do it.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I want to come back to that section in a moment anyway, but in relation to what the minister is therefore saying, if the commission, having conducted this inquiry, then furnishes a report which says, 'We want to make some changes,' is the minister also saying that the minister cannot at that stage say that because the commission has made the decision there should be a boundary change, 'No, I reject that; I am not going to agree to and direct you not to proceed?' The minister is not—

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, that is right—going to say that there is not going to be any further action, 'I direct you not to put a notice in the Gazette and I won't be tabling the notice on the floor of the parliament.'

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the way it is drafted, the minister has no discretion. If a notice is given it must be tabled under the provisions. I think the honourable member outlined when he started this line of inquiry that there is not a discretion not to table anything if a—

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I understand that. I understand that if a notice is issued in the Gazette, then he or she has to table it in the house within six sitting days. What I am saying is that if the minister receives a recommendation from the commission for a change—and that is before a notice is issued in the Gazette, because that only happens after the minister has received a report—the minister is advising this committee that the minister has no power to direct that no action be taken.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, the minister does not have the power to do that. The commission publishes the notice. It is not something the minister has any discretion or power over, and once that happens these are in train. I understand the question: is there any way for the minister to frustrate the process by not publishing or not going through the procedures that are contained here? My advice is no, there is not. It is the commission that does this, not the minister. In the circumstance outlined, there is not the wriggle room to do that.

In relation to earlier questions too, in terms of whether it is a minister or commission in terms of changing it, subclause (3) does not just say the commission must ensure these things, but also goes on to say only if the commission is satisfied of these things. It is the commission, not the minister.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: If, as the minister has advised the committee, that is the situation, why is it that the government has incorporated subclause (9)(a), that is, that the commission cannot issue the notice until they actually give a report on the outcome of the inquiry to the minister? If what the minister says is correct, that the minister has no influence at all, why is it not that the commission does not just under subclause (8)—a different subclause (8)—issue the notice and at the same time provide the advice to the minister that they have made the decision and here is the gazettal notice. The way it is drafted, it says the commission, before it can actually publish a notice in the Gazette, has to furnish this report to the minister.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that it is quite simple: the commission does not have the power to table this report in parliament.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: No, I'm not talking about tabling, I'm talking about—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, but it must go to the minister to be tabled. That is why the report must be furnished to the minister. The commission cannot table it in parliament. The commission must give it to the minister because the minister is the only one capable of tabling it. Just to finish that, the minister has no discretion not to table it. It has to be furnished to him. The minister is the only one who can table it, so he does not have the discretion to say, 'I've got this now. I'm not going to table it.' That is not the case. The minister has no discretion not to table it and the commission cannot table it in parliament. That is why it has to be furnished to the minister.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I certainly understand that particular provision, but that is not really the question I was putting. If, as the minister has outlined, the minister has no influence at all in relation to this issue, my question was: why is the commission prevented from, in essence, going ahead with a process of ensuring the gazettal automatically, whereas under the provisions of the draft the commission cannot go ahead with whatever decision it is that it wants by notice to publish in the Gazette on this particular issue until it has actually furnished a report on the outcome of the inquiry to the minister?

It seems to lead some of us to interpret that that it is providing a report of the inquiry to the minister, giving the opportunity for the minister either to comment or not comment in relation to the issue and only then under subclause (8) can it go ahead and publish a notice in the Gazette.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can say what I said before: the advice is that there is no discretion on the minister's part to influence a report. It goes to him because the minister, under the Westminster system, is the one who has to table it in parliament. I understand the member's question but, if there is a conspiracy or something sinister he is looking for, there is not some plot to allow the minister to have any influence in this. It is not a discretion the minister has—to stop, change or vary these things.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: To add my two cents' worth, I have carefully looked at the same provisions that the Hon. Rob Lucas has looked at and perhaps it is an unfortunate way that it has been drafted. Effectively, what it says is that the commission cannot put a notice in the Government Gazette. The commission cannot put it onto the portal unless it has first had an inquiry—and that makes sense because that is the process. It also goes on to say 'and furnish a report on the outcome of the review to the Minister'. One way of interpreting it is the way the Hon. Rob Lucas has suggested it could be interpreted, which is given to the minister with a view to getting them to change it before it goes on the portal. That is one interpretation.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: He's got no power to do that, none at all.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Well, I can see where he has come from. The other interpretation, and the one I think I prefer or the way I read it, was that the minister should not find out about a change to the urban growth boundary by reading it on the portal. That sort of disrespect is for the rest of us; that is not for the minister. The minister should not find out by reading it on the portal and have a journalist ring up and say, 'Minister, the urban growth boundary has changed, has it?' and the minister say, 'I haven't got my morning portal yet.' That is the way I would have interpreted it.

The answer the minister has given is that the planning minister will not be able to influence the commission. The commission has done the inquiry. The commission has worked out what the changes are going to be, but they are required to give all that to the minister before they put it on the portal and in the Government Gazette. That is the way I read it working, but I think the Hon. Rob Lucas' interpretation was entirely legitimate. I think it comes down to drafting, but I think the minister has clarified that the intention is for no political interference.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the Hon. Mark Parnell for his assistance once again in these matters, and I can confirm that his reading is how it is drafted and how the clause is intended to operate. It in no way gives a minister any discretion to do anything other than follow through with the procedures that are outlined in there. The Hon. Mark Parnell, I think, has interpreted it, as drafted, correctly.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Can I assure the minister that, at least in relation to this particular subclause, I am not suspicious of or inferring any particular conspiracy, but I guess my experience in this parliament, particularly in relation to issues of dollars and cents and developments, is it does not matter what your intention might be, it is actually what the law says. Clever lawyers who practise in the planning jurisdiction will look at what is actually passed, and clever ministerial advisers, or legal advisers to governments, will look at what is actually passed, sometimes many years after the legislation has passed, so it might not be the current ministers and the current advisers.

There are many examples of that where the legal advice provided to ministers and governments in 10 years' time is different from the legal advice provided to ministers at this particular point in time. I will not pursue that issue any further other than to say I am assuming, on the basis of what the minister is saying, that the furnished report to the minister will, if one takes the alternative interpretation the Hon. Mr Parnell has outlined, actually include a copy of the proposed notice to be published in the Gazette.

It does not actually say that, it does not actually require that, but a reasonable interpretation would be that that is what is there, and then the minister has indicated that, if that is the case, the minister has no power to direct a change and equally has no power to indicate to the commission that no action be taken in relation to a recommendation or a decision that the commission might have taken, which the minister might be implacably opposed to in relation to a change to the boundary.

I just want to go back, as part of this, to subclause (3)(a). I am asking if the minister, on advice, could just explain to me, if someone within this new boundary that is to be established by this legislation actually wanted to argue to the commission, I guess, 'We want to subdivide this land and, under the legislation, we are going to be prevented from doing so,' for that particular property owner or developer, what the process is that that person has to go through to at least argue the case and have the commission hear it. If someone is within the boundary and wants to develop it, what do they have to convince the commission of under this proposed amendment?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: To start an inquiry?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can advise the honourable member that my advice is it is a matter for the commission to decide. If a person or a group of people wrote to the commission wanting them to relook at these issues, it is a matter for the commission to decide whether to have an inquiry about that matter then or wait for the five-yearly review to do that. These are matters for the commission.

I think the honourable member corrected himself as he went along. It is not the government, and the whole point of this system is it is taking the government out of this. I know the honourable member talked about the dollars and cents involved, and that is the point of this: it is taking it out of the government's hands. The government has nothing to do with it. It does not make a decision about whether to hold the inquiry, and it certainly does not make the decision about the outcomes of it.

The point of these changes is that it is up to the commission. Those on the commission are the ones who decide whether to hold an inquiry into that boundary matter then or whether to do it at the regular five-yearly reviews. These are matters for the commission. They have nothing to do with government, and it is up to the commission to decide that. The government is not going to influence the commission or set parameters about what the commission should and should not do. These are matters that we very strongly believe are best left to the commission to decide.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: That is not my question in relation to this. What I want to know is: once this bill is passed with this boundary that the government will have outlined, and someone is within that boundary and prevented from development and they want to argue the case—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: They can do what they can currently do. Their current zoning might change under this.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, but I want to know under this new arrangement about someone who wants to actually subdivide and develop a piece of land and who under this bill will be prevented from doing so. As I read it, the commission must ensure that areas of rural landscape and environmental food production significance within Greater Adelaide are protected from urban encroachment. So, on the surface of it, if someone is prevented from development, that says if you want to develop it you are going to be prevented from doing so. Then I assume, and the bit I am leading to states:

The commission may only vary an environmental food production area if the commission is satisfied that—

So my question is: what does the government envisage in the legislation that the commission would have to satisfy themselves in terms of a developer? That is, what does the developer or the property owner have to convince the commission of that would allow them, in essence, to change the boundary, given that the lead-in to subclause (3) essentially says 'must ensure that any areas are protected from urban encroachment'?

Basically, it says that 'you cannot develop these areas except', and I just want to know what is the hurdle the government is outlining to the commission. I know the commission has to make the decision but what is the hurdle that the developer has to get over?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The parameters for the commission to make that decision, which I think the Hon. Rob Lucas is asking about, are set out under subclause (3). There is paragraph (a) that requires in subparagraphs (i) and (ii) that areas 'within Greater Adelaide outside environmental food production areas are unable to support the principle of urban renewal consolidation of existing urban boundaries; and adequate provision cannot be made within Greater Adelaide', or that 'the variation is trivial in nature and will address a recognised anomaly'.

It is not going to be the government that dictates to the commission what the commission should do and what they can think. The question is: what is it that the commission will take into account and how does someone say, 'I want my block taken outside the boundary,' for them to try to get it rezoned to develop? I think that is what the question is getting at.

The first point is that nothing changes in terms of zoning when it is inside the boundary; nothing changes in terms of zoning and the current zoning still applies. Secondly, those factors are set out there to satisfy both subclause (3)(a)(i) and (ii) or paragraph (b). We are not going to be in the business of telling the commission, 'And you should take this into account,' or, 'You should take this into account instead.' I think that gets away from the principles of this, to get away from the problem that the Hon. Rob Lucas earlier identified: dollars and cents coming into government decision-making. It is being taken out of the government's hands.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Perhaps to draw on a phrase that the Hon. Mr Parnell argued earlier because I am just seeking to understand subclause (3), he earlier said in relation to boundaries that there will be an argument about either extending the boundary or shrinking it. I cannot remember which one he said was more likely, but he said that one of those was more likely in his view. You have a boundary under this bill, and he outlined that there will be an argument to ask the commission either to extend the boundary—that is, to make it bigger—or to shrink it in some way.

To use Mr Parnell's descriptors, does paragraph (a)(i) relate to shrinking the boundary and paragraph (a)(ii) to extending it, or vice versa? Does paragraph (a)(i), for example, refer to either extending the boundary or shrinking it, or vice versa, and the same with paragraph (a)(ii)? Or in both of the Hon. Mr Parnell's examples—that is, either extending the boundary or shrinking it—does paragraph (a)(i) and paragraph (a)(ii) come into play?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think we understand the honourable member's question. Certainly under paragraph (b) that could be used to increase the area, to move things that were outside the area. Paragraph (b) certainly could, but there is no reason that paragraph (b) could not increase the area. Paragraph (a) talks about areas to accommodate housing and employment growth over the longer term, so you would expect that that provision would be used for people to argue that areas that are in should go outside the area.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Can you repeat that again? What do you say paragraph (a) is?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Under paragraph (a) you would expect that people would use that to argue that a property that is currently within the area should go outside the area, but certainly under paragraph (b) it could be used to extend or contract the area.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: So the minister's advice is that under paragraph (a) that would be—when you say an area that is within the—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: A property that is within the area.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: A property within the area at the moment would go outside; that is, it would be available to be subdivided on that basis.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: You would think that is the most likely and potential basis.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: So that is, in essence, shrinking the boundary, to use the Hon. Mr Parnell's example. Is the minister's advice that all of paragraph (a), that is paragraphs (a)(i) and (a)(ii), applies to that sort of shrinking the boundary example that the Hon. Mr Parnell has referred to?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In all likelihood, yes, that is what you would expect would happen, given the language there.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: If that is the case, the minister says paragraph (b) would be the one that covers the Hon. Mr Parnell's extending-the-boundary argument.

The Hon. M.C. Parnell: It will be trivial.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, that says 'trivial', but how is it to be managed? If there was to be a significant extension—not a trivial extension—of the boundary in the future, this bill does not envisage that happening at all. It is only talking about trivial changes addressing recognised anomalies.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the intention of the scheme is to set these boundaries to create certainty. Certainly, if you wanted to massively and significantly enlarge the boundary in a non-attributable or an anomalous nature you could come back to parliament to vary it, and that is probably appropriate. That is what we are doing here, and I think that is the appropriate way to do it, given we are trying to create that certainty. You could, using the Hon. Mark Parnell's phrase, increase the area significantly, but you would have to come back to the parliament to convince the parliament of the merits of doing that and change the act.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I will weigh in briefly. When I said earlier that the two scenarios were if we think of the city area and that the farming area could be enlarged or contracted, my practical understanding of how it would work is that the prospect of the farming area growing bigger is close to zero, and in fact the only circumstances are if it is trivial and addresses a recognised anomaly.

The sort of recognised anomalies that I have seen in the past include a friend who had the Hills Face boundary running through the middle of his lounge room. Sometimes when you draw lines on maps you get things wrong, you get unintended consequences. Certainly, as the Hon. Rob Lucas has pointed out, under paragraph (a) basically if we are going to use colloquial language, if it is determined that Adelaide has become full and the only way to advance the future of our city is to take some more farmland, then that is going to trigger the inquiry it is going to trigger the process but with the right to parliamentary disallowance.

The crude language that has been talked about with urban growth boundaries is that the line is drawn in texta colour rather than drawn with HB pencil because the pencil can be erased and texta colour is much harder to erase. That is the sort of colloquial way it has been looked at. I think ultimately members are probably on the safe side if they think of the boundary that was set on 1 December as pretty much it in terms of farming areas that are not likely to get any bigger under this regime; and there is a mechanism for the farming zone to shrink, but it is not likely in the short term I would think.

Honestly, if you take a 15-year land supply rule, metropolitan Adelaide is one of the biggest, most sparsely populated cities on the planet. There is plenty of space in the existing metropolitan boundary to accommodate two or three, four or five times Adelaide's population. That is not stuff that I have made up. There are plenty of studies that have looked at the footprint of cities, people per hectare. Adelaide is sparsely populated. Really, the big part of this debate I think is, as ministers have said previously, that we have to make a decision about whether we are going to keep growing out or whether we are going to 'densify' the existing urban environment, and that is a big part of this debate.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I thank the minister for that clarification so that I can see how subclause (3)(a) is going to operate. On the basis of that, it is pretty clear that it would be well-nigh impossible to satisfy the provisions of paragraphs (a)(i) and (a)(ii), because someone with land within the proposed boundary is going to have to do two things because of paragraphs (a)(i) and (a)(ii). Firstly, they are going to have to convince the commission that an area or areas within the Greater Adelaide Plan outside food production areas are unable to support the principle of urban renewal and the consolidation of existing urban areas.

The developer would have to convince the commission that it was unable to support the principles of urban renewal and consolidation of existing urban areas and then also has to convince the commission that adequate provision cannot be made within Greater Adelaide outside environment and food production areas to accommodate housing and employment growth over the longer term, being at least a 15-year period. The person who might want to develop their property would have to convince the commission of both those hurdles.

These are hurdles being constructed by the government and the parliament; the parliament is going to construct these hurdles or not. What I am highlighting is that they are very significant hurdles and those who support a boundary will obviously be supportive of that. For those who see this as a flexible option where the boundary might change in the future—and the Hon. Mr Darley, I suspect, might be in this—my reading of the answers we have just received is that that is going to be virtually impossible, because the barriers in the drafting are so high and almost impossible to achieve that anyone who went to the commission is going to be unable to convince the commission of those particular arrangements.

To clarify that, can I ask the minister to confirm that there is nothing in the drafting of subclauses (3)(a)(i) and (ii) that refers to housing affordability in particular—that is, the commission, in making its decision, cannot take into account the affordability of the housing. It is just talking about whether or not you can have urban renewal and whether you can consolidate existing urban areas and talks about housing and employment growth. It does not talk at all about the affordability of the housing.

Whatever they are doing, the commission will make its decision. A developer cannot argue, 'Look, we're in the situation where housing prices are just skyrocketing because of the squeezing of the land supply in South Australia or in Adelaide. First-time buyers are unable to purchase a home because of a massive increase in housing affordability and land prices. We think you need to let loose.' My reading of this—and I seek a confirmation from the minister—is that the commission cannot take that into account.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. I might just indicate that it is the intention after I give this answer to report progress and then we will come back afterwards. I think an argument some have put is that land supply drives housing affordability, and basic first-year economics will talk about supply and demand. What that presupposes, I gather from the arguments that have previously been put, is that for it to impact on housing affordability there has to be a land supply problem.

Subparagraph (ii) talks about 'to accommodate housing and employment growth over the longer term (being at least a 15 year period)'. If there is not the land supply, that triggers that and that goes to housing affordability. If you accept, as I have heard in arguments made by many people here, that the availability of land, or land supply, impacts on housing affordability, that is triggered there. There has to be the land supply or it can trigger that. I think that answers the question the honourable member has asked.

Sitting suspended from 17:58 to 19:46.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I just want to go back to the issue of rural allotments, amalgamation and changing the size of allotments. Over the dinner break I found some comments the Hon. John Darley made in his second reading speech when we were here before Christmas. I want to quote it to members so I can refresh the memories of the minister and his advisers. He said:

Farms are usually comprised of a number of lots, sections and titles, which can been placed seemingly randomly. Giving farmers the ability to realign the boundaries to create allotments which could be sold to another party, whilst still retaining the valuable farming land, would give much comfort to farmers who see their superannuation in the land they own. I understand this is currently allowed. However, many farmers face difficulties when submitting a development application, as allotments have unrealistic minimum allotment size requirements for the building of a house, as set out by council development plans.

I had sought to draft an amendment addressing the issue. However, in discussion with the minister's office, I understand the minister is willing to consult on this and deal with this as a matter of policy. I would appreciate the minister putting on the record that he will do this in order to help our farmers.

My question to the minister is: what undertakings has minister Rau made? I do not recall anything being put on the record as to how they will deal with it. I may have missed it because we have been at this for a number of days now. I would like to know if minister Rau has put anything on the record—or you have, on his behalf, minister Maher—in relation to that issue because it is an issue that a number of us have been wrestling with and the Hon. Mr Darley may well have found some solution.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can restate the undertaking that these things will be taken into consideration as the policy that surrounds this and the code are developed.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Is that what minister Rau would put on the record? This is clearly a request from the Hon. Mr Darley in his second reading speech: 'I would appreciate the minister putting on the record that he will do this in order to help our farmers.' I would actually like to know what minister Rau's intention is, or does he have no intention and it is just a matter of policy and we will deal with it some time in the future?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I said before, there is an undertaking to make sure these matters are addressed as the policy is developed. I can also inform the honourable member that there is a working group that includes PIRSA, councils, agribusiness and farmers working on land use interface and related issues outside of this bill.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: So what you are saying is that there is a working group that is doing some work, but there is no actual solution, which involves PIRSA and other entities, but there is actually nothing that the minister is able to put on the record in direct response to the Hon. Mr Darley's request?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Sorry?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: You have said there is a working group, and I am vaguely aware of that with PIRSA and some of the agribusiness people, but there is nothing officially on the record as a response from minister Rau in relation to the Hon. Mr Darley's request when he said, 'I would appreciate the minister putting on the record that he will do this in order to help our farmers'?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I have been advised that the minister in the other place, the planning minister, will be looking at these issues and certainly will be informed by the working group that contains PIRSA, councils and agribusiness.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: To get it clear, there is nothing that he has done already to address this issue, but it is something that he is prepared to look at in the future? I want this made very clear, because clearly this is an important issue. Not only has it been raised by the Hon. Mr Darley but also a number of us have been contacted by similar people in a similar predicament around this sort of interface between farming land and urban sprawl or urban development. I will read what the Hon. Mr Darley said again:

I had sought to draft an amendment on this issue. However, in discussion with the minister's office, I understand the minister is willing to consult on this and deal with this as a matter of policy. I would appreciate the minister putting on the record that he will do this in order to help our farmers.

I just want a very clear indication of what the minister is prepared to do.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We can keep going but, as I have said, my advice is that the minister will do exactly what you have said: he will continue to consult on this, it will be taken into account and it will inform policy as it is developed. Certainly, there is that working group looking at these issues that will help inform that as well.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Following on from that, can I clarify that there is nothing in the new amendments that we have that addresses the issues that the Hon. Mr Darley has raised; it is all, as you have outlined, future work?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: This is quite rightly a matter for implementation and the policy that has developed. As I have said, there is a working group that is looking into these issues, and certainly I am advised that the planning minister in another place will take these into consideration.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I understand all of that, so you do not have to repeat it again for the third time. I am just clarifying that there is nothing in the amendments that we are being asked to consider here which in any way addresses the issues that the Hon. Mr Darley has raised with the minister and the government.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, there is not an amendment here, but these are certainly issues that will be taken into account as the policy is developed, and will be addressed in implementation.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I have just a couple of questions for the governments: the first follows on to some extent from the questions of the Hon. Mr Lucas before the dinner break. Has the government done any modelling or taken into consideration at any level the prospect of a change in housing affordability as a result of the introduction of an urban growth boundary (or whatever name we are calling it at this stage)? Has any work been done? Does the government expect there to be any impact from the introduction of the urban growth boundary, as has been argued to us by a number of industry bodies?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Certainly research has been done into the current level of supply. As we were looking at before, subclause (3)(a)(ii) talks about there needing to be at least a 15-year supply. In terms of housing affordability, certainly experience from places like Sydney and Melbourne shows that land supply can be one of the factors, but it is certainly not the only factor. A number of factors can influence housing affordability, and certainly that is where subclause (3)(a)(ii) comes in—if it is no longer able to accommodate housing employment growth over the longer term (being at least 15 years).

I think we agitated this before with the Hon. Rob Lucas's questions before the dinner break. Even if it was the case that land supply was the only factor that influenced housing affordability, then subclause (3)(a)(ii) contemplates that and can increase the supply if there is not the supply to accommodate housing employment growth over the longer term, being 15 years.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: To follow on from that, and my final question on this issue: just to be clear, is that saying that the government does not believe that this introduction of the urban growth boundary will have an impact on housing affordability or have an impact on price even?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that given the indication of many years of housing, over 15 years available now, this of and in itself will not affect housing affordability.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I will not do it, but from talking to my colleague the Hon. Rob Lucas (and this is why we have these amendments come last minute) and given this conversation around housing affordability, maybe we should have had an amendment to insert the words 'housing affordability' in this particular clause so that was another criterion that the planning commission could look at, but we have not and it is at the eleventh hour.

This is one of the threshold issues for the opposition, the urban growth boundary or the environment and food production areas. Everybody else has been very clear on their positions—the Greens, Family First, the government, the opposition—but in his comments in his second reading speech the Hon. Mr Darley said that he was opposed to an urban growth boundary, that it forced up prices and had an impact on affordability. I think he went on to say that the experience of major cities around the world has seen increases in land prices whenever an urban growth boundary is put in place, that it decreases housing affordability and penalises those who are struggling to gain a foothold in the housing market. Clearly the Hon. John Darley had a very strong view prior to Christmas.

It is a really important threshold issue for all of us. He has indicated that he has changed his view, and he may want to share with the chamber tonight—or perhaps tomorrow in the third reading contribution—why he thinks today that it is important to have an urban growth boundary when four months ago he indicated that he did not. As I said earlier in my contribution, the Hon. Mr Darley is now part of another political party called the Nick Xenophon Team; he is here as that political party's representative. I want to make sure that we understand the thought patterns and processes behind the Nick Xenophon Team not supporting housing affordability in this state.

The CHAIR: I would like to make a comment. The Hon. Mr Ridgway seems to be casting aspersions on a member of this parliament, that they have changed their mind because of political reasons.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: No, not at all.

The CHAIR: Well, that is how I get it. The fact is that I have seen a lot of people change their mind mid debate and I will probably see a lot more before I leave this place. I really think that if the Hon. Mr Ridgway wants to cast those aspersions he should do it outside on the front steps and be honest and open about it.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Can I respond to that, Mr Chair?

The CHAIR: What would you like?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Hon. Mr Darley does not have to respond if he chooses not to.

The CHAIR: No, but you are casting aspersions and it is going in the Hansard.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: No; I am not. I am reading what is in the Hansard, Mr Chair.

The CHAIR: No, it is inappropriate. The Hon. Mr Darley.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Thank you, Mr Chair. I am not too concerned about any aspersions cast in this place; I am well over 21, as you can see.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: Show us your ID.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will tell you when my birthday is, if you like; I will be 79. When I voted against this urban growth boundary I was voting not only against that but also against the manner in which the parliament was going to deal with it. My concern was that we could end up with a situation where it could be put on the table of the parliament and it could sit there for years and nothing happen. No boundary does anything in itself, and that is why I specifically asked the minister how he defines the 15-year supply. That is why I wanted to know what that meant.

We got down to the position where I said, 'Does 15 years' supply apply everywhere to all the land within the Greater Adelaide metropolitan area or, if an application is made to the commission, does the commission take into account the general location where the application is made?' I know from experience that people who are born in the south generally migrate around the south; they might move a bit further south. I was not going to put people in a position where, if there were an insufficient supply of land in the south, the government could say, 'Well, you can go to the north.'

I think the minister has explained exactly what the definition of 15 years' supply is. Effectively, if you have 15 years' supply of land, then the boundary does not matter too much. That was my thinking on the whole thing.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Just to clarify that, could the Hon. Mr Darley indicate that the assurance the minister has given is that these amendments will not look at the whole area in relation to 15 years' supply? For instance, in the example he has used of people in the south it will look at only 15 years' supply in the south, or if they live in the north it would look at only 15 years' supply in the north. Is that the assurance that minister Rau has given the honourable member in relation to these amendments, that it will not be looking at the 15 years' supply over the whole area but will look at subregions, I guess, or parts of the total area that is covered by this map?

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Earlier today, the minister explained that, first of all, they would look at the amount of supply within the Adelaide metropolitan growth area. In addition, they would look at an application in terms of the available land supply there as well.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: In the south or in the north?

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Yes.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I was not going to weigh into this, but given the direction it is heading, I will. One of the things I notice in this amendment that we are dealing with is that they have moved away from the old concept of X number of years vacant residential zoned land, which basically used to mean a quarter or sixth of an acre block on the fringe. You had to have a certain quantity of that type of land zoned residential, ready to go, and sufficient of it to last 15 or so years.

The wording in the amendment, the proposed new clause before us, talks about, 'adequate provision…to accommodate housing and employment growth'. It does not talk about residential zoned vacant land; it is about: how can you accommodate housing and employment growth? You can accommodate housing and employment growth through the redevelopment of sparsely developed areas. You can increase density, you can increase heights, you can do a whole lot of things.

I was a strong critic of having to have X number of years of vacant, fringe, greenfields land to accommodate urban sprawl for 15 years. The wording now is about accommodating housing, and that is a very different proposition. The point that I am making is that I could see very little argument over the next 100 years, or so, for this urban growth boundary to need to change because my understanding is that there is enough capacity for extra housing within the existing urban area.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: It is high-rise.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The Hon. Rob Lucas interjects that it is high-rise. You could probably more than quadruple the population of Adelaide and not go above three storeys. You think about it: the proportion of Adelaide suburbs are single story and very spread out—some of which, I think, should stay that way. I am no fan of retrofitting the entire city to be a city of flats. We do not need to do that, but through the selective redevelopment of certain key areas you can fit a lot more people in. I am just making that point, and I do not want to have another debate about housing affordability.

The one thing I said of Buckland Park all those years ago was: yes, there will be cheap house and land packages, but the price of the house and land package does not reflect the cost of living in that location. You would get young couples attracted by cheap house and land packages and then marooned by Geoffrey Blainey's tyranny of distance: they would be miles from jobs, miles from schools, and miles from services.

When you factor in the cost of living in some of these fringe areas, all of a sudden what appeared to be an affordable house and land package becomes a very expensive long-term proposition for living. You cannot live in some of these places without two cars, for example. The Hon. David Ridgway said the concept of housing affordability would have been nice to incorporate in here. I think we would then have to have a very big debate over: what does housing affordability mean? Is it the up-front cost of the bricks and mortar, or is it the cost of living in a place over the lifetime of a person? I just throw that into the mix.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I think the Hon. Mr Parnell has confirmed the point that I was making earlier, although we come at this from different directions; that is, with the way this is drafted, as the Hon. Mr Parnell has said, there would be no earthly reason why you would need to change the boundaries, and it will be almost impossible for someone to argue to change the boundaries under the requirements of paragraphs (a)(i) and (a)(ii). You have to meet both (a)(i) and (a)(ii).

There is no issue of housing affordability, so long as you can have high-rise urban consolidation—whatever the cost of that might be to the first home owner. The Hon. Mr Parnell will argue, 'Well, it's better that they pay more money up-front for their first house as opposed to a lower amount of money first up because they then have to buy two cars, or they'll have to walk, or get on a bike,' something like that, but there is that argument.

The Hon. Mr Parnell approaches this housing affordability argument from a completely different direction, but I think in what he has said he absolutely confirms the point that was being made before: this boundary, this device that has been constructed, is a facade. It appears to give the capacity to say to people, 'You can go off and argue to the commission to do something,' in relation to making a change, but the hurdles that have been constructed cleverly by the people who have drafted this are very high. It is not an 'or' provision, it is an 'and' provision; you have to meet both of those requirements.

As the planning lawyer with decades of experience has just confirmed, he does not see that there will be the capacity or the need under these provisions to meet. He talked about a point that I did not pick up on: the different drafting in terms of housing and employment growth, as opposed to the other descriptors that were used previously in terms of available land for greenfield development. But that just confirms it, and I do not want to waste time tonight.

We have heard clearly from the Hon. Mr Darley (and I thank him) why he has changed his position from December to now; he has put that on the record. A key part of the reason why he has is that he has had this assurance from the government, and from minister Rau in particular, that the 15-year provision does not look at the total. In the example he has given, people who live in the south do not want to be told to move to the north.

Can the minister just explain which particular provision in these amendments that we are looking at actually meets that point that the minister has given by way of assurance to the Hon. Mr Darley? Where does it say that in this particular amendment? I cannot see it; it just talks about Greater Adelaide, it talks about environment and food production areas. I cannot see where this point is about: in the south, you look at whether or not there is available land. You cannot actually ask the commission just to look at the whole area, you have to look at the area in the south or the area in the north, for example.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think that can be answered very simply. In (3)(a)(i) it is not just 'the whole area', it says 'an area or areas'. It is both of those.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Just another very quick contribution, because I cannot let the Hon. Rob Lucas' assessment of what I said go without challenge. The point I was making was that if I was running the show, then the urban growth boundary would stay fixed and I would see very little need to move it. If the government of the day that was in power had policies of urban consolidation and infill rather than sprawl, then there would be no need for the boundary to change.

If hypothetically, one of these decades, the Liberals do come to power and if they come to power with a policy of low density development, they would then have the levers of planning policy. If they then zoned most of Adelaide as single-storey large blocks, these triggers would be met very quickly and you could say, 'There is no more room for people in the existing metro area because of the policies that are put in place, therefore you have to change the boundary.'

The point I am making is that I disagree with the Hon. Rob Lucas that of itself this is a formula for the boundary effectively being fixed and never changing. It will depend on the government of the day. If the government of the day decides that it does not want to go for urban renewal, it does not want to go for urban consolidation and it does not want to go for higher building heights, then these criteria would be met very quickly and they could put their hands on their hearts and say, 'There is no more room in Adelaide; we therefore have to go out into the farmland.' So, I do not accept that this mechanism before us will have no work to do. It could potentially have work to do, depending on the government of the day and its urban policies.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I just want to return to the minister's response, where he refers to subclause (3)(a)(i), which states 'an area or areas'. In that particular provision, I draw the minister's attention to the fact that that refers to the principle of 'unable to support the principle of urban renewal and consolidation of existing urban areas'. The issue of the 15-year provision is actually not in that subclause; it is in subclause (3)(a)(ii), that is:

(ii) adequate provision cannot be made within Greater Adelaide outside environment and food production areas to accommodate housing and employment growth over the longer term (being at least a 15 year period);

That is a separate subparagraph and the 'area or areas' provision he has referred to is in the earlier subparagraph referring to 'the principle of urban renewal and consolidation of existing urban areas'.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: For the sake of completeness, and I thank the honourable member who is always very keen for things to be very complete, subparagraph (ii) talks about 'adequate provision'. It would not be 'adequate provision' if, as the Hon. John Darley said, you were being forced to move from Noarlunga up to Gawler. So subclause (3)(a)(i) talks about 'area or areas' and (a)(ii) talks about 'adequate provision'. I think they are the two operative parts of that that go to answer that question.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: With the greatest respect to the minister, I think that is a nonsense interpretation of paragraph (a)(ii) but we will just have to disagree. I notice that that was his response to the question. I think in any interpretation, leaving the interpretation of (a)(ii)—and time will tell, when this is judged—that paragraph (a)(ii) refers to 'adequate provision cannot be made within Greater Adelaide'. That is the whole area of Greater Adelaide; it does not talk about the south or the north. I do not believe it does address the issue that the Hon. Mr Darley has referred to, but I will not prosecute the case any further.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: It is not a question, but I will just make the point that the risk, I guess, that we seem to be throwing around here in introducing an urban growth boundary is, of course, that it is always going to be easier for governments to change the zoning within the zone than it is outside of the zone, or to expand the zone, if you like.

I suspect that the likely result of the introduction of this urban growth boundary is that the zoning inside—because it will be easier to change—will change and as a result of that we will see smaller and smaller blocks of land, particularly in these fringe areas, and I think that that is a shame, frankly. We already have the smallest average block size in Australia, which surprises people but it is true. The smallest average block of land newly released to the market in the last two years in Australia was here in Adelaide.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: And isn't our square metre price one of the highest as well?

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: And our square metre price is the highest of fringe land, that is, in Australia, which is quite surprising to people, but that is true. So the risk we run here, just for the record, is that by introducing this urban growth boundary the blocks will increasingly reduce in size, if that is not a contradiction—will continue to decrease in size is perhaps a better way of putting it, over time.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: Shrink.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: That's right. So that is a concern to me. I would like to see people have at least a reasonable block of land if they so desire. They may not; they may want to live in an apartment or a unit or something like that and they are perfectly entitled to do that, but people should have that choice, and that is why our position has been firm on this since the beginning.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have one last question relating to this. I will make the point, just to comment on what the Hon. Dennis Hood said that a couple of staff up on the opposition floor thought that, due to the fact that we passed an earlier clause, the value of their properties had increased instantly because it was an urban growth boundary. So young couples in houses think straightaway that the value of their properties has gone up because of an urban growth boundary.

The Hon. M.C. Parnell: So what was their advice to you?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: They are not there to give advice; they are there to do research. But if it is about housing affordability, most of them are working two jobs to do what they are doing now and it will only get worse. I will just put a question that I want to ask into a quick context. I had the very good fortune that a daughter of mine won a scholarship to Bond University, and I had a tour of Bond University several times.

I have always had this bit of a pipe dream maybe, or a dream that we might be able to convince a benevolent person or somebody with a lot of money to come and build a private university in South Australia. How would a university or an education facility or an institution fit into this? Clearly you are not going to build it on residential land, and so how is that likely to be treated with this legislation? I suspect it would be located in the environment and food production areas.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is this just talks to residential. This is not proposed to cover any other use.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: So, any other use—factory, warehouse, university—could be envisaged outside of a township boundary but in the environment and food production areas?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is, depending on the policy of that particular area and the zoning of that particular area, then yes.

Ayes 8

Noes 7

Majority 1

AYES
Darley, J.A. Franks, T.A. Kandelaars, G.A.
Maher, K.J. (teller) Malinauskas, P. Ngo, T.T.
Parnell, M.C. Vincent, K.L.
NOES
Dawkins, J.S.L. Hood, D.G.E. Lee, J.S.
Lucas, R.I. McLachlan, A.L. Ridgway, D.W. (teller)
Stephens, T.J.
PAIRS
Gago, G.E. Lensink, J.M.A. Gazzola, J.M.
Wade, S.G. Hunter, I.K. Brokenshire, R.L.

Clauses 8 to 10 passed.

Clause 11.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Emp–5]—

Page 26, after line 15—Delete inserted subparagraph (iia)

The government recommits this clause as originally drafted. There is no need to mandate that there must be a special legislative scheme, and thus a state planning policy, relating to the objects of the Adelaide Park Lands Act 2005. There are already comprehensive requirements relating to development in the Parklands.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I oppose the government's amendment. I think that we do need to retain the Adelaide Park Lands Act 2005 as a special legislative scheme. I just remind members that it is not as if this has been plucked out of the air and is some standalone provision. It is in some good company, and the company that it is keeping is the River Murray Act, the Adelaide Dolphin Sanctuary Act, the Marine Parks Act, the Arkaroola Protection Act and also the special character areas in McLaren Vale and the Barossa Valley that are going to be special legislative schemes.

To make it clear, the fact of something being a special legislative scheme, the main thing it does is it triggers a requirement for a state planning policy on that topic. When we look at state planning policies, the Hon. Kelly Vincent secured a new state planning policy on accessible housing and we are going to have another state policy on climate change. There is a whole range of state planning policies.

The government says it is unnecessary and it will be additional red tape, but what I think you need to consider is that the state planning policy that is going to result from having the Adelaide Park Lands Act as a special legislative scheme is in all likelihood going to be the incorporation of the Adelaide Park Lands Management Plan into this legislation. In other words, we already have a group of people, half of them local council and half of them appointed by the state government. These people go to great lengths to draw up a management plan for the Adelaide Parklands, and the management plan deals with exactly the types of issues that the planning and design code, for example, or other planning instruments will have to deal with, so it is not a question of unnecessary additional red tape.

It really is a question about whether we should elevate existing management plans under existing legislation into a status that is incorporated into this planning legislation, so that is the reason for it. I am not proposing that there is going to be a whole lot of duplication or unnecessary work. If we are serious about protecting the Parklands, if we are serious about the 2005 Adelaide Park Lands Act meaning something, if we are serious about the management plan that the state government writes along with the Adelaide City Council—if we are serious about that, then we need to incorporate that into the planning system and, again, it is not novel.

If the government writes a management plan for a national park, that is going to get incorporated into the planning system. It makes sense. It is a very similar exercise, and I just think it actually gives credit to those people who spend a lot of time working up appropriate management plans for the Parklands. It is not something that is completely under the control of the Adelaide City Council. The state government provides five members of the Adelaide Park Lands Management Authority, so I really think that the inserted clause that we agreed to in committee last time should remain in the bill, and I would urge people not to accept the government's amendment.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate the opposition will be supporting the government's amendment on this. There are some other amendments in relation to Parklands that I suspect the honourable member might get some more comfort from, but on this one we do not see any need to oppose the government's amendment, and we agree with the government that we think it will represent unnecessary additional red tape in addition to the requirements that are already there in place in the Parklands.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 12 to 17 passed.

Clause 18.

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

Amendment No 2 [Ridgway–9]—

Page 30, line 30—Delete 'Minister' and substitute 'Governor on the nomination of the Minister'

This is on the same theme we have had of trying to depoliticise the planning commission and take the minister further away. There are a number of amendments, although I do not believe they are consequential. I will just move the first one, which is to delete the word 'Minister' and substitute 'Governor on the nomination of the Minister'.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his contribution on this amendment. In practice, this amendment will require that the cabinet approves the recommendations to the Governor on the appointment of commission members. While this at a very basic level represents some additional red tape, the government is prepared to support it.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 7 [Emp–6]—

Page 30, line 31—Delete 'the Chief Executive' and substitute:

a public sector employee (other than the Chief Executive) who is responsible, under a Minister, for assisting in the administration of this Act, designated by the Minister by notice in the Gazette

This amendment is made in response to feedback received. It provides that a public sector official other than the chief executive of the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure is to be appointed to the commission. It is to ensure that the commission may be better served, given that this role is expected to serve the commission's needs.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The opposition is happy to support the government on this amendment. I think this addresses a concern the Hon. John Darley had about the head of DPTI being also the planning commissioner. Now the planning commissioner cannot be the head of DPTI, so we are very happy to support the amendment.

Amendment carried.

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

Amendment No 3 [Ridgway–9]—

Page 30, line 32 to page 31, line 9—Delete subclauses (2) and (3) and substitute:

(2) The Minister must, when nominating persons for appointment as members of the Commission, seek to ensure that, as far as is practicable, the members of the Commission collectively have qualifications, knowledge, expertise and experience in the following areas:

(a) economics, commerce or finance;

(b) planning, urban design or architecture;

(c) development or building construction;

(d) the provision of or management of infrastructure or transport systems;

(e) social or environmental policy or science;

(f) local government, public administration or law.

Effectively what this does is prescribe some more skills and expertise in the planning commission itself. We want to delete subclauses (2) and (3) which provide:

(2) A person appointed to the Commission must have such qualifications, knowledge, expertise or experience as are, in the Minister's opinion, relevant to the functions of the Commission.

(3) Without limiting subsection (2), the Minister must give consideration to appointing persons so as to provide a range of qualifications, knowledge, expertise and experience in the following areas:

(a) economics, commerce or finance;

(b) planning, urban design or architecture;

(c) development or building construction;

(d) the provision of or management of infrastructure or transport systems;

(e) social or environmental policy or science;

(f) local government, public administration or law.

This amendment says the minister must, when nominating the new persons for appointment as members of the planning commission, seek to ensure that as far as practicable the members of the commission collectively have qualifications, knowledge, expertise and experience in the following areas of economics, commerce or finance; planning, urban design or architecture; development or building construction; the provision of or management of infrastructure or transport systems; social or environmental policy or science; local government, public administration or law.

It is the opposition's view that the person appointed to the commission must have these statutory qualifications, knowledge, expertise and experience and that they are not in the 'minister's opinion' relevant to the commission's functions. So, the term 'minister's opinion' in our view leaves too much discretion and we think we would be much better to have the wording that we have suggested, that the minister must when nominating these persons take that into consideration.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The government will be supporting the opposition amendment.

Amendment carried.

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

Amendment No 4 [Ridgway–9]—

Page 31, line 12—Delete 'Minister may' and substitute 'Governor may, on the recommendation of the Minister,'

This amendment deletes the word 'minister' and substitutes 'Governor may, on the recommendation of the Minister'. Again, it is taking the minister further away from the planning commission.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It does represent some additional red tape, but we are not going to oppose it.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 19 passed.

Clause 20.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: There are two amendments to clause 20. I suspect they will be consequential. We are on a bit of a roll. It seems like good common sense to delete the word 'Minister' and substitute the words 'Governor on the recommendation of the Minister', so I will move both amendments at the same time. I move:

Amendment No 5 [Ridgway–9]—

Page 31, line 36—Delete 'Minister' and substitute 'Governor on the recommendation of the Minister'

Amendment No 6 [Ridgway–9]—

Page 31, line 39—Delete 'Minister may' and substitute 'Governor may, on the recommendation of the Minister,'

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 21.

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

Amendment No 7 [Ridgway–9]—

Page 32, line 15—Delete 'Minister' and substitute 'Governor on the recommendation of the Minister'

This is the same as the two previous amendments to clause 20, so I look forward to the government's support.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 22 to 29 passed.

Clause 30.

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

Amendment No 8 [Ridgway–9]—

Page 37, lines 6 and 7—Delete paragraph (b)

Again, this is about depoliticising the commission. Paragraph (b) states:

(b) must, if required by the Minister, be made to a committee of the Commission designated by the Minister;

The opposition sought some advice and we think removing that paragraph does not affect the bill, but it does take some of the activities of the minister out of the bill.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to indicate that we are on a bit of a roll, but on this one the government will not be supporting this amendment. The amendment, as the honourable member said, would delete paragraph (b) of clause 30, and it is our view that it would unduly prevent the minister from establishing a subcommittee of the commission and the commission from delegating its powers and functions to the committee.

Paragraph (b) allows the minister to establish a subcommittee and to subdelegate the function and powers of the commission to the subcommittee, such as a building policy advisory committee to advise on specialist building matters, so the government will not be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Because we are proceeding at such a rapid rate there are a number of documents to consult, and my version of the bill has paragraph (b) crossed out and the words 'LGA says' next to it. My question of the Hon. David Ridgway is: was this in fact one of the requests made by the Local Government Association?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: That is a very good question which I will have to take on notice and bring back a reply. This is one that went through our party room, but I do not have the party room notes in front of me. I am sure it was certainly part of the depoliticisation of the planning commission, and it may well have been from the LGA but I do not have those notes with me.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The Hon. David Ridgway's 15-second contribution has given me time to find my spreadsheet, and I am looking at the Local Government Association advice to us. Their criticism of this provision is as follows:

The ability of the minister to dictate that delegations be put in place may undermine the independence of the commission. It is highly unusual for legislation to provide for the dictation of delegations.

Their suggestion is to delete clause 30(2)(b). On that basis, I will be supporting the Liberal amendment to remove that paragraph.

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

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Mr Chairman, I understand that is 11 votes. To be frank, I got these yesterday and I was interested in hearing the debate, but that is 11 votes.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 31 to 40 passed.

Clause 41.

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

Amendment No 9 [Ridgway–9]—

Page 42, lines 36 and 37—

Delete 'consult with the other parties to the relevant planning agreement' and substitute:

—

(a) consult with the other parties to the relevant planning agreement; and

(b) seek the advice of the Commission.

My understanding from reading this is that clause 41(1) provides that the minister may appoint an administrator of a joint planning board. The amendment gives us an opportunity for the commission to determine and direct it in this case rather than just the minister.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As with some of the other ones, we have put 'the Governor, on the advice of cabinet'. This one seeks to put in an additional layer. It is the government's view that this increases red tape, but the government will not oppose the amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 42 and 43 passed.

Clause 44.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Emp–5]—

Page 44, line 23—Delete 'Minister' and substitute 'Commission'

This amendment deletes 'Minister' and substitutes 'Commission'. I assume it will enjoy broad support. If people want me to speak further on it, I am happy to.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 5 [Emp–5]—

Page 45, line 11—After 'Minister' insert ', acting on the advice of the Commission'

Like the last amendment, it adds something after 'Minister'. It inserts ', acting on the advice of the Commission'. I assume again that this amendment will enjoy broad support.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 6 [Emp–5]—

Page 45, line 39—Delete 'unless the failure is under a provision that requires compliance with the charter for the purposes of consultation in relation to a particular matter'

This government amendment reinstates the clause as originally drafted. The effect of the government amendment is to retain an approach consistent with the existing practice under the Development Act, and not to open up the charter and policy documents developed in accordance with the charter to challenge this amendment will prevent potential delays and uncertainty in the system.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Given that it is my amendment that is sought to be struck out, I might speak to this one. What the government is saying I do not think is quite correct, because we do not currently have a community engagement charter, but what we do have in the current legislation is a regime for public consultation some of which is mandatory. If it is mandatory, then citizens have a legitimate expectation that the government will comply with it, and that legitimate expectation will in fact be enforced by the courts.

I will give you a practical example. If it says in legislation that the government must give people five days' notice of something, and the government only gives two days' notice, then most courts, certainly the Environment, Resources and Development Court, would entertain something which says, 'They did not do it right. The law said they had to give five and they only gave two,' so the court would order the government to go back and do it again properly. When I talk about mandatory provisions, that is the sort of thing I am talking about.

The community engagement charter is overwhelmingly going to be a document that talks about a range of possible ways to best engage the community. It is going to have a lot of flexibility built into it, which I support. There is room for flexibility, but there are some instances where there is a line that can be drawn, and they include things like minimum periods of consultation, that you cannot short-change people.

If the community engagement charter has words such as 'the commission must give at least a week's notice before doing something', and if the commission then does not actually follow through with what it said, the question for us as legislators is: does anything result from that? Do we care if mandatory, obligatory provisions in relation to community consultation are ignored? If you say, 'Oh well, they tried. They might to have said they had to give a week and they only gave two days, but what the heck,' and if that is your view you need to support the government. If you think that mandatory provisions should be enforceable then you need to support my amendment. It may be that a result of my amendment is that the government does not write any mandatory provisions in the community engagement charter because they do not want to be held to account for anything.

The other thing I will say is that certainly when we drafted this we held out some hope that the community engagement charter would relate to people being involved in individual development applications as well as just planning policy. I think the need for strict time lines is more acute when it comes to individual development applications. For example, when you see an ad in the paper which says, 'You have to have your comments in by a certain date, and if you don't they will not be taken into account,' that is an example of a mandatory provision.

People might think, 'Well, when it comes to policy, we're not going to be so hung up on that level of detail.' I do not know; maybe we should be. If the community engagement charter sets a binding standard for community engagement I think we at least need the ability to hold people to it. Other than that, I agree with the government that we should allow them to be innovative, flexible and to engage in the community in a variety of interesting ways, but if there are mandatory provisions and we want them to count for something you have to give people the ability to enforce them, otherwise what is the point of putting them in?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate that the opposition will be opposing the government's amendment and supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell. I will not go over it again, but what I saw in Western Australia, with their independent planning commission and their dialogue with the city, which is effectively their community engagement charter, is a very good system, and I think it is important that we get that part of it right.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I also oppose the amendment and support the Greens' original amendment. I agree: what is the point in having requirements if they are not mandatory? And if they are mandatory then they need to be adhered to.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be opposing the government's amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: To assist me in my understanding of this, I am seeking some assistance from the Hon. Mr Parnell. As I read the community engagement charter, it is essentially a means, whether mandatory or not, of consulting. Ultimately, the decisions are taken by other beings, bodies, commissions, or whatever it might happen to be.

Is the Hon. Mr Parnell able to explain in relation to the decisions that are currently taken by whoever in relation to a suburb being a historic heritage zone or, in particular, in Norwood, for example, certain houses cannot be knocked down and the one next door to it can be? Someone has made that decision. I am not sure under the current arrangements who makes that decision. Under this new arrangement with the community engagement charter, and others, there is still no role for local people in making those sorts of decisions in the future. Will they be taken by the commission or various assessment panels under this new package we have before us tonight?

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: It actually sounds a very simple question but it can be quite difficult. If we take, for example, the ability to knock down a house, there are two ways of looking at it; one is: is there planning policy which says this house is, say, local heritage and therefore protected and cannot be knocked down, in which case the community do have a say over policy and that is where the community engagement charter is going to set out how they are involved and what sort of say they have.

If a person lodges an application with their local council to knock down their house, that falls into the category of development assessment so, even though ultimately we are talking about the same issue, you can approach it from writing policy about what houses get protected and what can be knocked down and then you have individual applications to knock down individual houses where the community will have no say.

In relation to setting the policy, we have the new regime and the new planning commission but the government rules the roost and, whatever processes they have to go through of public engagement and agencies they have to talk to, ultimately, the minister will be signing off on policies. It may be that I have missed a few amendments that put the commission in there a bit higher up but I think, ultimately, the buck stops with the minister.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Just to clarify, in both cases whether it is the minister or the commission is not particularly my question at the moment. In terms of this argument as to whether local people are involved or not, ultimately the local people or the community people will only be consulted under this arrangement. Someone else—the commission, the minister or a combination of both—is immaterial to the question that I have at the moment.

The decision to save a particular suburb—Norwood, for example, is going to be a historic zone, whatever that means, or these particular houses can been knocked down or cannot be knocked down—whilst the local people in Norwood or wherever it might happen to be can be consulted, ultimately, under this, the decision will be taken by the commission or a minister or someone else. They do not actually make the decision: they do not actually participate. They might put a point of view, they can be consulted and there might be all of these mandatory consultations, but ultimately they might all oppose it or support it but, if the minister or commission has a different view, having listened to all of that, that is the final decision.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Yes, and in fact the Hon. Rob Lucas uses the example that some people might oppose it. I have been in situations, as the Hon. David Ridgway has, where 100 per cent of people opposed it, where 500 people or more have flocked into cinemas. Mount Barker springs to mind.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: They weren't all opposed.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: All the ones who spoke were opposed. Those who thought it was a good idea kept their own counsel. But the point the Hon. Rob Lucas is making is correct. Whatever methods of community engagement are put in, whether it is a trestle table of officials who nod sympathetically and then do their own thing, whether it is a minister receiving people in his or her office and nodding sympathetically and then doing their own thing, ultimately, community engagement is only really an input into a final political decision. Whilst much of our debate here is about de-politicising this whole planning system, it is going to be as politicised as ever, with the buck stopping with the minister on just about every key, important decision.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 45.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 7 [Employment–5]—

Page 46, line 9—Delete paragraph (a)

Again, it is similar to ones that enjoyed broad support here moments ago in the chamber. It ensures that the commission has a central role in the preparation or amendment of the charter.

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

Amendment carried.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 8 [Emp–5]—

Page 46, lines 10 and 11—Delete 'on behalf of the Minister (at the direction or with the approval of the Minister)' and substitute:

on its own initiative or at the request of the Minister

This amendment provides that the commission may act on its own initiative to amend the charter in addition to a ministerial request.

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

Amendment carried.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 9 [Emp–5]—

Page 46, after line 15—Delete inserted subparagraph (ia)

This amendment will remove the requirement inserted in the committee stage to consult with the ERD Committee in proposing to prepare or amend the charter. This is unnecessary because anyone with an interest is able to comment on the proposal under clause 45(2)(c) when the proposal to prepare or amend the charter is published on the planning portal. In any case, the ERD Committee will have the ultimate power of scrutiny over the charter or amendments.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: We are supporting the government.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I will speak then. I do not support the amendment. I have to say that there are a lot of inconsistencies in this bill. One of the big ticket items from the government, which came from the Brian Hayes review, was all about, 'Why don't we involve the parliament earlier in the process?' At present, the parliament gets involved late in the process. This community engagement charter document is one of the most important documents in the new system. I have moved an amendment to say, 'Why don't we involve the parliament earlier in the process rather than later?', and the minister's response is, 'We don't want to do that. We want to consult with them as late as possible.'

When you look at the regime for consulting over the community charter, they are going to talk to all and sundry—I take that point. There are a whole lot of stakeholders that they are going to consult with. My view is: why not send it to the ERD Committee of parliament, because if the ERD Committee is involved earlier it is on their radar and they can call witnesses if they want. If they want to get community groups and say, 'Look, the government has drafted this charter. What do you think about it?' Some groups might say, 'It's great,' and other groups might say, 'It's no good at all.'

I find it ludicrous that the big-ticket item for the government was the early involvement of parliament and here, when I try to get the early involvement of parliament, they try to take it out. I am disappointed that that is the attitude and I am disappointed that it is not going to survive today. I just want to attach a little bit of shame to the government, because I think they are being incredibly inconsistent in this.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 10 [Emp–5]—

Page 46, after line 16—Insert:

(iii) any other entity the Commission thinks fit; and

This amendment will allow the commission the flexibility to consult with any other entity if it believes it will be beneficial to consult regarding changes to the charter.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: We will be supporting the amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 11 [Emp–5]—

Page 46, line 35—Delete 'Minister' and substitute 'Commission'

Amendment No 12 [Emp–5]—

Page 46, line 39—Delete 'Minister' and substitute 'Commission'

Amendment No. 11 reflects the commission's central role in the charter, and amendment No. 12 is directly consequential on amendment No. 11.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate support.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 46 to 53 passed.

New clause 54.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 13 [Emp–5]—

Page 51, lines 16 to 18—Insert:

54—Freedom of information

The Freedom of Information Act 1991 does not apply to or in relation to a document (within the meaning of that Act) that is received, created or held under this Division.

This amendment reinserts the original clause 54. As we previously discussed, when this was discussed originally, the clause as drafted merely restates what is already the existing law under the Development Act and the Freedom of Information Act, whereby the regime of FOI is already effectively displaced from the planning system.

This is a matter of transparency. Clause 54, if reinserted as originally drafted, will clarify for practitioners, councils and system users that information held and published on the portal is not subject to FOI, as is already the case under sections 20B and 20C of the FOI Act. The exclusion only applies to materials held on the portal, so would not apply to things like individual plans showing where bank vaults are to be situated or other sensitive information. Sensitive information will be protected so as not to jeopardise the current or future security of a building. In short, this is a no change clause.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I do not think we will need to reagitate the whole of this. This is the freedom of information clause. I recall the Hon. Rob Lucas had a lot to say about this when we dealt with it. The government is right to a very limited extent. If there is information that is on the portal—and we are hoping it will all be on the portal—the location of the bank vaults will not be on the portal. There are existing protections that stop potential bank robbers finding out the location of the bank vault. That is not an issue.

We are hoping that most information will be on the portal. If it is on the portal, then the Freedom of Information Act does not apply because section 20, I think it was that the minister quoted, says that you cannot use freedom of information if the information is available somewhere else, like it is published. That is logical, but I put this scenario: if there is a document that should have been on the portal and the government refuses to put it on the portal, unless the Freedom of Information Act is still a last resort in here, you have nowhere to go, you have no umpire to go to.

You could lodge a freedom of information application, the government says, 'We're not going to show you that document,' and we are saying, 'Well, you should have put that on the portal, it's in a category of documents, it should have been on the portal.' The government says, 'We're not going to show it to you, you can go to the umpire, you can go to the Ombudsman and you can get a second opinion on whether you're entitled to access the document,' but really it is a second opinion on whether the government should have put it on the portal. At the end of the day, it does not matter, you will still get access to the document.

So, I think the Freedom of Information Act will have very little work to do, and that is good. It is a good thing: it will not have much work to do, but it will have no work to do if the government puts in a clause here that says that it does not apply to this act. I maintain that we need to remove the clause that says that the Freedom of Information Act does not apply, so I oppose the government's amendment.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: This was one of the amendments which, when we initially debated it, was in that period of uncertainty for the opposition and we had some sympathy with what the Hon. Mark Parnell was trying to do. The opposition has had some time to consider it post Christmas, we have now revised our position and we will not support the Hon. Mark Parnell but will support the government on this amendment.

New clause inserted.

Clauses 55 to 62 passed.

Clause 63.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There are a series of amendments, key provisions about the content of the code. If it is the will of the chamber, I propose to move amendments Nos 1 to 6 together. I move:

Amendment No 1 [Emp–8]—

Page 56, line 4—Delete 'or modification'

Amendment No 2 [Emp–8]—

Page 56, line 5—Delete ', including by permitting' and substitute:

to provide for necessary and appropriate local variations in specified circumstances, including by permitting in the Code

Amendment No 3 [Emp–8]—

Page 56, line 6—After 'technical' insert 'or numeric'

Amendment No 4 [Emp–8]—

Page 56, lines 6 and 7—Delete 'specified parameters' and substitute:

parameters specified in the Code

Amendment No 5 [Emp–8]—

Page 56, lines 8 and 9—Delete 'specified parameters' and substitute:

parameters specified in the Code

Amendment No 6 [Emp–8]—

Page 56, line 10—After 'development' insert ', specified in the Code,'

Amendment No. 1 would remove the words 'modification of' from the elements of which the code may provide. The government has listened to concerns raised by the Hon. Mark Parnell and others in relation to this clause and the need for clarification. This amendment will allow the code to be adapted to respond to local circumstances. However, any such adaptation will be required to be developed in consultation, as set out under the community engagement charter, before being set out in the code.

Amendment No. 2 makes clear that changes to the code can, where appropriate, be made to take account of local variations. Amendment No. 3 reinstates the ability of the council to, where appropriate, seek change to numeric provisions in the code to suit specific local circumstances. This will not enable modification on an application by application basis, but rather will permit inclusion in the code on a range of specialised parameters arrived at through consultation under the community engagement charter and applied over a defined area. Amendments Nos 4, 5 and 6 are all related and seek to clarify the parameters that can be varied that are to be identified in the code.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I have had a number of discussions with ministerial and departmental staff, and I think it is probably fair to say that they accepted that the interpretation I had put on section 33 was arguable: that is, that it potentially left scope for decision-makers to make decisions outside the detail of the code. In other words, they could make stuff up. I think these amendments clarify that, in fact, the code will actually contain the planning rules to be applied and that there is not going to be an unreasonable level of wriggle room.

For example, when I talked about removing the word 'numeric', that was to deal with situations where I did not want to see a seven-storey building approved in a five-storey zone. However, if the planning rules said, 'This is a five-storey zone but you can go to seven storeys on these sites, these corner blocks,' or whatever, that is fine; that is what the code says. The government has clarified that it is looking at having provisions in the code; it is not trying to give unfettered wriggle room for decision-makers to make stuff up, or to invent their own version of the rules because they have decided that they do not like the number in the code and they are going to put in their own number.

I am satisfied with the amendments that have been drafted, and I thank the government for working with me to try to get a system that allows for both a degree of confidence in what the rules are but also allows enough flexibility that worthwhile projects will not be unnecessarily stymied.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The opposition is also happy with the amendments that the minister has moved, so we will be supporting them. The minister has moved amendments Nos 1 to 6 as a block, and we will be supporting all of those.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 64.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 14 [Emp–5]—

Page 57, after line 3—Delete inserted subclauses (4) and (5)

This amendment seeks to reinstate local heritage notification processes as introduced in this place. As has been stated on numerous occasions, it is not the government's intention to disturb existing local heritage provisions at this point, rather it is proposed to conduct a more comprehensive review of the legislation governing such matters in due course. While the aim of the Hon. Mr Hood's amendment is well understood, and we appreciate and understand the positions he has put in relation to this, the government believes that any such changes should be considered in the context of heritage provisions as a whole.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I thought I would speak to this given that it is my amendment, that passed in this place, that this government amendment is seeking to remove, the amendment that was made previously—my amendment, that is. And I just remind members what my amendment does.

The amendment essentially says that any attempt by a council to designate a specific area as a heritage conservation zone will need to be supported by at least 51 per cent of the owners of property in that specific area; so, it is a simple majority. That is, if a council decides that they want to put in a heritage zone in the suburb of Toorak Gardens, for example, as pretty much the whole suburb of Toorak Gardens is a heritage conservation zone, then they need to get the permission of at least 51 per cent of the people who will be directly affected. It is as simple as that.

It is a very important amendment because it says that the simple majority of people affected should determine what happens to their particular home; and not only their home, but the immediate surrounding area. I will give you an example: as we have discussed many times in this place when we dealt with this bill in preceding weeks, a heritage conservation zone has been introduced by the Prospect Council, and there was a very substantial objection by a substantial majority of residents who are directly affected by the introduction of that heritage conservation zone. It was in the order of 60-plus per cent, and it might have even been as high as 70 per cent of people who were directly affected and objected to it—but it went through anyway.

Their houses are now subject to this historic conservation zone, which essentially means that it is almost impossible to demolish them despite the fact that some of them are literally falling down. In fact, I have literally put my arm through the wall of one of those houses—

The Hon. M.C. Parnell: It's called a door.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: It almost is a door, that is right. Yet, this property is protected under the historic conservation zone. It cannot be demolished except in exceptional circumstances, and the particular person who lives there cannot get this property demolished under the new rules that prevail despite the fact that at least 60 per cent—and it may have even been as high as 70—but at least 60 per cent of the people directly affected actually object to it.

In speaking to a real estate agent about this individual's property, he maintains that it has devalued her property by something in the order of $200,000 at least—according to his words—because of the imposition of this heritage conservation zone. So, I think this is a very important amendment. It goes to property rights; it goes to people having the opportunity, within reason, to have control over their own properties. To have a situation where a minority can tell the majority what to do is unacceptable to me.

I stand by this amendment and that is why I am opposing the government's amendment, because the government's amendment, of course, would remove my amendment which did pass in this place the last time we debated it, and I remind the opposition and the Hon. Mr Darley that they supported me. They may choose not to this time—that is entirely their right, of course. But I just remind them that they supported me last time, and I certainly hope they will support me again.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The Hon. Dennis Hood's amendment in some ways goes to the heart of the planning system and why we have a planning system. When I have been invited to teach first-year students on how you would describe the planning system in one sentence, basically the way I describe it is that it is a set of public-interest principles that is designed to override the individual selfish desires of individual property owners. I do not want to make it sound terrible, but the point is that if we were all left to our own devices we would chop every significant tree, we would build as tall as we could to maximise the profit, and you would have chaos.

It also raises interesting questions about the level of public participation and citizens' democracy in the system, and I know that is what the Hon. Dennis Hood is working towards. When I wrote a substantial paper on this many, many moons ago, I referred to Arnstein's ladder of public participation, which has citizen democracy up one end—in other words, as in the Hon. Dennis Hood's model, the citizens will decide. That is at one end, and at the other end of the spectrum is mere tokenism, where the government tells you what is good for you and you had better just take it.

I am thinking that what we are aiming for is probably somewhere in between. I do not think a pure popularity context would work in planning that well, and this is coming from someone who has been advocating for greater rights of public participation, but should it be a 100 per cent popularity contest? Hands up who wants a funeral parlour in their neighbourhood? Hands up who wants a toxic waste dump at the end of their street? Hands up who wants a drug and alcohol rehab centre? A very essential public service—but who wants one in their street? Public opinion poll? It is just not going to happen.

Part of the role of the state is determining what is best for the community, but they need to bring the community along with them. Whether you allow an individual vote to say we are or we are not going to be heritage, we are going to be flats or we are going to be single storey, is a very interesting philosophical question, but we are opening a can of worms here that I think would ultimately see the collapse of the planning system.

The comfort that I do take—and the Hon. Dennis Hood knows this—is that the government has committed to going back and rewriting the heritage system. The heritage system is broken and it does need to be fixed. Some heritage advocates have actually been sitting in the gallery listening to our debate, and one of them said to me, 'Get rid of local heritage altogether; get it out of the planning system. Put it into a separate heritage act; make it a subset of state heritage.' I am not advocating that; I am just saying that that is something that people have put to me.

Whilst I can see that the Hon. Dennis Hood's amendments will not survive tonight, just as many of mine have not survived tonight, I take some comfort from the commitment of the government to revisit heritage. We can have a debate over the extent to which individuals can stop their properties being heritage listed, or can they be ridden roughshod over by the rest of society? These are important questions, but I think that for today the Greens are supporting the original clause; that is, we are not supporting the Family First amendments.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate that I will not be supporting the government's amendment and, in respect of Mr Hood's proposal, I would assume that when it came to working out the 51 per cent, there would only be one vote per property and so the number of owners does not complicate it.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate that the opposition will not be supporting the government's amendment tonight. It does raise a number of issues, but we were happy to support the Hon. Dennis Hood when we divided on this before, and we are still happy at this point in time to support him.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 65 to 67 passed.

Clause 68.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 15 [Emp-5]—

Page 58, lines 20 and 21—Delete 'as in force at a specified time' and substitute:

either as in force at a specified time or as in force from time to time

The government moves this amendment to reverse the removal during the committee stage of the useful ability to refer to extraneous materials as updated from time to time, which we say would be unworkable if we do not. This would force an amendment process every time an extraneous document is altered, for example, ministerial specifications or Australian standards, which are currently called in development plans as amended from time to time.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I do want to insist on my amendment remaining, so I am opposing the government's amendment. I will just say at the outset that incorporating external documents makes a lot of sense. I have mentioned a few tonight already, things like national parks management plans. They are incorporated into the planning system. What I am not keen on doing is having incorporated into the planning system documents where we do not yet know what they contain, where we have no control over their contents and which might be prepared in a very undemocratic way.

In fact, some of these documents might be documents that no-one has had any input into. In fact, it is so open-ended that if the government wanted to say that South Australia's planning laws incorporate the Institute of Public Affairs' planning policy as in existence from time to time, then every time that organisation changed its planning process so too would South Australian law. It is a pretty exaggerated example, but my point is that it is not as if there is a list of documents that the government is going to incorporate, but when you say that external documents—we do not know which ones—that might be varied from time to time are automatically included without question into South Australian law, then I think that is a step too far.

If you limit it to named documents, then that is okay. Once that document changes, then, yes, it triggers provisions in this bill which include the ability for parliament to say, 'Whoa, we don't like this new updated document and we're not going to incorporate it into South Australia.' You would appreciate that, even when it comes to national standards, you have state variations. The state is not obliged to accept every part of a national standard. I think that it is a safer measure to reject the government amendment and to keep the Green amendment so that, yes, documents can be incorporated, but we are not having open-ended incorporation of documents where we have no idea what they contain or even what topics they cover.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: We initially supported the Hon. Mark Parnell on this particular amendment, but the feedback from the LGA said that they think this is an unnecessary regulatory burden and therefore we will support the government amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 69 passed.

Clause 70.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 16 [Emp–5]—

Page 60, after line 2—Delete inserted paragraph (bb)

Clause 70 as amended by amendment [Parnell-1] 38 inserts consultation notification requirements to all landowners in an area for changes to the code as a fallback position, if the code does not specify consultation notification requirements for a particular change that will impact a specified piece of land. By enshrining this in law, this will become a default minimum rather than leaving notification consultation requirements to the charter that outlines the process.

This might be workable for local site-specific amendments; however, for changes of broader application, including statewide proposals, this would set an onerous and potentially very costly mandatory minimum that may not be justified in all circumstances. Such requirements should be left to the development of the charter, which is already subject to consultation and potential disallowance.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I am opposing the government's amendment. I will remind the council that I have been very pleased that the Liberals on two separate occasions have supported the amendments that were agreed to last time. Basically, this paragraph prevents someone's land from being rezoned from under them without any attempt being made to notify them about what is proposed or what rights they have to comment.

If the community engagement charter provides for a level of consultation, then the amendment has no work to do. But if the charter does not require notification of affected property owners, then this amendment at least requires the designated entity, and here are the important words: to 'take reasonable steps to give notice in accordance with the regulations'. So the government gets to set the method of notification.

Notice that I have not said 'must send every property owner a registered letter in their name'. I have not said that. I have not said, 'An officer from the department must knock on each door and talk to every property owner.' I have not said that. I have given the government the ability to set the notification method, and they have to take reasonable steps to give notice, so that means that judicial challenge is extremely unlikely if the government follows its own rules.

The fundamental principle at stake here is one that the Hon. Dennis Hood has been talking about already. It is the right of property owners to be notified about things that affect them, but to be notified in a manner that does not involve them buying a newspaper and looking at the public notices; it does not involve them going to the GovernmentGazette and finding out what is going on.

My expectation is that we are probably talking about neighbourhood-wide letterbox drops, probably part of an existing council newsletter, telling people, 'Hey people, you know the government wants to rezone your land, and here is how you have your say.' I do not think it is unreasonable. I think this might have even been a Liberal election policy before 2014. I will stand corrected if it is not but, certainly, it was something that the Liberals were very strong on. I have been very glad to have their support in the past, and I am sure they will do the right thing tonight.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Ridgway.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: He is telling you what to do.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I can tell you one thing: the Hon. Mark Parnell does not tell me what to do.

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Don’t interject, you will slow the process down. I indicate that the opposition will be opposing the government's amendment and supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendment. While we understand that the government says that including such a requirement undermines what they say are the fundamental principles underlying the bill of improved, tailored and flexible engagements with the charter, they go on to say it might be practically difficult to administer and opens up the risk of judicial challenge. I am not sure whether that is accurate so, at this point in time, we are very happy to continue to support the position put by the Hon. Mark Parnell, so we will oppose the government's amendment.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: My recollection is that Family First supported the Hon. Mr Parnell's amendment on the previous occasion. For that reason, we will be opposing the government's amendment on this occasion. I think, fundamentally, in order to be consistent, this amendment goes to the sort of issue I just explained to the chamber with respect to my own amendment; that is, people have a right to know what is happening with their own property.

I think, as the Hon. Mr Parnell rightly explains, this is a very simple, low bar, if you like. All that needs to be done is to let people know, potentially by a council newsletter, as the Hon. Mr Parnell explained, or a letterbox drop or whatever it may be, and I really do not think that is asking too much. Whilst we are absolutely for flexibility, and absolutely for the planning process to be sped up and for results to occur, people still need to know what is happening.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be opposing the government's amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 71 and 72 passed.

Clause 73.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 8 [Emp–6]—

Page 63, lines 36 to 38—Insert:

(c) in order to provide consistency between the designated instrument and section 7(5) after a notice under section 7(8) has taken effect in accordance with that section; or

This is, in effect, consequential to our previous discussions on the environment and food production area. I will speak to that if the chamber wishes, but it is consequential to that, I think.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 74.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 17 [Emp–5]—

Page 64, lines 32 to 39—Delete inserted subclause (1) and substitute:

(1) If the Minister is of the opinion that it is necessary in the interests of the orderly and proper development of an area of the State that an amendment to a regional plan, the Planning and Design Code or a design standard should come into operation without delay, the Minister may, at the same time as, or at any time after, the amendment is released for public consultation under the Community Engagement Charter under this Part, and without the need for any other consultation or process, by notice published in the Gazette, declare that the amendment will come into operation on an interim basis on a day specified in the notice.

Amendment No 18 [Emp–5]—

Page 64, after line 39—Delete inserted subclauses (1a) and (1b)

Amendment No 19 [Emp–5]—

Page 65, after line 18—Delete inserted subclause (7)

The government amendments seek to remove the three amendments to this clause moved by the Hon. Mark Parnell and passed during the committee stage, which would constrain the use of what is currently called 'interim operation'. The government opposes this constraint on existing practice that has been in place for decades, in line with the expert panel's finding in this regard.

Early commencement can be used to both enable appropriate development in specified circumstances and to provide environmental and heritage protections with immediate effect. The minister may only approve early commencement in the interests of orderly and proper development of the state and is answerable, at the end of the day, to the electorate on that basis.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I am going to insist on the original amendments that I proposed, so I am opposed to the government amendment. We have not had too many divisions tonight, and I hope we will not have too many, but this is a die in the ditch issue for the Greens.

The abuse of interim operation, which is now called 'early commencement', is well known. It has been used to fast-track development applications so that approvals are granted even before public consultation has finished. Remember the Mayfield development? That is the textbook example. It was approved two weeks before the public consultation meeting, so it is the most outrageous case of interim operation that I have seen in some time.

My amendments ensure that the tool of early commencement is only used in appropriate circumstances, such as preserving heritage buildings or preventing a frenzy of subdivision, while public consultation on planning changes takes place. The Greens dispute that the amendment has the unintended consequences that the minister has claimed.

The minister used the words that early commencement can 'enable appropriate development'. As members know, the purpose of interim operation or early commencement was never to enable appropriate development. I have on a number of occasions tabled Planning Circular No. 20. Don Hopgood was the planning minister, and he wrote to ministers and local councils and everyone saying, 'Please do not expect me to use interim operations so you can get your favourite projects through. It's not what this is for.'

That was over 20 years ago and nothing has changed. The only thing that has changed is that the government has now realised it is a fast-track method. It is a way to get their zoning changes through before any public consultation has occurred. As members know, once you have gazetted that policy change, even if it is subsequently thrown out, it is still binding for the period that it is in operation. You can get a flurry of applications after early commencement and it completely undermines the ability of the public to be involved.

The LGA had some concerns because the mechanism I have put forward is designed to make sure that non-contentious developments are not blocked; in other words, if interim operation comes in and someone lodges a development application, if it was going to get approved under the old scheme and approved under the new scheme, it gets approved. That is simple. But if the answer is different under the different schemes, the cautious thing to do is to say, 'No, we are not going to let you do this under interim operation. You have to wait until the planning changes have finally come about.'

As I say, this is one of the enduring rorts of the planning system. It is a misused provision. It completely undermines the rights of the public and it is in that 'die in a ditch' category, so I will be opposing the government amendment and asking the committee to insist that the amendments that we agreed to last time remain.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I have some sympathy for the Hon. Mark Parnell's argument and his original amendments, but he has lost me on one point, and I will put this out there for him to respond to if he wishes.

The simple fact is that these interim operations can be used the other way as well. It is a two-sided coin. I go back to the Prospect example, where interim operation was applied immediately to introduce a heritage conservation zone. People who were looking to do something with their particular property were immediately stopped from doing so and had no notice of it whatsoever, so it does go both ways.

As the Hon. Mr Parnell will no doubt acknowledge, his amendment specifically excludes heritage, but not those wishing to develop their site. I would be more sympathetic to it if it did not specifically exclude heritage. If it were a blanket rule, if you like—that is, it applied to everything—Family First would be quite sympathetic to that amendment, but because it only essentially stops those wishing to develop we are unable to support his amendment and therefore support the government's amendment to this later version.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate that I will be supporting the government's amendment.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I might just point out—and the Hon. Mark Parnell may wish to comment on it—that he used the phrase 'enduring rort' in relation to these. Does he include, from 2005 to 2013, the 34 per cent of these that related to heritage matters, as the Hon. Dennis Hood talked about, the other way that they are used, the 14 per cent of these that are used for environmental protection and the fact that two-thirds of these are council initiated? Are these included in his description of 'enduring rorts'?

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the minister for the chance to elaborate. If I were trying to pull the wool over people's eyes, I would have not mentioned heritage because it is—

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I know I am not being accused of that, but the point is that there are a number of valid uses, but a key valid use of—

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: No, a key valid use in my view is to protect heritage so that it does not get knocked down while consultation is underway about the planning changes. That was the original purpose of the exercise, so I accept the Hon. Dennis Hood's point. Yes, interim operation prevents people from demolishing their house, for example—but not forever, only until the plan has been resolved.

It might be resolved that the heritage zone, for example, becomes permanent in which case they cannot knock down their house, but the thing is if you did not use interim operation in that situation, then as soon as people saw the ad in the newspaper or on the portal saying, 'We are thinking about heritage listing this area,' I tell you that you will not be able to rent a bulldozer for love nor money because everyone will be out there knocking everything down before it gets listed.

The Hon. D.G.E. Hood: Only those who wanted to do it anyway.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The Hon. Dennis Hood says for those people who were inclined to do that, then it would be a huge incentive for them to rent a bulldozer and get their house down. I used the words 'enduring rort' and what I meant was that it is enduring from the past act, the current act into the present bill, but I am not suggesting that it is rorted in most cases or a majority of cases. It is used appropriately in most cases, but the point is that there are enough situations where it has been misused that I seek through my amendments to clarify its use so that this is a tool for good, so that it is not a tool to allow the government to fast-track their favourite developments.

That is what has drifted in over time, that is the trend that has been emerging: not to use this tool for the purpose for which it was intended but to use it to fast-track development at the expense of community consultation. What early commencement means is that the change to the law comes into effect immediately and then we will consult the community afterwards. It is the shoot first, ask questions later approach to town planning which is inappropriate for other than those situations such as environmental or heritage protection to stop something bad happening during the period of consultation. Once the policy is finally settled, then good or bad things might happen depending on the result of that process. I thank the minister for the opportunity to clarify that.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: It is interesting to listen to the Hon. Mark Parnell. He always fails to mention in this particular part of the debate about interim operation. The reason the opposition will support the Hon. Mark Parnell's position is the wind farm DPA which was an abuse of the process. I spoke to the minister yesterday when we were discussing some of these matters and he raised this with me. I said, 'Minister, it was your government and your party that caused this issue. You have abused the process.'

I noticed in the gallery a little while ago the member for Stuart, Dan van Holst Pellekaan, and his wife with a couple of guests who were here with him for the evening. I was hoping to get a chance to speak to him but he has found something better to do with his time, and his guests' time, than sit and watch us here—I know nothing could be better! The member for Goyder, Steven Griffiths; the member for Schubert, Stephan Knoll; and the member for Hammond, Adrian Pederick, have all been impacted by development applications that were lodged during that interim operation period.

I said to the minister, 'You come up with a mechanism where it cannot be abused and it cannot be used in the way it was in that particular case.' After 12 months, the government reverted to a different set of rules in relation to wind farm developments, but of course all these development applications had been lodged and they are still causing angst in regional communities. It is a strange sort of relationship we have with the Hon. Mark Parnell.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Unholy.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I would not say unholy, but if the wind farm DPA were not such an abuse, we probably would be inclined to support the government's amendment, but we are going to oppose the government's three amendments, which are all consequential. I put the challenge out to the minister that, if he can come up with some wording or a mechanism where it cannot be abused and cannot be used to give groups of people an advantage in the way that it was with the wind farm DPA, then maybe that is one of those issues that we may be able to look at between the houses. At this point in time, we are very happy to support the Hon. Mark Parnell and oppose the government's amendment.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Very quickly, I am glad the Hon. David Ridgway raised that example; it had slipped my mind. The point he would know is that the Greens are big fans of renewable energy. We are great supporters of the wind farm industry, but I voted against that DPA, not because I did not think it was meritorious but because I did not like the way they did it. So, I am acting consistently and I appreciate that the Liberals are acting consistently in supporting our position on this.

Amendments negatived; clause passed.

Clause 75 passed.

Clause 76.

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

Amendment No 10 [Ridgway–9]—

Page 66, after line 1—Insert:

(1a) In particular, the Minister must publish a Ministerial building standard under subsection (1) that relates to adaptive re-use of buildings constructed before 1 January 1980.

This is something that the Leader of the Opposition Steven Marshall indicated last week that we would like to do. It is in relation to adaptive re-use and relates to buildings constructed before 1 January 1980. It is about adaptive re-use; it is about trying to get the C and D grade buildings upgraded in the city. I think minister Rau, at a press conference in response to that, said that the government would of course be happy to support that, so I will not delay the chamber but I urge members to support this amendment. It is an extension of some of the heritage adaptive re-use that we talked about some weeks ago and this just brings it to buildings that were constructed before 1 January 1980.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his amendment. The government supports the concept of a ministerial building standard applying to adaptive re-use. This existing power under the Development Act to vary, alter or override the Building Code of Australia has been replicated in the bill, clause 76(1)(b).

It must be made clear that in relation to access and facilities for people living with disabilities, the current arrangements apply the premises standards under the commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act. As members would be aware, valid federal laws prevail over inconsistent state legislation. The commonwealth legislation has its own concessions and processes for seeking exemptions, and the ability to upgrade a building over a number of years if the owner cannot find the initial capital.

I am also advised that the commonwealth is undertaking a review of the existing disability access provisions and in May of this year, when complete, will reconsider this aspect of the specification depending on its findings. Until this time it would be premature for the government to commit to any changes relating to disability access. For these reasons, the government does not believe that the amendment is necessary but will support it.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 77 passed.

Clause 78.

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

Amendment No 11 [Ridgway–9]—

Page 67, line 3—After 'members' insert: , only 1 of which may be a member of a council,

Amendment No 12 [Ridgway–9]—

Page 67, lines 19 and 20—Insert:

(d) a person who is a member of the Parliament of the State is not eligible to be appointed as a member of an assessment panel;

Amendment No. 11 relates to development assessment panels and the issue that we have had some debate over, that is, the make-up of development assessment panels. It is the opposition's position that we should have up to one member of a development assessment panel who could be a member of a local council. Everybody understands the issues; I think they have been well debated before.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will speak to the Ridgway amendments, but I will not speak at great length. This was canvassed a lot when we originally talked about it only a couple of weeks ago. I will say, though, that in line with the recommendations of the Expert Panel on Planning Reform the government considers the depoliticisation of assessment panels to be a key platform of the reforms proposed in this bill. The government aims to achieve this again in line with the expert panel's reports by making elected representatives of councils, and indeed the state government, ineligible for appointment to such panels. This change has been publicly supported by peak bodies in the development sector.

The government's position is that if panel members who possess the skills and the necessary experience to make active planning decisions are appointed, it is likely that better outcomes would result for all. It is important to see this change in the context of what the new the bill envisages, which is the need for compliance with the community-designed community engagement charter that is firmly enshrined in the legislation.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I too will be brief because we have agitated these issues. I will say at the outset that we had four different models presented last time. The only thing we achieved was to remove the prohibition on local councillors being on panels, which as the government rightly points out means that, as the bill currently stands, every member could be a local councillor. That was not anyone's intention.

The position of the Greens is that we thought the status quo was just under half, in other words, two out of five. We are disappointed that that is not where it ended up but, politics being the art of compromise, certainly the Local Government Association realised that, faced with the option of one or none, one is better than none.

I am happy to be supporting the Liberal amendment. It will ensure that local councillors will at least have a foot in the door. They will by no means control any of these panels—they will have one person—but it will keep that level of connection between a local council and the decisions that are being made effectively in their name by these development assessment panels. I think that that is a good outcome, and I hope that that is what succeeds tonight.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: My question is not directly related to this amendment, but I do not know where else to put it. I would be grateful if the minister could confirm whether all assessment panels, both regional and otherwise, whether appointed by joint planning boards, councils or the minister, are independent and required to make decisions based on the planning rules and not owned and directed by those who appointed them.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In response to the Hon. John Darley's question, I can confirm that all decisions are to be based on the planning rules and the relevant assessment pathways. The government's preference is that these be objectively applied by accredited professionals with the appropriate skills and qualifications.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: They are not owned by the people who appointed them?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I have been advised that that is correct.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I will just make one point, that no member seems to have made, although it is quite obvious; perhaps members have thought about it but have not enunciated it; that is, both the government and the opposition's amendment excludes a member of the state parliament. There is no mention of the federal parliament, that is, a South Australian member of the federal parliament.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: They wouldn't want to lower themselves to that.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: That may well be true. The Hon. Mr Ridgway interjects that they would not want to lower themselves, and perhaps that is quite right, but it does seem to be an inconsistency in both amendments before us. I was intending to oppose one of the Hon. Mr Ridgway's amendments and support the other one, that is, to oppose amendment No. 9, which says that only one member may be a member of a council. We have been consistent in opposing any member being a member of a council.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: Amendment No. 11 of set 9.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Correct; sorry, No. 11 set 9—and to support No. 12 set 9, which also says that a member of the state parliament is not eligible, with the proviso, as I mentioned though, that it is interesting that none of us have included federal members of parliament. I think the government's amendment actually does that anyway. It says specifically:

a person who is a member of the Parliament of the State [or a member of the council] is not eligible to be appointed as a member of an assessment panel;

We agree with that position, and for that reason we will be supporting the government amendment.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 79 to 95 passed.

Clause 96.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 7 [Emp–8]—

Page 77, lines 11 and 12—Delete 'the requirement that the development is assessed as being appropriate after taking into account'

This amendment removes the appropriateness test and simply requires that a development be assessed consistent with existing section 33(1) of the Development Act against the relevant provisions of the planning rules. The issue as to whether the development should be approved or not is instead addressed depending on the type of development and the applicable assessment pathway. For example, in relation to 'deemed to satisfy' development, the relevant authority can only approve the application if it satisfies all of the requirements aside from only minor variations, and I refer to clause 100.

This issue is dealt with in government amendment 8 of set 8 to clause 101 that will provide that performance assessed development may only be approved if a relevant authority considers that it is not seriously at variance with the planning rules. This reintroduces the seriously at variance test, which is better suited to a performance-based system than the strict no variance rule imported by the amendments passed during the committee stage.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I would like to thank the government for their willingness to negotiate on this. I am happy with the government's amendments. They reinstate the 'seriously at variance' test. The idea that the test be that the development is appropriate was far too loose. Part of the beauty, I think, with the 'seriously at variance' test is that there are 30 or so years of jurisprudence on it. It is what the courts deal with in almost every single case, because that is the question before them: is the proposed development seriously at variance with the planning scheme? I think it makes sense to go back to that so I am happy to support the amendment to clause 96 and a consequential amendment to clause 101. They are the same issue.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I am happy to indicate the opposition also will be supporting the amendments proposed by the government.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 97 to 100 passed.

Clause 101.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 8 [Emp–8]—

Page 80, after line 39—Delete inserted paragraph (c) and substitute:

and

(c) to the extent that paragraph (b) applies—the development must not be granted planning consent if it is, in the opinion of the relevant authority, seriously at variance with the Planning and Design Code (disregarding minor variations).

I think, as the Hon. Mark Parnell indicated, this is consequential on the amendment that we most recently passed.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 24 [Emp–5]—

Page 81, lines 26 and 27—Insert:

(6) The Planning and Design Code may exclude specified classes of development from the operation of subsections (3) and (4).

This government amendment reinserts the ability for the planning and design code to exclude specified classes of development from notification requirements. This will allow the code to ensure that notification is targeted to those forms of development where it is genuinely required. It is intended that only development that is common, inspected and appropriate within a particular zone is to be excluded from the notification requirements.

As this will be achieved via a provision of the code, exclusions will be subject to public consultation and potential disallowance. Schedule 9 of the development regulations currently excludes a range of applications from public notification such as houses in residential zones, factories in industrial zones and shops in a shopping centre zone which are category one developments and require no public notification.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate the opposition will be supporting the government's amendment. We have had advice from some of the industry stakeholders to say that it would almost render the performance assessed development process unworkable.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I see where the numbers lie. I am not going to be supporting the government amendment. I remind honourable members that, if this amendment that the government is proposing goes through, the government could use the planning and design code to remove public consultation and representation rights for any kind—any kind—of performance assessed development, and that is a major diminution of public rights. The government is saying, 'But we will only use it in sensible circumstances where no-one could possibly doubt that it is envisaged development and therefore we don't need to publicly notify people.' I do not accept that and I do not want to trust the government with those powers.

I think the analogy to the current schedule 9 of the Development Regulations is a poor analogy. Whilst, yes, there is a list in that regulation, the government is not proposing to put it in regulations where it would be a disallowable instrument, they are proposing to put this list of things where you do not have to consult in the planning and design code, which are—

The Hon. K.J. Maher: 'The code,' it says.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: No, the code is theoretically disallowable, but it will not be disallowed because it has to go through the gatekeeper of a government-controlled committee. In the history of this regime, which is being replicated in this bill, these planning schemes have never been disallowed. Regulations get disallowed all the time, but the code will not be disallowed. I do not accept that parliamentary scrutiny is at all effective when it comes to this, but I see where the numbers lie. I will not be supporting the government amendment; I am disappointed, but I will not be dividing on it.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 102.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 25 [Emp–5]—

Page 82, after line 18—Delete inserted subclause (3a)

This government amendment would reverse the decision made during committee stage that the impact assessed pathway, the most rigorous pathway proposed in the bill, cannot apply to the Adelaide Parklands. The government believes that allowing impact assessment would have the potential to streamline developments in the Parklands, to improve them as an asset for the South Australian community.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: This is a die in a ditch issue for the Greens. I should say 'a die in the essential infrastructure' for the Greens, because of course ditches are part of the definition of essential infrastructure. The amendment that this council in its wisdom passed during the earlier part of this committee debate effectively replicated the protections for the Parklands that exist in the 2005 South Australia Adelaide Park Lands Act. The clause that we agreed to last time does no more or no less than replicate that level of protection, so I am disappointed that the government is having another go at the Parklands.

I trust that the Legislative Council will continue to regard the Parklands as a special case that requires not only rigorous forms of assessment but non-political decision-making because, ultimately, what we are talking about here is the minister being able to make the final decision. It does not matter how rigorous the process is, if the buck stops with the minister in terms of the decision then a political decision will be made, and I do not think that is what people want for the Parklands. They want applications to go through the normal process at arm's length from the minister.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell's position, and it is an interesting one. I have had quite a lot of feedback tonight from various stakeholders. In particular, I had feedback from the Lord Mayor. I hope he does not mind me mentioning that he had a meeting some two weeks ago with the minister, who said that they would not be recommitting this particular clause, so he was a little bit confused.

He is obviously a lord mayor who is very happy to work with the government on development in the city and growing our great city, so he is certainly disappointed that these amendments have been tabled. There are a number of amendments (I am not quite sure how many, three or four, I think) in relation to the Parklands. I indicate that we will be opposing all the government amendments that relate to the Parklands and we will be supporting the position that we supported the Hon. Mark Parnell on.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate that I will not support the government's amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 103 passed.

Clause 104.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 26 [Emp–5]—

Page 84, lines 13 to 15—Insert:

(3) The Commission may dispense with any requirement under subsection (2)(a) if the Commission considers that the giving of a notice envisaged by that subsection is unnecessary in the circumstances of the particular case.

This government amendment seeks to reinsert the ability to dispense with notification for restricted development, removed on amendment in the committee stage. This would allow the code to address matters that may arise from time to time. There is a small subset of noncomplying matters now that may be unnecessarily hampered by notification requirements, such as minor alterations and additions to ancillary building or works that may be required to ensure compliance with other legislative requirements.

There are checks and balances on this proposed approach to ensure that it is not misused. It is ultimately a decision for the independent arms-length commission that will be trusted to use this power appropriately in accordance with clause 103 requirements for publishing practice directions for restricted development.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The Greens will insist on the amendment that we passed earlier and oppose the reinsertion of this clause. I remind members that 'restricted development' is akin to the current category called 'noncomplying development', and it is the only category of development that attracts third-party appeal rights. Those third-party appeal rights are a function of notification, so if you remove notification then there will be categories of development that people will not be able to comment on and will not be able to challenge.

These are noncomplying developments; these are outside the envisaged range of developments in the planning rules. So, the Greens' position is that these rights of public notification should not be able to be thwarted at the whim of the commission, so we would urge members to stick with the version of the bill that we passed last time.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate that the opposition will, consistent with our position on the Parklands, oppose this amendment that has been moved by the government.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 105 to 124 passed.

Clause 125.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 29 [Emp–5]—

Page 112, after line 17—Delete inserted subclauses (27) to (31) and substitute:

(27) Subject to subsection (28), this section does not apply to any development within the Adelaide Park Lands (and any such development must be assessed under Part 7).

(28) Subsection (27) does not apply—

(a) so as to exclude the Governor making a regulation under subsection (4) with respect to minor works of a prescribed kind; or

(b) so as to exclude from the operation of this section development within any part of the Institutional District of the City of Adelaide that has been identified by regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph by the Governor on the recommendation of the Minister; or

(c) without limiting paragraph (b), so as to exclude from the operation of this section designated development proposed to be undertaken by a State agency (other than a State agency within the ambit of paragraph (c) of the definition of State agency under subsection (1)) within any part of the Adelaide Park Lands.

(29) Before making a recommendation to the Governor to make a regulation identifying a part of the Institutional District of the City of Adelaide for the purposes of subsection (28)(b), the Minister must take reasonable steps to consult with the Adelaide Park Lands Authority.

(30) A regulation under subsection (28)(b) cannot apply with respect to any part of the Institutional District of the City of Adelaide that is under the care, control or management of The Corporation of the City of Adelaide.

(31) For the purposes of this section, the Institutional District of the City of Adelaide is constituted by those parts of the area of The Corporation of the City of Adelaide that are identified and defined as—

(a) the Riverbank Zone; and

(b) the Institutional (Government House) Zone; and

(c) the Institutional (University/Hospital) Zone,

by the Development Plan that relates to the area of that Council, as that Development Plan existed on 24 September 2015.

(32) In this section—

Adelaide Park Lands has the same meaning as in the Adelaide Park Lands Act 2005;

designated development means development—

(a) for the purposes of the provision of prescribed infrastructure or a Government school; or

(b) consisting of alterations to—

(i) prescribed infrastructure; or

(ii) a Government school,

in existence before the commencement of this subsection; or

(c) for the purposes of the provision of facilities for sporting or recreational purposes, including—

(i) the construction, alteration, repair or maintenance of buildings or structures; and

(ii) any other works or earthworks,

connected with the provision of such facilities;

Government school has the same meaning as in the Education and Early Childhood Services (Registration and Standards) Act 2011;

prescribed infrastructure means—

(a) infrastructure within the ambit of paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition of essential infrastructure under section 3(1); or

(b) roads or causeways, bridges or culverts associated with roads; or

(c) bridges for use by pedestrians; or

(d) embankments, wells, channels, drains, drainage holes or other forms of works or earthworks connected with the provision of infrastructure under a preceding paragraph.

This amendment is to do with the Parklands, but it is not as the other two that we have conceded are effectively consequential. This one we do not think falls into that category—it is not strictly consequential. The government proposes to recommit a revised clause 125 (it is not exactly the same) that would revise the amendment passed in committee. It enables limited use of the crown development pathway in the Parklands, but maintains the overall intent of the amendment that was passed.

In particular, this would enable works in the institutional and Riverbank zones and would also allow limited crown works carried out by state agencies in the Parklands zone for the purposes of government schools and prescribed infrastructure, such as sporting or recreational facilities and roads, bridges, culverts, etc.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: This is another Parklands provision, but I accept that the minister is right to raise it separately because I think it does lend itself to some more work between the houses. I think the approach for the committee now is to oppose the government amendment. The reason I say that there might be some work to do between the houses is that it was certainly never my intention not to allow crown development assessment pathways to be used for those existing built environments in the Parklands. In other words, you have the whole of North Terrace pretty much, you have the Riverbank zone and you have the institutional zone.

However, there are two situations that I think need a bit more work: one is the existing Adelaide High School, which is in the West Parklands, and the other is the proposed new CBD high school, which is in the old Reid Building down off Frome Road. By a glitch in the zoning, both the existing school and the proposed new school are in the Parklands zone, and therefore the crown development pathway would not apply. That does not mean they cannot do anything on it; of course they can, they just have to go through a different pathway.

So my commitment to the minister and his staff is to say that I am happy to look at excluding those schools from the operation of this Parklands protection. Unfortunately the amendment the government has drafted has mixed the schools in with a whole lot of other essential infrastructure. I do not think it is possible for us to do drafting on the run and fix this up now, but between the houses I am certainly happy to pursue making sure that the Adelaide High School tuck shop redevelopment project does not have to jump through more hoops than necessary. That has been my commitment, but I think for now the only thing we can do is reject the government's amendment and have a look at that narrow issue when we come back.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I think the opposition is of a similar view. There are some parts of this amendment that do have merit. I had a brief discussion with the minister only a couple of hours ago outside in the lobby at the back of this chamber, and I said that maybe it was one of those things we can have further discussion about between the houses. I think the Hon. Mark Parnell is right that we need to oppose it now. I know the minister well enough; once he has it in he will not take it out. I think it is best that we oppose it now and then have that discussion between the houses.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: For the record, Family First will support the amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 126 to 155 passed.

New clauses 155A and 155B.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Emp–7]—

Page 133, after line 31—Delete inserted clauses 155A and 155B and substitute:

Subdivision A1—Interpretation

155A—Interpretation

(1) In this Division—

basic infrastructure means—

(a) infrastructure within the ambit of paragraph (a), (b) or (h) of the definition of 'essential infrastructure' under section 3(1); or

(b) roads or causeways, bridges or culverts associated with roads; or

(c) stormwater management infrastructure; or

(d) embankments, wells, channels, drains, drainage holes or other forms of works or earthworks connected with the provision of infrastructure under a preceding paragraph.

(2) For the purposes of this Division, a designated growth area is an area which is to be developed in 1 or more of the following ways:

(a) by the division of land and the sale (or proposed future sale) of all or some of the resulting allotments;

(b) by rezoning to increase development potential;

(c) by undertaking urban in-fill, consolidation or renewal.

Subdivision A2—Establishment of schemes—basic infrastructure

155B—Initiation of scheme

(1) The Minister may initiate a scheme under this Subdivision in relation to the provision of basic infrastructure in, or in connection with, a designated growth area.

(2) A scheme under this Subdivision should be limited to—

(a) the provision of basic infrastructure; and

(b) funding arrangements for the provision of that basic infrastructure,

in 1 or more of the following situations:

(c) the basic infrastructure is reasonably necessary for the purposes of development that is proposed or to be undertaken within the designated growth area (including on account of rezoning that has occurred, or is expected to occur, in relation to the whole or a significant part of the development that is to occur within the designated growth area);

(d) the basic infrastructure will support, service or promote significant development that is proposed or to be undertaken within the designated growth area;

(e) it is reasonably necessary or efficient to co-ordinate the design, construction and funding of basic infrastructure under a scheme because of the scale of—

(i) development that is proposed or to be undertaken within the designated growth area; or

(ii) the basic infrastructure that is to be provided,

(or both).

(3) Subject to subsection (4), a proposal to proceed under this section may be initiated—

(a) on the Minister's own initiative; or

(b) at the request of another person or body interested in the provision or delivery of infrastructure.

(4) The Minister may only act under this section on the advice of the Commission.

(5) The Commission must, in providing advice under this section, take into account any relevant state planning policy and regional plan, and the relevant provisions of the Planning and Design Code (subject to any relevant amendments that might be made in connection with potential or proposed development that is to be undertaken within the designated growth area).

(6) The Minister will initiate a scheme by preparing a draft outline of the scheme that—

(a) provides detailed information about—

(i) the nature and intended scope of the basic infrastructure; and

(ii) any related development that is proposed to be undertaken as part of the scheme; and

(b) identifies the proposed designated growth area; and

(c) provides information about the proposed timing or staging of the various elements of the scheme; and

(d) assesses the costs and benefits of the scheme; and

(e) outlines a funding arrangement for the scheme, including whether it is proposed to impose a charge under Subdivision 2A; and

(f) provides information about the person or body that will be carrying out the work envisaged by the scheme (to the extent that is known); and

(g) identifies any basic infrastructure or other assets that might be expected to be transferred to another entity when the scheme has been completed; and

(h) provides such other information as the Minister thinks fit after consultation with the Commission.

(7) In giving consideration to the nature and intended scope of basic infrastructure under a scheme, the Minister must seek to facilitate the provision of infrastructure that is—

(a) fit for purpose; and

(b) capable of adaptation as standards or technology change over time (insofar as is reasonably practicable or appropriate in the circumstances); and

(c) capable of augmentation or extension to accommodate growth or changing circumstances over time (insofar as is reasonably practicable or appropriate in the circumstances); and

(d) where appropriate, designed to build capacity for the future, including by allowing for connections, extensions or augmentation by others who are able to leverage off the initial investment in the basic infrastructure; and

(e) designed and built to a standard that is appropriate taking into account the nature and extent of development that is proposed to be undertaken within the relevant designated growth area; and

(f) capable of being procured and delivered in a timely manner to facilitate and promote orderly and economic development.

(8) In giving consideration to the constitution of a designated growth area under subsection (6)(b), consideration must be given to—

(a) the area or areas which will benefit from any basic infrastructure to be provided under the proposed scheme; and

(b) the extent to which it is possible to establish an area that will provide fair and sufficient funds over time with respect to the provision of the basic infrastructure under the proposed scheme; and

(c) the extent to which the designated growth area may overlap with a contribution area under Subdivision 1.

(9) In giving consideration to whether or not to include a proposal for the imposition of a charge under Subdivision 2A, the Minister must take into account—

(a) the extent that it is reasonable that other sources of funding be used instead; and

(b) any schemes or arrangements (including with respect to the imposition of separate or other rates or charges) that are already in place, or already planned (and known to the Minister) with respect to the provision of basic infrastructure or the undertaking of works in the designated growth area (or in an adjacent or related area).

(10) The Minister, in preparing the draft outline, must—

(a) take reasonable steps to consult with—

(i) the owners of land within the proposed designated growth area; and

(ii) the person or persons who are intending to undertake any relevant development within the proposed designated growth area; and

(b) take reasonable steps to consult with the council within whose area the proposed designated growth area is situated,

and may consult with any other person or body as the Minister thinks fit.

(11) The Minister will then publish the draft outline—

(a) in the Gazette; and

(b) on the SA planning portal.

(12) In addition, the Minister must, as soon as is reasonably practicable after acting under this section on the advice of the Commission, publish the advice on the SA planning portal subject to any qualifications or redactions that are necessary to prevent the disclosure of confidential or commercially sensitive information provided by or relating to—

(a) an owner or occupier of land; or

(b) a proponent of development relating to the provision of infrastructure; or

(c) a provider of infrastructure.

(13) The Minister will then (at a time determined by the Minister) refer the proposed scheme to the Chief Executive for the appointment of a scheme coordinator.

I know we are being brief, and I think it has been working well tonight in terms of not pursuing things that are consequential and not dividing unnecessarily, but this was the subject of significant debate about the operation of such schemes and the potential impact on mums and dads buying houses, lifestyles, and so on so I might take a little bit of time to read it out. It will take a few minutes and I apologise for that.

The government has heard concerns that were raised in this chamber when we previously debated this, and from others outside this chamber, and has made three fundamental changes to the basic scheme. These include:

the charge must be paid on either land division or acting on development approval—clause 58(1a)(c) and (1b);

the charge cannot be spread over time; it is payable by the developer up-front—clause 161(2a); and

checks to ensure land cannot be sold to a mum or a mum and dad if a charge is outstanding as registered on the title—clauses 161(2b) and 163C(1)(d)(ii).

I want to draw some comparisons to the system we have now and why the infrastructure schemes are an absolute must in the new system.

The basic scheme is the next generation of what occurs now. By way of example, the most significant rezoning in recent times included rezoning in Angle Vale, Virginia, and Playford North. In the absence of a statutory infrastructure charging mechanism, this process took 4½ years following an extensive structure planning process. It took this time to negotiate in excess of 250 deeds. This took significant state and local government resources and multiple rounds of negotiations.

The process was confusing to community and landowners alike, and at the end of this process we still have a growth area that looks like Swiss cheese, with unzoned allotments scattered amongst the zoned land. This is a poor policy outcome and not attractive to developers. The basic scheme will remove this 'Swiss cheese' zoning and provide certainty around costs, levels of service and when infrastructure is paid for and by whom.

Under the basic scheme, a boundary will be drawn around a growth area following appropriate strategic planning. Developers within the boundary will be charged an infrastructure fee at the point they benefit—either at the land division or acting on a development approval. This outcome is clearer to the community, as payment rests with the developer set to make the profit, rather than anyone else.

The basic scheme will be supported by infrastructure standards that cannot gold plate but are reflective of appropriate levels of service to a growth area. Whereas the general scheme provides a mechanism to upgrade the public realm, such a mechanism does not exist now. As we have previously discussed, this scheme requires 100 per cent of the beneficiaries to sign up to a jointly funded public realm upgrade over a period of time. What typically occurs now is that a developer will fund improvements to the street immediately outside the development. This is where those improvements end, if they are done at all.

The general scheme allows for a developer to propose public realm enhancements beyond just their site, for example. It is not inconceivable that this mechanism could fund improvements to key our main streets well beyond a development site should other parties agree to contribute. Importantly, the scheme can only proceed if 100 per cent of the parties agree. To date, rolling out such an approach has relied on lengthy and often unsuccessful negotiations between the state, local government and the developer to split the costs. Such approaches are rarely seen due to the significant cost for one developer to bear and the taxpayer, should the local or state government agreed to jointly fund.

The general scheme provides greater opportunities to receive such improvements spread across multiple landowners. This spreads the cost across the beneficiaries, who will likely see a rise in their land value and patronage to their business. This is conceivable in a main street or a section of a main street in the city or suburbs, for instance. Place-making through enhanced public realm is a key ingredient in creating the places where people want to live, work and spend time in. Such environments will be appealing to the market.

Another benefit of the general scheme is the potential to attract commonwealth funding. We know that the federal government is looking at opportunities to partner in the delivery of city-making infrastructure with the state government and the private sector. States that have such mechanisms will likely have the front running in such decisions.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: On my understanding, the minister's set 7 is all to do with the tweaking of the infrastructure levies. I assume that the level of support is still there. I assume that the Greens, Kelly Vincent and the Hon. John Darley are still supporting infrastructure levies. We could go through all these amendments line by line, question the minister and spend several hours here, but I know that that is not going to achieve anything other than make us all tired and grumpy.

I indicate that the opposition does not support infrastructure schemes. We were somewhat disappointed that it took a couple of days to get the answers from the minister about whether it could be charged to mums and dads or whether it should be an up-front charge. We have some correspondence from the UDIA. I think they are reasonably comfortable with the amendments and, given that the government has the numbers, we will not be supporting any of these amendments but we will not, obviously, be opposing. We will oppose them, but not divide on them.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I will be brief too. I put on the record that we will be supporting all the government's amendments in set 7 that relate to the infrastructure scheme. I do not think we need to agitate them. I acknowledge the forbearance of the Leader of the Opposition in this place because we could debate them all, but he has seen where the numbers lie on this one and I think it will be good to shortly see the end of the bill.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate that I also will be supporting all the government's amendments in set 7.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. G.A. Kandelaars): I firstly indicate that current clause 155A is the same as previously inserted, so there is no question that needs to be put on that; I just make that clear. The question is that the existing clause 155B, as proposed be struck out, stand part of the bill.

New clause 155B inserted.

Clause 156.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Emp–7]—

Page 135, after line 27—Insert:

(8a) In addition, the Minister must, as soon as is reasonably practicable after acting under this section on the advice of the Commission, publish the advice on the SA planning portal subject to any qualifications or redactions that are necessary to prevent the disclosure of confidential or commercially sensitive information provided by or relating to—

(a) an owner or occupier of land; or

(b) a proponent of development relating to the provision of infrastructure; or

(c) a provider of infrastructure.

I am happy to speak to it at length if people want, but I suspect they do not.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 157 passed.

Clause 158.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Emp–7]—

Page 136, after line 15—Delete inserted subclause (1a) and substitute:

(1a) In addition to the other provisions of this Division, in developing a funding arrangement that includes a proposal for the imposition of a charge made under Subdivision 2A, the scheme coordinator should seek to act consistently with the following principles:

(a) the charge should be limited to recovering the reasonable capital costs of the basic infrastructure based only on infrastructure that is not excessive and that is not produced or delivered at a cost or price that is unreasonable in the circumstances;

(b) the charge should not have an excessively adverse impact on—

(i) the development of a designated growth area; or

(ii) housing or living affordability within a designated growth area; or

(iii) employment, investment or economic viability associated with a designated growth area; and

(c) the charge must be based on a scheme under which a payment or payments under the charge become payable (or commence to become payable) on a specified event or events; and

(d) funding under the scheme should recognise the need to provide value for money in connection with funding arrangements including, as appropriate, through contestable provision of basic infrastructure; and

(e) rebates for charges should be available in appropriate circumstances; and

(f) exemptions from the imposition of a charge should be considered depending on the circumstances of the case.

(1b) In connection with subsection (1a)(c), an event or events that trigger the requirement to make, or to begin to make, a payment under a charge must be related to when development is undertaken being—

(a) the depositing of a plan for the division of land under Part 19AB of the Real Property Act 1886; or

(b) undertaking of approved development.

(1c) In addition to subsection (1a)(f), exemptions from the imposition of a charge under Subdivision 2A will apply in any circumstances prescribed by the regulations.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Emp–7]—

Page 137, after line 12—Insert:

(5) The Minister must publish a copy of a report furnished under subsection (4) on the SA planning portal as soon as is reasonably practicable after determining whether or not to proceed with the scheme to which the report relates, subject to any qualifications or redactions that are necessary to prevent the disclosure of confidential or commercially sensitive information provided by or relating to—

(a) an owner or occupier of land; or

(b) a proponent of development relating to the provision of infrastructure; or

(c) a provider of infrastructure.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 159 and 160 passed.

Clause 158.

The CHAIR: I have just been advised that amendment No. 4 [Maher-7] to clause 158, page 137, after line 12, should have been: 'Delete subclause (5) and insert new subclause (5).' We need it for the administration.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Page 137, after line 12—Delete subclause (5) and insert new subclause (5)

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 161.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 5 [Emp–7]—

Page 139, after line 6—Insert:

(2a) Despite paragraph (aa) of subsection (2), ESCOSA, or another prescribed person or body acting in accordance with that paragraph, may not make a determination in relation to a scheme that provides for the imposition of a charge under Subdivision 2A that results in the charge being payable over a longer period of time than the period applying under the funding arrangement established by the scheme.

(2b) Despite the preceding subsections, a funding arrangement under a scheme that provides for the imposition of a charge under Subdivision 2A must provide that the liability to make a payment or payments under the charge after the occurrence of an event or events that trigger the requirement to make, or to begin to make, such payments cannot be transferred to a purchaser of any land or dwelling to which the scheme relates who intends to occupy the land or dwelling for residential purposes.

Amendment No 6 [Emp–7]—

Page 139, line 14—After 'Subdivision 3' insert 'or charge that is to be imposed under Subdivision 2A'

Amendment No 7 [Emp–7]—

Page 140, lines 4 to 10—Delete subclause (8) and substitute:

(8) If a report furnished to the ERD Committee under subsection (5) relates to the approval of a scheme for the collection of contributions under Subdivision 3 (a contributions scheme) or the approval or variation of a funding arrangement under a scheme that provides for the imposition of a charge under Subdivision 2A (a charge scheme), the ERD Committee must, after receiving the report—

(a) resolve that it does not object to the contributions scheme or charge scheme (as the case requires); or

(b) resolve to suggest amendments to the contributions scheme or charge scheme (as the case requires); or

(c) resolve to object to the contributions scheme or charge scheme (as the case requires).

Amendment No 8 [Emp–7]—

Page 140, line 14—After 'contributions scheme' insert 'or charge scheme (as the case requires)'

Amendment No 9 [Emp–7]—

Page 140, line 34—After 'contributions scheme' insert 'or charge scheme (as the case requires)'

Amendment No 10 [Emp–7]—

Page 140, line 35—After 'contributions scheme' insert 'or charge scheme (as the case requires)'

Amendment No 11 [Emp–7]—

Page 140, line 36—After 'contributions scheme' insert 'or charge scheme (as the case requires)'

Amendment No 12 [Emp–7]—

Page 140, line 39—After 'contributions scheme' insert 'or charge scheme (as the case requires)'

Amendment No 13 [Emp–7]—

Page 140, lines 40 and 41—After 'contributions scheme' insert 'or charge scheme (as the case requires)'

Amendment No 14 [Emp–7]—

Page 141, lines 8 and 9—After 'contributions scheme' insert 'or charge scheme (as the case requires)'

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 162 and 163 passed.

New clauses 163A to 163D.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 15 [Emp–7]—

Page 141, after line 30—Delete inserted clauses 163A to 163D (inclusive) and substitute:

Subdivision 2A—Charges on land

163A—Application of Subdivision

This Subdivision applies with respect to charges for the purposes of a scheme initiated under Subdivision A2.

163B—Creation of charge

(1) The Minister may impose a charge under this Subdivision over land within a designated growth area.

(2) The Minister may impose a charge over land with or without the agreement of the owner of the land.

(3) For the purpose of the imposition of a charge, the Minister may deliver to the Registrar-General a notice, in a form determined by the Registrar-General—

(a) setting out or incorporating the terms of the charge; and

(b) setting out the real property over which it exists; and

(c) requesting the Registrar-General to note the charge against the relevant instrument of title or, in the case of land not under the provisions of the Real Property Act 1886, against the land.

(4) The Registrar-General must, on receipt of a notice under subsection (3), in relation to the real property referred to in the notice, enter an appropriate notation in accordance with the notice.

(5) When an entry is made under subsection (4), a charge over the real property is created.

(6) The terms and conditions of the charge may be varied—

(a) by the Minister after consultation with the owner of the land to which the charge relates (and with or without the agreement of the owner of the land); or

(b) on account of a periodic review under section 161(2)(aa); or

(c) in circumstances prescribed by the regulations.

(7) A variation under subsection (6) will be effected in a manner determined by the Minister after consultation with the Registrar-General.

(8) The Minister must, when payments under a charge have been made and paid in full, by further notice to the Registrar-General under this section, cancel the charge.

163C—Ranking of charge

(1) While a charge exists over real property, the Registrar-General must not register an instrument affecting the property unless—

(a) the instrument was executed before the charge was created or relates to an instrument registered before the charge was created; or

(b) the instrument is an instrument of a prescribed class; or

(c) the Minister consents to the registration in writing; or

(d) the instrument—

(i) is expressed to be subject to the charge; and

(ii) is not a conveyance that relates to the transfer or sale of the real property to a purchaser who intends to occupy the real property for residential purposes; or

(e) the instrument is a duly stamped conveyance that relates to the transfer or sale of the real property under section 163D.

(2) An instrument registered under subsection (1)(a), (b), or (c) has effect, in relation to the charge, as if it had been registered before the charge was created.

(3) If an instrument is registered under subsection (1)(e), the charge will be taken to be cancelled and the Registrar-General must make the appropriate entries to give effect to the cancellation.

163D—Enforcement of charge

(1) If a person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of a charge, the charge may be enforced as follows:

(a) the Minister must, by notice in the Gazette, inform the person of the breach and give the person at least 1 month to remedy the breach; and

(b) if the person does not remedy the breach within the time allowed in a notice under paragraph (a), the Minister may proceed to have the land to which the charge relates sold.

(2) The sale will be by public auction (and the Minister may set a reserve price for the purposes of the sale).

(3) If, before the date of such an auction, the outstanding amount of the charge and the costs incurred by the Minister in proceeding under this section are paid to the Minister, the Minister must call off the auction.

(4) The requirement to sell at auction does not apply in any circumstances prescribed by the regulations.

(5) If—

(a) an auction fails; or

(b) an auction is not required under subsection (4),

the Minister may sell the land by private contract for the best price that the Minister may reasonably obtain.

(6) Any money required by the Minister in respect of the sale of land under this section will be applied as follows:

(a) firstly—in paying the costs of the sale and any other costs of a prescribed kind;

(b) secondly—in discharging any liabilities secured by instrument registered before the charge was created, or that is taken to have such effect by virtue of section 163C;

(c) thirdly—in discharging the amount or amounts secured by the charge;

(d) fourthly—in discharging any other liabilities secured by registered instruments;

(e) fifthly—in discharging any other liabilities that exist in relation to the land of which the Minister has notice;

(f) sixthly—in payment to the owner of the land.

(7) The title obtained under the sale of the land will be free of—

(a) any charge under this Subdivision; and

(b) all other liabilities discharged under subsection (6); and

(c) any other liability that may exist on account of any mortgage, charge or encumbrance.

(8) If land is sold, an instrument of transfer or conveyance in pursuance of the sale executed by the Minister will, on registration or enrolment, operate to vest title to the land in the person named in the transfer or conveyance.

(9) If it is not reasonably practicable to obtain the duplicate certificate of title to land that is sold in pursuance of this section (or other relevant instrument), the Registrar-General may register a transfer or conveyance despite the non-production of the duplicate (or instrument), but in that event will cancel the existing certificate of title for the land and issue a new certificate in the name of the transferee.

The CHAIR: New clauses 163A, 163B and 163D are the same; therefore, we are voting on new clause 163C.

New clause 163C inserted.

Clauses 164 to 232 passed.

New schedule 7.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 9 [Emp–6]—

Page 217, after line 2—Insert:

Schedule 7—Rural living areas

1—Rural living areas

(1) The following provisions will apply in relation to a rural living area in place within an environment and food production area defined by the plan referred to in section 7(1):

(a) section 7(5)(d) and (e) will not apply in relation to the rural living area;

(b) if—

(i) after the commencement of this clause, an application for development authorisation is made that involves a division of land within the rural living area that would create 1 or more additional allotments to be used for residential development; and

(ii) the relevant policies or conditions relating to the minimum size of allotments or the division of land generally that were in force on 1 December 2015 (the prescribed land division provisions) provide for a larger minimum allotment size or involve more restrictive conditions on the division of land than the provisions that would otherwise apply in relation to the proposed development,

the prescribed land division provisions will apply in relation to the proposed development (despite any other relevant instrument and despite the other provisions of this Act).

(2) In this clause—

rural living area means—

(a) an area that is defined as a rural living zone by a Development Plan under the Development Act 1993 on 1 December 2015; or

(b) an area that is defined as an animal husbandry zone by the Development Plan for The District Council of Mallala under the Development Act 1993 on 1 December 2015;

(c) any of the following areas or zones defined by the Development Plan for Alexandrina Council under the Development Act 1993 on 1 December 2015:

(i) Residential Airpark Policy Area 2 in an airport zone;

(ii) Precinct 11 Hindmarsh Island North in a primary production zone;

(iii) a coastal settlement zone.

(3) This Schedule expires 2 years after the day on which it comes into operation.

Fundamentally, the EFPA is about the protection of the environment and food bowl through encouraging increased infill with reduced reliance on fringe growth. This is good planning policy. However, there is recognition that people have use rights under existing zoning. This clause preserves those rights for two years after the commencement of the clause.

Schedule 7 ensures that areas in Greater Adelaide presently set aside for rural living, whatever their name under development plans, will not immediately be subject to any lesser entitlements to subdivision and residential development by virtue of inclusion in an environment and food production area. Rather, the policies applicable in that area or zone will be maintained, such that pre-existing entitlements or rights to land division for residential purposes will be retained, whether by virtue of minimum allotment size or other measure.

These are specifically in response to a number of questions the Hon. David Ridgway put forward. The Hon. Mr Ridgway asked what clauses 1(2)(b) and (c) of the rural living definition in schedule 7 mean. The areas Mr Ridgway queried have been included in the rural living areas definition in schedule 7 because they are treated the same as rural living zones by the existing development plan policy in order not to extinguish landowners' existing rights. The different names reflect the different names used in council development plans for the same thing (i.e. land that is used for what is generally understood in planning as rural living).

It is a matter of equity that similar entitlements should be preserved rather than treated differently just because of the naming convention in certain development plans. For example, in Mallala district council, an animal husbandry zone effectively looks to accommodate detached dwellings on large allotments in conjunction with intensive animal husbandry pursuits, including horse keeping and dog kennelling. Such developments will coexist with broader rural activities.

Alexandrina Council's Residential Airpark Policy Area 2 intends to provide low density residential development to accommodate persons with a close affiliation with the aviation industry and/or the activities of the Goolwa airport (i.e. houses with a hangar to park small planes).

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: Which airport? Goolwa?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Goolwa.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: I thought you said Gawler.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, Goolwa in Alexandrina Council. They do not have a lot to do with Gawler.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: I just never know.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will speak more clearly so as to avoid confusion. Alexandrina Council Precinct 11 Hindmarsh Island North in a primary production zone allows limited residential development on existing small holdings, some associated with farm diversification and tourism opportunities. Alexandrina Council coastal settlement zones comprise distinct existing holiday house areas fronting the Goolwa and Mundoo channels with allotments created through lease or freehold arrangements (i.e. shack sites).

There was a question about what the sunset clause is for. Existing policy contemplates an allotment which is subject to an existing rural living development plan policy may be proposed to be subdivided in accord with the rules set out in that development plan. The sunset clause allows existing owners of such land, who have not chosen to subdivide and may never choose to do so, to have two years from the commencement of this clause to elect to exercise their right to subdivide under any relevant current development plan policy.

Two years is a more than adequate time within which a person, who currently may or may not seek to subdivide, may choose to do so. Otherwise, as may be the case after the two-year period, such land within the EFPA can no longer be subdivided, but will remain useful for any other purpose, save and except for residential development.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Given all the other amendments have really been agitated by either debate in here or the other chamber or from industry or local government requests, I am wondering what was the genesis of this particular new schedule 7?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Schedule 7, except for the sunset clause, is pre-existing. That is my advice. It was originally introduced but was consequential on the EFPA clause which did not get up last time. As I understand it and as I am advised, this is what was in the bill as originally introduced but accepted, except for the sunset clause provision.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: So what you are saying, minister, is that this was in the bill and then, when we opposed the EFPA, this was a consequential deletion of that, but because it is not just reinserting you say it is a new schedule on page 217 after line 2. In what I have here, which was the original bill that we were working from—and this is not the marked up version, so it is the original one we were working from—there is no schedule 7, so I am just intrigued.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It was in the original government amendments but with the defeat of the EFPA last time, it was not moved. It was in the original government amendments but it was not moved because it was not successful in the body of the bill last time.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I guess I just want to explore the issues that were contemplated in the discussion the Hon. John Darley had with the minister in relation to landowners and realigning their allotments. Does this new schedule 7 allow those landowners some way of rearranging those allotments some time in this two-year period?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It allows the right to rearrange your boundaries. I think we talked before dinner about how, subject to the relevant policy in terms of your ability to subdivide, if you have that current ability, you have two years to take up that ability to subdivide should you wish to do so.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Yes, I understand that and that is the areas that are currently zoned as rural living.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Or its equivalent.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Yes, maybe in the Alexandrina Council it is slightly different. The area that a number of us have been approached by is up around Gawler and the Barossa. The landowners that I am aware of I think are somewhere wedged between the Light Regional Council and the Barossa Council in that area. I am just wondering whether this new schedule gives them an opportunity to address their issues.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think I understand the question and I hope this answers it: if they have permission now to subdivide they have two years to do it; if they do not have permission to subdivide then they will not be able to do it—but they would not be able to do it now anyway so, to that effect, it does not change it.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have another question in relation to rural living. My recollection—and I am not sure, but I will say Cockatoo Valley from the Barossa zone—is that there was a pocket of rural living somewhere in and around that part of the Barossa. Is that because it is in the Barossa protection zone that it is not captured by this? Surely the Greater Adelaide area overlays everything. I know there are certain protections for McLaren Vale and the Barossa but do other rural living areas get the same benefit or is it only these three or four that have been mentioned in the schedule?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. I am advised that any rural living zone in the EFPA will allow the provisions of being able to subdivide. The reason the four specifically mentioned in the schedule are mentioned is that they are, in effect, rural living but called something else. As 2(a) in the schedule says, it applies to an area that is defined as rural living zone by a development plan under the Development Act—and then it lists those four specific areas that are, in effect, rural living but are called something else.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Maybe it is too late in the evening to ask for this, but perhaps we will do the third reading tomorrow or maybe we could report progress, but I am interested to know how many rural living zones there are inside the EFPA, and where they are.

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: It may be approximate. We are not going to be back until 11.00 so we have 12 hours to find it.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that there are approximately 25, but I will give an undertaking to count them exactly and, if desired, report back at the third reading stage with that answer and put it on the record for the honourable member.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I wonder if the minister could do more than count them and actually tell us where they are. I am sure it can be done. I see the minister's advisers doing that. I recall discussions well before the minister was here—maybe he was an adviser to the Hon. Terry Roberts—around the Kudla area, south of Gawler. I am not sure whether they were rural living but, again, there were issues there where they were 10-acre blocks and meant to be market gardens but were not viable, full of thistles, artichokes and tall grass.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: Some of them.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: That is why I would like to know exactly where they are. If they have the opportunity to subdivide then that is different because it is effectively an area outside of the township boundaries.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. We will count them exactly and provide that and, if the honourable member desires even before the third reading speech tomorrow, a map that shows where those areas are.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I do not know whether any other members have any questions tonight, but I wonder whether it might be appropriate to report progress. It will only take 10 minutes tomorrow morning. If in the end we have some issue with this schedule, if we pass it tonight, then it is passed. I do not really think that we will have, but for the sake of 10 minutes tomorrow morning, it will give us an opportunity to look at the maps, to get the list.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I have undertaken to give you those lists.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The point I make, minister, is that if in the end we have some issue with the schedule and wish to vote against it we will not have any capacity to do so.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is up to the will of the chamber. It would be our preference that we draw a line and get the bill done. We are happy to adjourn it at the third reading stage, but clearly it is up to the will of the chamber as to whether progress is reported now, so tantalisingly close to the end. It would be our preference to get this done, get it over with tonight. I have given an undertaking and I will make sure that we provide not just a number of those rural areas but a map of those for the honourable member before we start the third reading stage tomorrow, if hopefully we finish this tonight.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Why don't I test it? I move:

That progress be reported.

The committee divided on the motion:

Ayes 7

Noes 8

Majority 1

AYES
Dawkins, J.S.L. Hood, D.G.E. Lee, J.S.
Lucas, R.I. McLachlan, A.L. Ridgway, D.W. (teller)
Stephens, T.J.
NOES
Darley, J.A. Franks, T.A. Gago, G.E.
Maher, K.J. (teller) Malinauskas, P. Ngo, T.T.
Parnell, M.C. Vincent, K.L.
PAIRS
Brokenshire, R.L. Kandelaars, G.A. Lensink, J.M.A.
Gazzola, J.M. Wade, S.G. Hunter, I.K.

Motion thus negatived.

The CHAIR: Is there any further discussion on amendment No. 9, the schedule?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have a final question. Obviously, the minister has agreed to provide a list of all of the—

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Tomorrow, or you are not now? You have given me a map, and it says down the bottom in fine print under this yellow bit 'for illustrative purposes only', so there obviously is some caveat that it is not 100 per cent accurate. It is interesting that you talk about existing development rights. Am I right to say that there will be a two-year period where people who own properties in rural living zones will be able to subdivide those properties?

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: That have existing rights or are they new rights?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can inform the member that the advice is, as I think we have talked about just before, if you have existing rights to subdivide and if it is in accordance with the policy you maintain those rights to subdivide for two years from the date of the operation of the clause.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: So, there are no new rights. It is only the existing rights that owners have. After two years that is extinguished, and then what happens to their properties?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. He describes it correctly: yes, you have two years to use those rights, and if you do not after two years use those rights to subdivide your property goes on as it has always been, and you cannot subdivide for residential purposes.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Mr Chair, could I ask the minister to just clarify? None of these properties have the right to subdivide at all. They have existing titles. The problem is this: in some areas where it is zoned rural living, they can already realign the boundaries, but there are other areas within the food production zone where you cannot. So, my suggestion is that anywhere within the food production zone, where you have these rural properties with multiple titles, they have two years in which they can realign their boundaries.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The realignment of boundaries will, of course, be subject to the code. If you have existing rights to subdivide, they will be maintained for two years after the operation of the clause.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Hon. Mr Darley has just indicated he does not believe they will have subdivision rights and the minister said that they do. I refer to subclause (1)(b)(i) which says:

after the commencement of this clause, an application for development authorisation is made that involves a division of land within the rural living area that would create 1 or more additional allotments to be used for residential development;

That sounds like subdivision rights to me. The Hon. Mr Darley has obviously been given some advice which is contrary to that. Let us be clear about this. When the government introduced their original bill, these provisions were not in there. They were in a package of amendments that the government subsequently was going to move but they were not in the original bill.

Under the original bill, these people would not have had the right to subdivide or develop and the government decided to give them the right to subdivide or develop through these amendments. I think that is contrary to what the Hon. Mr Darley has been led to believe in relation to these rural living provisions. Can I confirm from the minister that it is correct that, under the government's original bill, these people would not have had these development or subdivision rights?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: These were amendments to our original bill. They would have appeared in the bill as we passed it last time had we passed the FPA earlier on.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: So, it wasn't in the original bill?

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: Not in the one that was tabled in the House of Assembly?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: They were amendments that the government moved to the original bill and, had we passed the FPA last time, would have appeared in what we are debating now.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The minister does not want to answer the question, but it is clear from that response that they were not in the original bill. They were in a package of amendments subsequently that the government wanted to move. It seems curious, this having been quite a cooperative session, that at the very last moment with this last provision the minister does not want this and wants to rush this through tonight. Is it correct that the Hon. Mr Piccolo has land in this particular area?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not know. I do not know exactly where he has land.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: I don't know, either. I'm just asking the question It is just curious that you want this through tonight.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If there is any assertion that anybody is doing anything improper or inappropriate, I think that is an outrageous assertion. The Hon. Rob Lucas does this frequently. The answer is: I do not know.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Neither do I.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: So, neither of us knows.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I do not know the reason why. What was asked, which was a reasonable question, was whether or not this was the last provision and whether this could have been adjourned on motion or progress reported so that investigations or inquiries could have been made, without having to raise it in the house, to check what the facts were. But, because you are now forcing all of this to be done tonight, we are not in a position to check the facts. The only way we can find out is to ask the question. I have got no idea.

All I can see is a map over the Hon. Mr Ridgway's shoulder of the rural living areas. These people are being given rights which in the government's original bill they did not have; the minister has acknowledged that. There were going to be further amendments that the government was going to move, but they were not in the original bill. For some reason, the government has decided to give a group of people, unknown to me, development rights which other people are not going to have as a result of the decisions the parliament is taking.

I do not know how many people there are there. I do not know who is involved. If progress had been reported, then discreet inquiries could have been made without having to raise the issues in this house. The minister's actions, in forcing this to be debated tonight, have meant that the only way of asking the question is to put the questions to him tonight. He says he does not know and I will say I do not know.

I have no idea; that is why I am asking the questions in relation to what is actually involved because the minister has not explained. It was not in the original bill. Why has the government given certain development rights to a certain group of people which they were not going to give in the original bill. The original bill was developed after months or years, or however long it was, of consultation. The government decided it was not going to give certain rights to certain people, and then for whatever reason subsequently has decided to give development rights to certain people.

Only the government would know why that particular change was made. The minister is obviously not in a position to explain that tonight. That is the reason the question was raised, otherwise it would have been handled discreetly.

The CHAIR: I still think, the Hon. Mr Lucas, that you could have asked that question but not honed in on a particular member of parliament.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Mr Chairman, you can have whatever view you like, but it is not going to impact—

The CHAIR: Yes, well, that's right, but too often people use this chamber under parliamentary privilege to make assertions out of left field. I think you could have asked the same question without actually honing in on a particular member.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: These thinly veiled accusations I am not going to dignify. I will say that this does not create any new rights; it preserves rights for two years if you already have them.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, but under the original bill they did not have them.

The CHAIR: Look, this is—

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I beg your pardon, Mr Chairman, I am trying to ask a question. A map that has been provided to me by the minister—

The Hon. P. Malinauskas: Glass jaws over there.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: You have been here for two minutes and you start interjecting. We are not meant to use props, so I am trying to explain it. The Hon. John Dawkins talks to me about the Lewiston area. If I look at the scale, it is maybe eight kilometres by four kilometres, or 10 kilometres by five kilometres, so somewhere between 30 and 50 square kilometres. The Hon. John Dawkins tells me it is the biggest rural living area in Australia.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: Well, animal husbandry, I think is the—

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Yes, whatever it is described as. As the Hon. Rob Lucas said, subclause (1)(b)(i) provides:

after the commencement of this clause, an application for development authorisation is made that involves a division of land within the rural living area that would create 1 or more additional allotments to be used for residential development;

If it is the case that they are able to subdivide and get—

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Only pre-existing.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: But it does not talk about existing. It states:

The following provisions will apply in relation to a rural living area in place within an environment and food production area defined by the plan…

It does not talk about existing. This is an area of 30 to 50 square kilometres that we are talking about that potentially has the right to subdivide. I would like to show this map to the Hon. Mark Parnell if he is familiar with where Lewiston is. It is a particularly large area that appears as though it can be subdivided. They are the questions we are asking, and we did want to report progress so we that could actually get some detailed information tomorrow, but the chamber chose not to so we are asking for details now.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that subparagraphs (b)(i) and (ii) need to be read together. It says 'and', so it is not either (i) or (ii), it is 'and'. Reading those both together makes it clear that pre-existing rights are maintained, not rights being enlarged for anything.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Where is the 'and'?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: At the end of subparagraph (b)(i), 'after the commencement of this clause…development; and', then subparagraph (ii). They are together. They are not separate things. It is not either of those: it is both of those.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: That still doesn't stop your subdivision.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If you've got pre-existing rights to do it, yes, you can for two years.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The minister keeps saying 'existing rights', but the point I continue to make, which he will not acknowledge of course, is that when the government introduced the bill these existing rights, if he says they were existing rights, were going to be taken away by the government. The government's original policy decision was that if they had existing rights they were to be taken away.

The government then had a package of amendments which were not moved in the House of Assembly but were going to be moved in the Legislative Council. For whatever reason, from the due consideration of the bill, when they were going to take away the existing rights of all of these people (I do not know how many people there are in this particular area), the government made a policy decision to say, 'No, we're now going to allow you to keep'—if they had existing rights, according to the minister—'the existing rights'.

So there is a conscious and significant policy decision change from the minister and the government. The reasons for that are still unexplained in relation to this. Contrary to the suggestions, from what the Hon. Mr Darley has said, that there is no subdivision or development rights in relation to this, the Hon. Mr Darley has been led to believe that this is just a realignment of titles, etc.

I fail to see how any reading of paragraph (b)(i), even with the inclusion of 'and' and (b)(ii), is consistent with what the Hon. Mr Darley has been told; that is, this is just a realignment of titles, it does not allow subdivision or development rights: it clearly does. You have to meet the provisions of subparagraphs (i) and (ii), I accept that, but it clearly in those circumstances allows subdivision or development rights. It is not, as the Hon. Mr Darley was led to believe, just a realignment of titles, which is what he indicated the government or its advisers had indicated to him. I move:

That progress be reported.

The committee divided on the motion:

Ayes 8

Noes 7

Majority 1

AYES
Darley, J.A. Dawkins, J.S.L. Hood, D.G.E.
Lee, J.S. Lucas, R.I. McLachlan, A.L.
Ridgway, D.W. (teller) Stephens, T.J.
NOES
Franks, T.A. Gago, G.E. Kandelaars, G.A.
Maher, K.J. (teller) Malinauskas, P. Parnell, M.C.
Vincent, K.L.
PAIRS
Brokenshire, R.L. Ngo, T.T. Lensink, J.M.A.
Gazzola, J.M. Wade, S.G. Hunter, I.K.

Progress thus reported; committee to sit again.

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