HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2016-12-06 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Statutes Amendment (Planning, Development and Infrastructure) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 1 December 2016.)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (17:47): I rise to support the Statutes Amendment (Planning, Development and Infrastructure) Bill 2016. I make my contribution, which will talk to a number of issues, but I indicate at this stage that the opposition is likely to support it. We supported the bill in the House of Assembly and we are likely to support it here. My colleague in the other place the member for Goyder consulted the Local Government Association, the Urban Development Institute Australia, the Master Builders Association, the Housing Industry Association and the Property Council.

I note at the outset both the Minister for Planning and my colleague in the other place the member for Goyder point out that this bill is of a procedural nature. I spoke to a number of those stakeholders and they were very keen. In fact, one of the comments they made to me was that they are very keen to see this legislation pass before Christmas because we needed it in place to be able to advertise for the planning commissioner. I see we have already started advertising for the planning commissioner, so maybe we just needed it in place to be able to appoint the planning commissioner, not actually start the advertising for that position.

The bill enables the commencement of a three to five-year implementation program for the new planning system under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 which this parliament passed earlier this year. It assists in the transition from the old planning act to the new planning act. Of course, members will recall that at this time last year we started the journey on the planning and infrastructure bill. I think it lasted some 13 or 14 consecutive days in this place which was a record for any one particular piece of legislation. It became apparent that there would be subsequent bills, amendments and legislation. This is one of the first, and I expect we will see more.

My colleague the member for Goyder flagged a number of issues at the committee stage with respect to this bill and I am advised that they have largely been dealt with by the government's subsequent amendments. The opposition has consulted: as I said, Steven Griffiths consulted the UDIA and the LGA with respect to the bill and the subsequent amendments that had been filed by the government. I note that both associations are supportive of the bill and the amendments which I believe arose from their suggestions.

I will just make some comments on the significant amendments. There is a change of emphasis from commissioner to minister, and the Hon. Mark Parnell I think is probably not going to support some of these clauses. I am intrigued—we will support the government because they have the benefit of the agency to advise them on how it will work in practice, but one of the things I always thought was important, and I know minister Rau in the early days talked about having it at arm's length from the minister, was that you had an independent commissioner and the minister should not be involved in decisions.

Clause 4 through to clause 8 is a significant amendment to this bill, to give the minister more autonomy with respect to the state planning policies, which does fly in the face of all the commentary from minister Rau and minister Maher, who I think had carriage of the bill in the early part of this year. I am not sure whether he had carriage of the bill late last year or whether that was minister Gago. I do not recall; there has been a little bit of a change. But the flavour of the comments back then was that we needed an independent planning commissioner who was independent of government and independent of ministerial interference. It was my understanding—this was in the original bill and it was amended in this chamber through that debate—that we were keen to see that in place.

I understand that my colleague the member for Goyder has flagged this with the minister in the other place during the committee stage of this bill and is satisfied with the minister's rationale. I will want to explore that in questions to the minister tomorrow. Minister Maher or maybe minister Malinauskas has the carriage of this bill. There are only seven or eight minutes until 6 o'clock, so we will not be doing the committee stage tonight, but I would certainly be interested to tease out the thought processes of the—

The Hon. K.J. Maher: We can go to 6.30.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: We will not be doing the committee stage tonight. You will not get anywhere near to finishing it by 6.30.

The Hon. M.C. Parnell: There are 17 amendments.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Okay, we will do the committee stage tomorrow.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Minister, you explained to me one hour ago that we were getting up at 6pm. I think everybody on this side of the chamber has assumed we are getting up at 6pm. The Hon. Mark Parnell thinks we are getting up at 6pm, and I think the other crossbenchers all think we are getting up at 6pm, as they were the instructions that were put to the catering staff and everybody else.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: No, getting up at dinner time.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Well, that is 6 o'clock.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Dinner is 6 o'clock for you all the time on the dot. I understand your right to work means you don't work a minute past that time—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! If we want to finish by 6pm, we have to move on with this.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Well, we are not, and I have a whole range of questions I want to ask. I will carry on, but I may have to seek leave to conclude in a minute because I need to gather my thoughts before I can conclude tomorrow. The minister explained that these amendments will give the minister of the day responsibility for a range of matters, including state planning policies, which in his words are the 'high-level executive government determinations'. If the minister is to be ultimately accountable for these decisions, it is fitting that the minister of the day be responsible for making those decisions.

As I said earlier, I think the Hon. Mark Parnell will be opposing these clauses. I also understand his rationale, but I indicate the opposition will be supporting these clauses. I do want to tease out why the government has changed their position, because it was my understanding that minister Rau wanted an independent planning commission and he wanted things independent from government. That was certainly the basis on which we were happy to proceed down that path last year and earlier this year, because it gave us some comfort that you would not have some of the decisions we have seen made in the last few years by this current government. Buckland Park and Mount Barker are just two that come to mind.

Minister Rau says we will never have another one on his watch. Well, his watch is nearly over; moreover, it appears to be coming quicker than we think, with his announcement. It was not quite a self-proclaimed announcement, but he certainly nominated himself for that position of Senior Counsel. Who knows what the future holds with minister Rau? Nonetheless, I think it was Gary Pratley from the Western Australian Planning Commission who said to me, when I visited him on a number of occasions, that he had worked in six or seven jurisdictions for 25 or 26 ministers and the best system he had worked under was the Western Australian one. That is why the opposition was very keen to mirror that.

I was pleased when Brian Hayes QC and his team came up with a recommendation that stated, 'Let's mirror, as close as possible, the Western Australian system.' So, I am very keen—with the minister's adviser, during the committee stage of this bill—to find out why they have changed their position and why they want these amendments. We will be supporting them—we have indicated as a party that we will—but I would like to know, for my own personal understanding, why they have made those changes.

There are some transitional provisions. Clause 10 of this bill inserts a schedule 8 for transitional provisions. This clause forms the bulk of the bill, some 46 sections, which all ultimately provide for the transition period between the old planning legislation and the new act, passed earlier this year. Many of these are common-sense provisions. Given that my colleague the member for Goyder has covered these in some detail during the committee stage, I will just flag a few key provisions.

Clause 2, saving of operation, is an important provision as it in part provides that, under the new act, a party will not be disadvantaged for having commenced proceedings under the process established by the previous planning legislation; that is, the matter will continue through the process as if the party had been compliant and the new scheme had been in place. I think that is important. When you transition from one piece of legislation to another—and this is a significant change—you do not want people disadvantaged by having the rules changed halfway through a development or when they have lodged a development application, so I am pleased that that will be happening.

As to clause 5(2), commencement prior to 1 April 2017: the bill provides that the Governor may, by proclamation made before 1 April 2017, fix a different day for the commencement of the establishment of the commission. As I understand it, this will enable the commission to commence either side of this date. Although the minister flagged 1 April as the proposed commencement date, this provision provides a safety valve of sorts in the event the commission is delayed for some unforeseen reason. I would think that to have something begin on April Fools' Day was a bad day to have that starting. I would hope that it either happens in March or happens after 1 April, so that we do not see it happening on April Fools' Day.

Clause 7 provides that a regional plan under section 64 need not be prepared and adopted until the expiration of 24 months. The minister has explained that this 24-month period is to account for regional plans that involve multiple councils with varying degrees of competencies and resources; that is, larger councils with greater resources may be able to prepare and adopt regional plans a lot quicker and more effectively than smaller councils. That is certainly a point where I wonder—and maybe the minister or the advisers can consider this tomorrow when we deal with the committee stage of the bill—what resources will be made available to councils, especially smaller ones, to help them prepare these regional plans and comply effectively?

I think we all support the concept of regional plans. You do not want two councils in a regional area at odds with each other. They need to be sympathetic to each other and, if you like, enhance each other's plans. Clearly, some are much bigger: they have a regional centre (and I always look at Mount Gambier and the District Council of Grant, although the District Council of Grant is quite a large council) and a regional city council, with a metropolitan area around it.

I am interested to know whether the minister or the minister's advisers will be able to provide some information about support for the smaller regional councils, or the ones on the fringe of the Outback Areas Community Development Trust. They are obviously sparsely populated, with not a lot of ratepayers and not a lot of revenue.

Clause 10, which has been highlighted, relates to local heritage. There will be a separate heritage bill brought before this parliament, as canvassed by both sides when this bill was debated in the other place. However, I understand that this provision is somewhat of an enabling provision, so I would be interested to know exactly what that heritage provision does. I note, from the outset, that the opposition will be supporting the government amendments, but we have sought feedback from the relevant associations in relation to that heritage provision.

Amendment No. 1 from the government simply includes what constitutes an 'earlier act', and we are happy with that. Other amendments include a provision that the clause refers to an earlier act, as outlined in previous amendments. I have been advised that amendments Nos 3 and 4 are aimed at addressing concerns raised by the UDIA. Therefore, clause 4 would enable a period of cessation of a land use to extend to a period that started before the designated day; that is, imparting a degree of retrospectivity to the application of the concept, which is broader than the current concept of discontinuance under the Development Act.

Amendment No. 5 deletes subclause (d), which would have enabled the minister to amend a development plan:

because it is otherwise (in the opinion of the Minister) appropriate to act under this clause in view of the transition from Development Plans under the repealed Act to the Planning and Design Code under the scheme established by this Act,

That is quite complicated, but I think it is really just a transitional provision. Amendment No. 8 simply includes, and Amendment No. 7 excludes, corresponding approval under the Building Act 1971. With those few words, I indicate that the opposition will be supporting this bill and the government's amendments, but I do wish to ask a number of questions around some aspects of the bill in the committee stage which, I assume, will be tomorrow.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.

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