HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2015-12-08 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 3.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I would like to take the opportunity to provide a more comprehensive answer to the Hon. David Ridgway to the question that he asked me before the luncheon adjournment. I have not checked the exact words I used, but there was an element of actually not knowing the answer because the answer depended on the impact of the amendments that we received at half past nine this morning. I have now had the opportunity to have another look at it.

To get the context right, I am seeking to amend the definition of essential infrastructure to make sure that the government cannot add any items to that list using the planning and design code. I explained that the reason for me doing that was that the definition of essential infrastructure triggered what we call the old crown development provision, whereby developments go through a fast-track process compared to the normal process.

The Hon. David Ridgway asked me what effect did my amendment have on the infrastructure scheme regime which is covered in the bill at a later clause; in fact, it is clause 156 onwards. My answer to the honourable member was that I was not quite sure whether it was the same definition. Having looked at it, it is the same definition. If we look at clause 155 it says:

(1) The Minister may initiate a scheme under this Division in relation to the provision of essential infrastructure...

The definition is directly relevant to clause 156, but what I am sure the Hon. David Ridgway is now on top of is the amendments that the government tabled this morning, where they have actually modified that position. They have now got this new concept, as of 9.30 this morning, called 'basic infrastructure'. Basic infrastructure is a subset of essential infrastructure, and if you look at the government amendment No. 2 in the set of amendments [EmpHESkills–3] it says that:

(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)…

That has a number of implications. The first implication is that the Hon. David Ridgway has even more to worry about than simply my concern over unnecessary fast-tracking, because it looks as if there is this possibility of adding extra things to the infrastructure schemes that the developers will have to pay for. But wait, there's more! When we also look at the government's amendments filed this morning, one of the things they say is that, in this new definition of basic infrastructure, it includes:

(e) other infrastructure, equipment, buildings, structures, works or facilities brought within the ambit of this definition by the regulations.

Those words are important. The government is basically saying that they can use regulations to add to the list of basic infrastructure, but what they do not give themselves in this amendment is the power to add to the list through additions through the planning and design code.

I think what I make of all that is that the government has agreed with me that the addition of new items of infrastructure through the vehicle of the planning and design code, which might have the impact of forcing people to have to pay for it because it gets incorporated into an infrastructure scheme, is inappropriate.

The minister may think I am drawing a very long bow, but given the fact that, in the government's amendment filed this morning, they refer only to additional items added by regulation and not to additional items added through the planning and design code, I think they are agreeing with me.

It may well be that part of the problem that the Hon. David Ridgway was concerned with might be solved, but the problem that I raised originally, which is that you have got this unknown list of extra things that can be fast-tracked, is still a live problem. The take-home message from all of that, the Hon. David Ridgway, is that you should continue to support the amendment, if that is in fact what you were originally proposing, and I look forward to other members supporting it as well.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: This comes from what the Hon. Mark Parnell has just said, but I also have some information here from one of the major stakeholders, the Urban Development Institute of Australia. I just thought it would be useful to ask the minister to respond to their concerns, which I will put on the record. They state:

The phrases such as 'health, education or community facilities' are ambiguous and might include a broad range of developments. Note also the ability in (k)—

from which the Hon. Mark Parnell is proposing to delete '(i) by the Planning and Design Code'—

to bring other infrastructure within the definition by the PDC or regulations. The definition is used for infrastructure schemes as well as the alternative assessment process for infrastructure in s123, which is later in the bill. In the case of assessment, a broad definition is good. In the case of infrastructure schemes, such as in part 13, the definitions need to be narrow.

They go on to say that two definitions are needed. Can the minister explain, with the amendments that have been tabled today that the Hon. Mark Parnell is referring to, have they addressed the concerns of the UDIA?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised, yes.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am indebted to the Hon. Mr Parnell for confusing me even further. I thank you for that. My question I think is probably firstly to the government. The Hon. Mr Parnell has raised this definitional issue of basic infrastructure in [EmpHESkills–3], which were tabled this morning, but on my reading of basic infrastructure there, is that not the same as the amendment which is already in [EmpHESkills–1] under amendment No. 38; that is, the definition to which the Hon. Mr Parnell is referring was already in the minister's first package of amendments?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that basic infrastructure is a subset of essential infrastructure, so it comes within it.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: That is not my question, though. Let me explain my question. I understand that, because I think that is what the Hon. Mr Parnell was pointing out. What the Hon. Mr Parnell was saying was that the issues that were being raised this morning by the Hon. Mr Ridgway had been resolved by the new amendments moved by minister Gago this morning in [EmpHESkills–3].

He refers to the definition of basic infrastructure there, and I will not go through it because he has already gone through it, but my question is: is the definition of basic infrastructure (and I am sort of quickly trying to catch up here) in [EmpHESkills–3] not the same as the definition you had already circulated in [EmpHESkills–1]? That is, the issue to which the Hon. Mr Parnell is referring had already been catered for (if it has been catered for) in the first package of amendments.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised yes, that is right.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Good. So, the issues in relation to whatever changes there have been addressed in the first and then possibly just confirmed again in the second series of amendments from the minister. My question now really I guess is—perhaps the Hon. Mr Parnell can assist me—the Hon. Mr Parnell is suggesting, because of this definitional change, that the levy arrangements only relate, is it correct, to basic infrastructure as opposed to essential infrastructure?

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: That is a question best directed to the minister, because I am trying to analyse the scheme. My gut feeling is that might be the case, but I do not know for sure.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I will put to the question to the minister: can the minister confirm, this new definition of basic infrastructure being a subset of essential infrastructure, does the levy only apply to something which comes within the definition of something which is basic infrastructure?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the infrastructure scheme has been split into two parts. The first is scheme 1, which is basic, and that is what the industry sought. The second is scheme 2, which is a general scheme, and the normal definition applies, but higher thresholds or higher hurdles are required to be achieved. There are two opportunities in relation to that general scheme for parliamentary disallowance. We can talk about the details of those opportunities at the appropriate clause, if you like.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Again, just pardon my ignorance in relation to this, but when the minister is referring to scheme 1, as I understand it there are two forms of infrastructure: one is a greenfield development and one is the minister's example of trams up The Parade. Can the minister just clarify, scheme 1 is what?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Greenfield scenarios.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: So, scheme 2 is the tram example up The Parade or wherever it happens to be?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: More complex things of that nature.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Can I clarify then: the minister's response is what? That 'basic infrastructure' relates to only scheme 1, which is greenfields developments? Is that what the minister is saying?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: That is correct.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: And so in relation to scheme 2, or the more complex potential levy arrangements and infrastructure arrangements, such as trams up existing roads, does the new definition of 'basic infrastructure' have work to do in relation to scheme 2 arrangements?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised no.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: If it does not, does the original definition of 'essential infrastructure' have work to do in relation to the scheme 2 arrangements?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised yes.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: This is probably getting a bit confusing now, but I just wanted some clarity around a future amendment. It is [EmpHESkills-3] 2, which I know is a long way off. It talks about:

(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; or

(e) other infrastructure, equipment, buildings, structures, works or facilities bought within the ambit of this definition by the regulations.

We are talking about this infrastructure provision or the definition. Subclause (e) 'other infrastructure, equipment, buildings, structures, works or facilities bought within the ambit of this definition by the regulations' I assume is for—I don't know; you may be able to clarify it; it is probably more for greenfield sites rather than, for example, the tram down Magill Road. I am just intrigued as to what things they envisage could be brought in by the regulations, because certainly industry has some significant concerns about the open-endedness of that subclause.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that in relation to the first part of the question, we do not know, but over time we will have regulatory power. In relation to the second part of the question, it will be in response to feedback. We will get to that clause and debate it, and if amendments are proposed, then we will consider those at the time.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: That is the issue that we have all been grappling with, with all due respect: we will debate it, and if we need further amendments we will get to them over time. I think that is the frustration for all of us here, that there is so little clarity around all these amendments. When would you propose them? I suggest to you right now that I think that is too loose; it needs tightening up and you should remove the words 'by regulation'. I can say that to you; who is going to draft the amendment? If you draft it, are we going to get it to industry? How do we know it is what they want? If I draft it, are you going to accept it? To me, the lack of clarity is unbelievable with this bill.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: We need to get to the clause and debate the clause, and hear the detailed concerns at the time. Let's move forward and deal with it. If you are saying that it is not resolvable, the government has indicated, and the opposition has indicated, that we are prepared to recommit. Let's just get on and do what business we can, come to an agreement, or disagreement, wherever we can and not get too far ahead of ourselves.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I have a basic question before I come back to the definition, and that is: why has the government not amended clause 3 to insert the definition 'basic infrastructure'? Given that the definitional clause includes 'essential infrastructure' and we have this distinction between essential infrastructure and basic infrastructure, why has the government in terms of the structure of the bill not included a definition of basic infrastructure in the definitional clause?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that the wording was based on parliamentary counsel's advice. It was a drafting issue and we have adhered to the expert advice that we appreciate so much.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I will not give a rocket to parliamentary counsel, given the impending retirement, but it would seem to make sense to have basic infrastructure in the definitional clause. Whilst the minister says let's address some of the issues later, and clearly we will address some of them later, the definition of essential infrastructure and the government's new definition of basic infrastructure clearly are critical issues in terms of the scheme arrangements, scheme 1 and scheme 2, as the minister has outlined and how the levy might be applied and what it might be applied for. They are important issues.

The Hon. Mr Parnell is making—and I am not referring to it in terms of its importance but I was going to say a minor amendment. He is amending one small part of the definition of essential infrastructure but what it has done by way of responses is brought to mind the government's further amendments about basic infrastructure which make very significant definitional changes to what is basic infrastructure and what is essential infrastructure.

My question to the minister is: when one now looks at the reason why the government has moved to have a new concept of basic infrastructure as opposed to essential infrastructure, if you look at the new definition of basic infrastructure, it seems to exclude from its potential definition, unless it gets included by regulation, infrastructure under the essential infrastructure such as (i) which is health, education or community facilities; (j) which is police, justice or emergency services facilities; (f) which is testing or monitoring equipment; and (g) coast protection works or facilities associated with sand replenishment.

It seems on a quick look that roads seem to be kept within basic infrastructure but transport networks or facilities such as potentially railways, busways, tramways, ports, wharves, jetties, airports and freight handling facilities seem to have been deliberately excluded. They might all be included ultimately by way of regulation under the catch-all clause, but can I firstly clarify from the minister: as a result of the stakeholder consultation, is the deliberate intent of this to take out of essential infrastructure those sorts of infrastructure developments and to have this new definition of basic infrastructure which excludes them explicitly?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The simple answer is yes, and it is after feedback with industry.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am assuming, not having been involved in the stakeholder discussion with industry on this—let's take the greenfield site development. I am assuming industry have said, 'If you are going to be building schools and hospitals and police and emergency services facilities, etc., we do not want the levy being used to apply for those sorts of facilities. We see those as responsibilities of government as opposed to the developers of greenfield sites.'

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Broadly speaking, yes, and that is why we put those extra hurdles in place for higher standards to be needed.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Finally, just to assist my clarification of these issues, in particular in relation to transport which seems to be quite a specific definition or change. Your new definition of basic infrastructure, which will therefore apply to scheme 1, greenfield site developments, refers to roads, causeways, bridges or culverts. That is number one. I think you have changed that again. You are now saying, under clause 3, roads or causeways, bridges or culverts associated with roads, which is your latest amendment, but that is explicitly excluding, I assume on the basis of stakeholder representation, that they do not believe that the levy arrangement for greenfield developments for things such bus ways, railways, tramways, ports, wharves, jetties, airports and freight handling facilities ought to be the responsibility of the developers, if they are there; they are the responsibility of government. Is that the case?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: My advice is that is correct.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the Hon. David Ridgway for putting on the record some of the concerns of industry. If I could paraphrase what they said: they do not really mind what gets added to the list of essential infrastructure for the purposes of fast-tracking development approvals, but they are very concerned about what gets added to the list of infrastructure that they might be asked to pay for. That is quite a logical conclusion for them to take. As I have said, what was driving me originally with this amendment was trying to minimise the amount of fast-tracking that could be done through this procedure. I do note, from the latest Local Government Association spreadsheet—which I am not sure if members have, but it must be 50 or 60 pages—they have gone through every clause of this bill, including some of the amendments. Perhaps the minister's adviser can have a think about this.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: It is something I have. I do not know whether it is generally circulated. Anyway, I understand that at least some members have it. The Local Government Association generally supports this amendment, but they posed some extra questions in relation to what might be included in the definition of essential infrastructure. The first point they make is that the definition of essential infrastructure should include open space. So, I guess the question would be: why is not open space included as a form of essential infrastructure?

Secondly, they seek clarification on whether the definition of essential infrastructure includes public transport and public lighting (streetlights, I guess). So, there are two things they are interested to know whether they are included in the definition. Without pre-empting the minister's answer, I guess these are things that could be added by regulation. I am certainly keeping that flexibility alive through my amendment, but I am saying that the government should not be able to add things in through the planning and design code.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that open space is dealt with elsewhere through the definition of public realm. Transport and lighting, I am advised, is dealt with through the definition of essential services.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I will be brief. It was suggested this morning that the amendments that were given to us this morning are minor and relatively inconsequential. It certainly does not seem that way from the discussion we are having at the moment. Can I go back to the amendment before us, which is the Hon. Mr Parnell's amendment No. 2. I just want to be absolutely clear, if I can, from the Hon. Mr Parnell. We have had a long discussion about this and there have been a lot of variations on it. If he can just, one more time, make it clear to the chamber exactly what the impact of his amendment will be, please.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Very simply, the definition of essential infrastructure comprises a number of identified elements. They are things that would come as no surprise. It includes roads, embankments, coast protection works, there are all manner of things. The usual suspects are on the list. It is a reasonably appropriate list. They are all forms of essential infrastructure.

As in legislation, often you get a bit of a catch-all clause at the end which says, effectively, 'If we've left anything out, this is how we add new items in.' The government in the bill has given itself two ways of adding new items to this list: one way is through regulations. I support that way, because regulations are disallowable. If they try to add to the list in a regulation, and it comes to parliament and we do not like it, we can say, 'No, we don't think that fish and chip shops are essential infrastructure, we're not going to let you add that to the list', using a ridiculous example.

The other way the government gives itself to add to the list of essential infrastructure is by putting something in the planning and design code. The planning and design code is effectively an amalgamation (or will be; it is not written yet) of all the planning schemes for all the different local government areas. I cannot remember how many tens of thousands of pages the minister mentioned were included, but while it is not an exact overlap it will be a large overlap. Thousands of pages of planning schemes from local councils will roll into a thing called the planning and design code, and the government says, 'Well, we can add items of essential infrastructure in that planning and design code.'

The point I am making is that that document is much harder to disallow, because it has to go through the gatekeeper of the environment committee of parliament, which is a government controlled committee and never disallows anything. I am saying that I want the flexibility, I want the government to be able to recognise that there are new items of essential infrastructure, I want them to be able to add them to the list, but I want them to do it in a way whereby we as a parliament have a direct right of disallowance.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate that this is one of, I expect, a number of amendments where we will indicate that we will support the Hon. Mark Parnell, but it is one where potentially we will seek to recommit if we get further information. That is the dilemma we are faced with. As the minister is well aware, because of the time constraints—we have heard a number of explanations, we have information from the LGA, the UDA and all the other different bodies—trying to come to grips with it all is a bit difficult.

We have sympathy with what the Hon. Mark Parnell is trying to do, and our party room has resolved to support that amendment, but I do so on the basis that we reserve our right to recommit it if we get further information that gives us an opportunity to reconsider our position.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: That is the position of Family First also. I have some sympathy for what the Hon. Mr Parnell is trying to do here; it certainly logically makes sense, but I need to be confident on this amendment and I need to consult with key stakeholders. We have not had that opportunity, obviously, and as such we will support it subject to a recommittal at a later time.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate that my position is exactly the same as the Liberals and Family First.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Parnell–1]—

Page 20, lines 7 and 8—Delete 'is excluded by regulation from the ambit of this definition' and substitute:

is within the ambit of subsection (1b)

Amendment No 4 [Parnell–1]—

Page 20, after line 10—Insert:

(1a) A regulation that excludes any tree that is within 10 metres of a building or swimming pool from a declaration of a tree, or class of trees, as a regulated tree or as regulated trees (and that would otherwise be a regulated tree by virtue of the regulations) is void and of no effect.

(1b) For the purposes of the definition of tree-damaging activity under subsection (1), maintenance pruning—

(a) that does not remove more than 30% of the crown of a tree; and

(b) that is required to remove—

(i) dead or diseased wood; or

(ii) branches that pose a material risk to a building; or

(iii) branches of a tree that is located within an area frequently used by people and the branches pose a material risk to such people,

is within the ambit of this subsection.

The next two amendments, [Parnell-1] 3 and [Parnell-1] 4 relate to significant trees. To cut right to the chase, I asked parliamentary counsel to reprise some amendments that I had made a little while ago, back in 2012 from memory, that resulted from a comprehensive survey that I undertook with local councils. I asked local councils how they were finding the operation of the new significant/regulated tree laws that came into operation I think in 2007 or 2008 from memory, and I asked them a number of questions, including whether more large trees were being removed, whether more or less applications for tree removal were being lodged and a number of other questions that went to the operation of these new laws. As a result of the responses I got back, I moved for three effective changes.

The first change related to the so-called 10-metre rule, and that is the rule that says a significant tree or a regulated tree—a large tree—within 10 metres of a dwelling or a swimming pool is effectively open slather. It is exempt; you do not have to apply; you can just chop it down. There are some exemptions, but that is the general rule. So, the 10-metre rule was one.

The second was the inability of relevant authorities to ask applicants to get an expert opinion—the so-called arborists' report. My colleague, the Hon. Dennis Hood, I think may have had a hand in that because he pointed out that arborists' fees can be quite expensive, and he saw that it was an onerous obligation.

We have had a few years for this to have effect now, and the result that I got back from local councils was that they were finding it very difficult to assess the claims that were being made, such as 'this tree is dead' or 'this tree is dying', and even the species was difficult. That issue of arborists is not dealt with here; that is a clause later on.

The third amendment, which is in these two, is this issue of maintenance pruning. As I said, I wrote to every local council certainly in the metro area—the councils mostly affected by this legislation. I got responses back in relation to the number of applications that were being lodged because, when you have more exemptions, then you might think, 'Maybe there will be fewer applications,' because, if something is exempt, you do not need to apply, you just go and do it.

The City of Holdfast Bay, for example, said that the number of development applications for removal or pruning of significant trees was down by 40 per cent compared to a year earlier. They make the point that most trees no longer require development approval for removal. The majority of trees in the urban environment are now exempt from statutory control.

Basically, that is what they were saying. They were agreeing with what I imagined had been the case, and they proved it, which is that, if something is exempt, you do not have to apply. If you do not have to apply, there are no controls. There is no ability for the council to either agree or disagree with the claim of exemption because you do not need to notify the council.

The City of Holdfast Bay said that anecdotal evidence suggests that trees which are exempt from assessment are being felled at a rapid rate. I am not going to put on the record, as tempting as it is, because I think it took me an hour back in 2012, all the responses from all the councils. I am certainly not going to do that. I have just mentioned one briefly, but I do want to refer to the merits of these two amendments.

The 10-metre rule one, in particular, is one that I think has had an unintended consequence; that is, it is one thing to say that a tree that is within 10 metres of a house or a swimming pool does not need permission to be removed, but there is no flipside to that coin which says you are not allowed to build a house or a swimming pool within 10 metres of a significant tree. You can imagine the situation—and this is what is happening—where someone extends their house or they build a swimming pool, they build it close to a significant tree, and then they step back and say, 'My goodness! There is now a significant tree within 10 metres of my swimming pool. I had better chop it down. In fact, I am allowed to. I do not even have to go back to the council.'

It is a remarkable situation that we allow that to happen. The government tried valiantly in this chamber and also in proceedings of the Environment, Resources and Development Court to convince us that that would not happen because someone who was going to build a swimming pool or build an extension to their home would, of course, have to simultaneously apply for a tree damaging activity.

That was what the government said, and then I pointed out to them that the significant tree might be on next door's property. The significant tree might not even be on your land, yet maybe you can build within a metre of the boundary and the significant tree is two metres the other side of the boundary. All of a sudden, it is only three metres away and it can be removed, whereas, a few weeks earlier, before the home extension, it would have been protected. It really is an anomaly that needs to be fixed.

The government may well say—I am not privy to the minister's research on this—that I am trying to use the wrong tool to fix this problem, and the reason they would say that is these rules are largely written in the regulations. They were written into the development regulations and I am trying to use an act of parliament to fix a problem that was created by the regulations. My response to that is: it is the only tool I have got so that is the tool I am going to use. That is why I say we need to get rid of this 10-metre rule, because of these unintended consequences. The minister, no doubt, will say that the regulations will be completely rewritten—as they will be—with this new bill, but harm is being caused now and, the sooner we fix this, the better.

I will go back one step. One option that I put to councils was whether the 10-metre rule might be a five-metre rule instead. Some people thought that was a good idea but it did not have majority support of the councils I surveyed so I decided not to go down that path. Also, I investigated whether it was possible to force someone to apply jointly for not only the building work they want to do but also for the tree-damaging activity, but that has not been able to be done. If it can be done that might be the solution, but the government certainly has not made any attempt to do that.

On the second issue, this issue of maintenance pruning, the point that I made back in 2012 is that, when you have rules which include numbers, for example, such as how much of a tree you are allowed to remove in order to stay within the definition of maintenance pruning, you get the situation, for example, where it talks about 30 per cent of the canopy being removed but, of course, it does not say how often you can do that. You could remove 30 per cent one month and another 30 per cent the next month and, before you know it, the tree is gone.

While that is not the intention of the government, the point has to be made that, ever since significant tree rules came into being, there has been a war out there between people who are desperate to get rid of them and will use whatever device they can to get rid of these trees and, of course, on the flip side of the coin, people who are very proud to have such majestic trees on their properties and will do whatever they can to keep them. But, certainly, there are people who, given loopholes and given the ability to remove significant trees by stealth, will grasp that opportunity. These two amendments both relate to the same issue, significant trees, and I would urge the council to support them.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes this amendment. During his second reading contribution, the Hon. Mark Parnell indicated he would be moving amendments to wind back changes that parliament previously supported in relation to the regulation of trees. This amendment, together with Nos 4, 84 and 85, relate to each other in respect of this matter, and the government considers this amendment a test clause for those related amendments.

In presenting this bill, the government has chosen to preserve the existing arrangements for regulated trees so, to be suggesting in any way that the provisions around this are somehow being wound back or weakened, is simply incorrect. We are going to preserve the existing arrangements for regulated trees. We will keep the status quo: there is no change. This was explained in the committee stage in the other place by minister Rau. Therefore, we are opposing this set of related amendments.

Indeed, I remind members that this regulated tree legislation has only been in place for a few years as a result of a private member's bill brought into this chamber by the Hon. Dennis Hood. We thrashed it out then. It was a lengthy debate. That was not all that long ago, and we simply do not need to be revisiting this debate at this particular time. It is status quo—there is no winding back, weakening, watering down—it is status quo.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I am not sure that the Hon. Mark Parnell is trying to water it down—or maybe he is—but I think what he is alluding to is that people are using the rules to get around disposing of a significant tree.

I have a question in relation to swimming pools, and I know this is probably a bit irregular, Mr Chairman, but I quickly want an answer. I have been made aware that with swimming pools, of course, you cannot sell a property if it does not have a fence around the pool. I am also told that, when you build a brand-new pool, you have to get a certificate from the council to say that a fence is around it before you can fill the pool with water. I think that is my understanding.

I have become aware of a property not far from where I live. It is a house that has just been sold and the pool was empty and in bad repair. The new owners do not wish to keep the pool; in fact, they are going to dig it up and get rid of it, but the current owners are not able to sell the property until they put a fence around the pool that the new owners will then cut down and throw in the tip, and it seems strange to me.

Is there a possibility for a provision so that, if there is a property with an empty pool, the same rules could apply for transition of ownership? You buy the property with an empty pool with no fences as it is an old property. If you want to fill it with water then, clearly, you have to have a fence around it. It seems typical of the red tape we are confronted with today so some clarity on that please.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I thank the member for his questions. The member is right in respect of pools requiring a fence before you can sell, and we are happy to take on notice the specific example that he has outlined and the circumstances around that and try to resolve that in some way.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate that this is one of the amendments that we will also be wishing to recommit at some later stage. We are concerned that we might have people using the system to get rid of significant trees and so indicate that at this point we will be supporting the amendment, but I indicate that we will recommit once we have had a lengthier discussion with industry.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I guess it will come as no surprise to the Hon. Mr Parnell that Family First will not be supporting these amendments. As the minister indicated, it was, of course, a bill under my name that originally introduced this new regime for significant trees. I think there are a couple of important things that need to be clarified here, and that is, whilst it is true that in theory somebody can have a swimming pool, as they are building a new house, within 10 metres of a tree and then remove the tree because that is theoretically possible, in practice that is not my experience.

As somebody who has gone through that process in two different council areas, that is, the Burnside City Council and also the Adelaide City Council where I now live, the reality is that they have in their development plans a situation that forbids the building of a pool within, I think in the case of Burnside, six metres and it may be eight metres for the Adelaide City Council, one of the two—that may not be exactly right but it is very close to being right—and that actually forbids that from happening.

Whilst I think the Hon. Mr Parnell is right in this theoretical concerns, in practice, certainly in those councils anyway in my experience, that is not possible. But I make the broader point that with respect to significant trees—and this is a philosophical difference, and I think the Hon. Mr Parnell and I will never agree on this and that is fine—in my view, there should not be very many reasons anyway, why somebody should not be able to remove the tree on their own property, regardless of where it is, what is adjacent to it, and all those other considerations.

At the end of the day an individual goes to their individual workplace on a daily basis to earn their money to pay for their little piece of the earth and, within reason, I think that they should therefore be able to remove a tree if it is impeding their existence on that property if they see fit. So that is my philosophical position, and for that reason we will not be supporting the amendments.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Just to assist the chamber, I will indicate that Dignity for Disability will support these amendments.

The CHAIR: I now put the Hon. Mr Parnell's amendments Nos 3 and 4.

Amendments carried.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I have a few questions on clause 3, if I may. These are brief questions and I think the minister will be able to answer them fairly quickly, so they will not delay the chamber. I just want a couple of points of clarification if I may on clause 3, specifically the interpretations. The term 'adjacent land' refers to a distance of 60 metres from other land. I am seeking clarification: does that 60 metres have any significance? Why is it 60—why not 20; why not 120 or whatever it is—why 60?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that the reason it is 60 metres is because it is historic. There was debate in the lower house when the government tried to reduce it to 40 metres but it caused a furore so we have left it at 60. Basically the width of a standard block is about 20 metres and this is about four blocks, so it is the block on either side and one more—it is basically four blocks in width.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Just to assist the honourable member: the importance of the definition comes down to who has the right to be notified about something that is happening in their neighbourhood. Traditionally, people with immediately adjoining property—in other words their boundaries butt up against where the development is—get notified, then you have people who might live across the street or across the river or whatever so this additional 60-metre rule has been put in to slightly expand, I guess, the definition of 'neighbours'; people who are entitled to be notified. So 60 metres is better than 40 metres because more people are notified at 60 than at 40.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I thank the minister for her response, and the Hon. Mark Parnell for his clarification. That is how I understood it, but I was just interested in the actual figure of 60 metres. From my perspective 40 would be better than 60 but, again, that is a philosophical difference.

My next question is, again, one that I think the minister will answer fairly quickly, and that is the definition of 'adjoining owner'. I am interested in whether that includes diagonally adjoining properties? I am not trying to be too pedantic here but in the place where I live, in North Adelaide, for example, you have townhouses, and maybe perhaps in Norwood and other places like that, which are not necessarily horizontal or vertical to the property. Specifically in here it says 'either horizontally or vertically'. I am wondering if that includes diagonal, for example?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that the definition is the same as the current act and that it has to abut, so the boundary has to actually touch the boundary of that property.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I thank the minister for her answer. The definition of 'advertisement', which I think is directly below the 'adjoining owner', talks about a sign. Is there any specific size requirement for something to be considered a sign in those circumstances? Does it have to be a certain size?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised no, there are not requirements around the size of the sign. It relates to another clause later on that goes to the issue of unsightly. The size of a sign might be captured by that if it is significantly and outrageously large, and that is carried forward from the existing act.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I thank the minister for her response: that makes sense. The next question relates to page 13 and the reference to the term 'business day', which is just something that caught my eye. Days that fall between 25 December and 1 January—which may well be a Tuesday or a Wednesday or a Thursday, for example, which most people would consider a business day—are specifically excluded here. I was interested in why that might be the case.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that this is the same provision as in the existing act and it tries to address problems around periods of notification. You do not want to be compelled to notify people of certain matters when, in fact, very few people are going to be home and businesses are often closed. For that reason, they are excluded.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I thank the minister; again, that makes sense. I think this is my last question on clause 3. On page 15, paragraph (h) refers to 'in relation to a regulated tree—any tree-damaging activity'. I think the Hon. Mr Parnell has just touched on that topic. What I am not clear about is: does moving a tree with council permission constitute damaging a tree?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that, if you are contemplating moving a tree, which may involve damaging the tree or tree-damaging activity, you are required to seek an approval. Once you have the approval, you can move the tree.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: This relates to change of land use and it may be covered somewhat by the minister's amendment. I would like to ask a couple of questions that were brought to my attention about the concern in relation to the change of land use and existing rights. I will read from this document that was submitted by the UDIA, and then the minister's adviser can respond on the record:

The variation to clause 4(1)(d) reworks the increased intensity concept so that it is only triggered by the Planning and Development Code. The variation in clauses (3)(a) and (3)(b) changes the current law about the existing use rights. Currently, to kill off existing use rights, you either commence a new use or abandon the use or cease the use for a prescribed period. The amendment changes the language to 'an activity' which ceases. This is a lower threshold, as an activity might be just one part of a use of land, and the amendment means that if most of the significant activity in an overall use stops for 12 months, then the whole use can be killed. The first requirement is that the resumption of activity is inconsistent with the zone. This is patently an uncertain means to ascertain which existing rights survive, after one activity in the spectrum that make up the use, stops for 12 months.

They go on to say:

Certainty in the use rights is critical to a regulatory system. Continuity of use rights is important to the property owners and businesses. Why should someone innovate and try a new activity in their retail, industrial or commercial use if they risk their entire investment?

I just want some clarification on the comments that the UDIA has made. I guess also, if farming is an existing use, is farming—agriculture or horticulture—looked at as an existing use as a whole or are different forms of agriculture looked upon as a different use? I use the example of going from perhaps growing a crop inorganically and then going organic, or even to the point where you might change from broadacre farming to horticulture, to grapes, or maybe even some intensive horticulture where you might have some covered structure, whether it is netting for apples or even glasshouses. I would just be interested in that interaction and how existing uses are preserved.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I believe that my comments in respect of the government's amendment to this clause will address at least most of the issues you have raised. So what I might do is move my amendment, make those comments, and then if there are any outstanding matters we can deal with those after the amendment I move:

Amendment No 1 [EmpHESkills–1]—

Page 21, line 36—After 'such longer period' insert '(not exceeding 5 years)'

There are two amendments filed in relation this clause: the first is a government amendment, and the second is an amendment by the Hon. Mark Parnell. In articulating the government's position it is important to explain the purpose of this clause and how it has changed relative to the existing law.

Change of use is an important concept in planning law, forming one of the limbs of the definition of development, and which is used as a trigger for assessment and approval. It is common to find provisions of this nature in planning statutes across Australia as well as planning laws throughout commonwealth countries, which tend to be modelled on British archetypes. The purpose of the change of use test is to ensure that land uses which may not be compatible with the desired character of the zone are assessed before being permitted. Additionally, the expansion to existing use can be assessed by applying the change of use concept.

Two issues have arisen over the years which this clause seeks to address. Firstly, as reported by the expert panel, too often silly issues have been caught up in change of use assessment processes. Perhaps the most notorious is the case of the change in use from a cafe to a dog salon in a popular shopping district. There are many other silly examples that occupy too much time and attention in our current system, such as the farmers market examples cited by the Hon. Mark Parnell earlier today.

The bill addresses this by providing for use clauses to be provided for in the planning and design code. This will ensure that like-for-like land uses within defined parameters will not require a reassessment merely because a particular use is to be slightly modified. The Hon. Mark Parnell's proposed amendment would unduly fetter this important innovation and the government will oppose that.

Given that the planning and design code will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, we believe it is unnecessary to constrain this provision to the extent suggested by the Hon. Mark Parnell, and we suggest that the effect of this amendment would be to effectively negate the purpose behind this reform. Secondly, the government has moved in this clause to address case law, which has found that only a complete abandonment of a site is sufficient to trigger a need to reapply, and will be curtailed in such circumstances. This is problematic in urban renewal scenarios where residual existing use rights may continue to apply for many years, despite cessation of all activity at the site and changes to the surrounding character of the area which make reactivation of activities at the site problematic.

Our amendment will limit the effect of case law if the activity in question is no longer appropriate for the zone. The effect of this is that a facility which has ceased activities will be required after 12 months to apply for a change of use assessment if it is to reopen. There is an out clause in this allowing an authority to extend this time in certain cases. The Local Government Association has sensibly suggested this ability to extend should be time-limited to five years and we agree, hence the amendment.

This is an important change that will support urban renewal over time. The government agrees that existing use rights should not be lightly removed; however, if a change in zoning has occurred around a site that makes the continued use at that site problematic, a lower threshold for discontinuance of use is both reasonable and required.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have come from looking at it from a perspective of the interface between urban development and agriculture and that change of land use on either side of a boundary, which I will probably explore a lot more in a few clauses ahead of us in relation to the urban growth boundary.

The minister said it was not intended to capture a slight change of use. My first question is: are you talking about changing from a cafe to a dog salon or are you talking about a town boundary where a farmer might have run a few sheep or a bit of crop and then it is zoned to be inside the growth of a town and it is then rezoned and used for development? What happens to the property that is outside the boundary? Clearly, there has been a change of use on one side. My real interest, which I will probably explore later on, is actually the interaction of the buffer zones. Where does that actually lie when you have a change of land use in a rural setting?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: In relation to the buffer zone question that you asked, that does not really relate to this clause. It does come in later, so we can discuss that then. It is probably relevant and easier to discuss that in detail at the appropriate clause. However, you did raise the example also of a farmer changing from one crop to another. The current legislation trips farmers up and complicates that. The current bill will simplify that so it will be much easier for a farmer to make those decisions to change from one crop to another, so this simplifies it for farmers.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Minister, if you could perhaps clarify that. You said in your comments a moment ago that if an activity ceased for 12 months you did not actually have to apply. Is that in a retail and a metropolitan sense or is that in a rural sense that abuts a growth boundary?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the 12-month requirement to reapply only applies where change has been made in zoning around the area, so it does not capture the example that the Hon. David Ridgway outlines.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: It is my understanding that the amendment to the bill changes the language to 'an activity which ceases'. I am advised that is a lower threshold than a 'use'. I am aware of some of the concerns at various times, but I am just trying to get some clarity around it. I remember the Hon. Mark Parnell saying to me that once something is rezoned you cannot unzone something; you cannot turn backwards. I am interested to know why the government is going for a definition which has a lower threshold than the one we currently have. It seems like it is making it weaker, rather than reforming it.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: You are right in one respect, in terms of it potentially being at a lower threshold, but it is only when it is captured by rezoning from the area around that property.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: Give me an example.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Say, for instance, there is an industrial business and that whole area is being rezoned for residential. If that industrial business—it might be a warehouse or something—ceases its activity for more than 12 months, it has to reapply. That replacement of 'activity' with 'use' only applies in a very limited scenario, so it is not open slather.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Who do you reapply to? Let's say somebody has had a business, they have had some financial troubles and they have decided they are going to shut the door, and they sell the property to somebody else who wants to reopen it. Who do they apply to?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The relevant assessment body, which is likely to be the local council.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: This is a really important clause. Going back a couple of steps, the reason why working out what is or is not a change of land use is important is that one of the definitions of 'development' (in other words, what is caught by this act) is whether there has been a change of land use.

We know development includes building things, but there are some forms of development where you do not actually build anything. A classic example would be turning an old inner suburban house into a doctor's surgery. There might not be a single wall that needs to be removed, and there might not be a single brick that needs to be laid, but people would reasonably think, 'Well, hang on, a doctor's surgery is very different from a house,' and so therefore you have to go and get planning approval. So, the definition of 'change of use' is important.

From my long experience, especially from working on industrial pollution cases, the argument is often put to say to local residents, in very much the scenario the minister referred to before, 'You've got no right to complain. We've been here for 50 years.' That is what the industry says to the householders. Often the response is, 'Yes, but 50 years ago you had four employees and you worked from nine to five. Now you've got three shifts around the clock and you've got 200 workers.' So, you do need to have some rules around whether something has increased in its intensity such that it probably needs to go back and get another approval. Really, that is what we are talking about.

There are two issues: there is the increase in intensity and there is the abandonment and then trying to reinstate it. In terms of the intensity, the minister in the other place pointed out that a petrol station, I think, on Brighton Road wanted to go from limited hours of operation to 24/7 operation. The question arose as to whether they should have to go back and get development approval again or whether it was just really a continuation of an existing use. Those are the sorts of real-life examples that people come across.

I think the government in the lower house did make some amendments, which I think have partially dealt with what I am trying to achieve. They have this notion now of an increase in the intensity of the use of land. What I am trying to do in my amendment is to make sure that the concept of a material increase in activity on a land picks up two things: intensity and impact.

It is not hard to imagine—and the minister used the words 'like for like'—that there are some things that might look very similar but might in fact have very different impacts. One might have a lot more noise and smell and patronage and car parking requirements and might be a very different kettle of fish; even though they might both be shops, for example, they might be different types of shops. The example of a cafe to a dog salon I must admit I had not heard before, but maybe they are similar, maybe they both need the same amount of parking, maybe they make the same amount of noise.

The thing I am keen to avoid is for this planning and design code to be able to set out situations that are deemed not to be a change of use without the authorities having to have regard to those two things, intensity and impact. My amendment is limited to subclauses (6) and (7), which are this concept of a 'use class' specified in the planning and design code. This is a new way of looking at it for the planning and design code, to set out like for like. It would have something in it such as, 'If it's a shop, it doesn't matter what they're selling, it's still a shop.' I think that sounds reasonable, but I do want them to take into account intensity and impact because that is ultimately the evil we are trying to overcome here.

My amendment is pretty straightforward. The government may think that it has already picked this up in their new subclause (1)(d), which talks about an increase in the intensity, but I am talking about an increase in the intensity in relation to subclauses (6) and (7), which relate to the 'use class' provisions, which is a new insertion and part of the bill that was not in the previous act. I think that it makes sense for my amendment to get through because it will make clear that people will not have what is effectively a new development imposed on them, with much more noise and smell and traffic and all those other things, without it having gone through a proper assessment process. That is why I would urge people to support this amendment.

While I am on my feet, the government amendment regarding insertion of the phrase 'not exceeding 5 years', in terms of the intervening period between a cessation and a resumption, makes sense. It is something the Local Government Association called for and I will be supporting that.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: As indicated, the government cannot support the amendment of the Hon. Mark Parnell because it would negate the whole nature of the reform we are trying to achieve. The current system requires significant litigation—complex, costly and time-consuming litigation—and legal advice. I am not surprised that the Hon. Mark Parnell supports this approach at all. But that is the current system and that is the effect that the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendment will have: it will continue the current requirement for complex, costly legal advice and litigation. The purpose of our approach is to reform that. We want to put simple, clear rules around this, rather than leaving it for the courts to have to thrash out in a costly way.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Family First supports the government amendment and does not support the Greens' amendment.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have a couple more questions, but I indicate that we will be supporting the government's amendment and not the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendment. We talk about change of land use and rezonings; my understanding is, of course, that if you had a group of houses that are no longer being lived in and they are not lived in for 12 months (and I think it is highly unlikely), does that mean that that is activity that does not exist anymore or it has ceased that activity? I think the Hon. Mark Parnell once said to me, 'You can rezone things to a higher value or a higher use; you don't take them the other way.' We just need some clarity around if that is ever a likely scenario.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. T.T. Ngo): I just want to make honourable members aware that currently we are dealing with the minister's amendment and not anyone else's. Mr Parnell has not moved his amendment, so we are just dealing with the minister's amendment at this stage.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I will point out, Mr Acting Chairman, that we are supporting one amendment and not another one that has not been moved, so we are actually making it, perhaps, a little quicker.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Just in response to your question, it is possible, but it is highly unlikely. The example you are giving is, say, for instance, a residential area is rezoned for industrial purposes. Inside that, a small section is residential and there may be no-one living in those homes for 12 months. Theoretically, they might have to reapply to continue the residential status, but it is highly improbable and unlikely.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Even though it is highly unlikely, let's just assume we have 10 houses that are empty and want to build another facility, which might be a sporting facility, a hotel or something. What happens to the interaction with existing residents?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: This provision allows for greater opportunity for mixed use. It is only where the use becomes incompatible, and it is highly unlikely, for instance, that sporting use is going to be incompatible with residential. It might be that residential use is incompatible with some industry, but as I said, that is highly improbable and unlikely to occur. In most of the examples you give, it is unlikely that they would be found under the planning and design code to be incompatible.

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

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Just to assist the committee, I have heard a number of members say that they are not inclined to support my amendment, and that is fine; I will accept that, as I must. I do not accept that I am unduly fettering the ability of the government in the planning and design code to create this new concept of use class.

The reason I say that is that my amendment simply provides that they should not do that; they should not put within a use class types of development which clearly are going to have a greater impact on neighbours, for example. But given that the planning and design code is not something that is appellable, even though it says that subsections 6 and 7 do not apply, I think what it really means is it is actually advice to the government that they should not, in the planning and design code, put in common use classes types of development that will impact on neighbours. I can see where the numbers are on this one, so if I have not already, I will formally move my amendment, but I will not be dividing on it.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I move:

Amendment No 5 [Parnell–1]—

Page 22, after line 2—Insert:

(7a) However, subsection (6) or (7) does not apply in a case where there is a reasonable likelihood that the change in use will result in a material increase—

(a) in the intensity of the use of the land; or

(b) in the impact of activities carried out on the land.

Amendment negatived; clause as amended passed.

Clause 5.

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

Amendment No 1 [Ridgway–1]—

Page 22, lines 8 and 9—Delete paragraph (b)

This is the amendment that the opposition is moving to remove what we know as the urban growth boundary. It is something that the opposition has felt quite strongly about for some significant time. It has probably been done in the wrong order. I am not going to hold this up but I will lie it on the floor so that the minister can see it. Am I allowed to do that?

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. T.T. Ngo): You are not allowed to do that, the Hon. Mr Ridgway.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Well, that is a shame, Mr Acting Chair.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. T.T. Ngo): Just try to describe it, the Hon. Mr Ridgway.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Well, throw me out and we can adjourn until February. That is a map that we were provided only a couple of weeks ago. We have a whole range of questions. I was going to ask those questions before moving my amendment. Having moved my amendment—and I know the minister will not be supporting it—I will ask some questions in relation to the urban growth boundary or the environment and food protection area which I think is the same boundary with a different name. What is the foundation of the boundary? What rationale was used for the boundaries? This document refers to the greater Adelaide planning region environment and food protection area's boundaries. Could the minister explain what rationale was used for the outer boundary?

It says in this document that the areas excluded from the environment and food protection area include character preservation districts and the metropolitan township based areas. These exclusions create three separate areas that form the EPFA. I am sure she will quote from this document, so there is not much point in my quoting from it now. There is the northern area, the Kingsford triangle and the central southern area, but it is the outer boundaries. It is bounded by the sea but it is the outer boundaries.

What rationale did the minister have? The expert panel said this is something that might be considered, yet it has been introduced into this legislation as a really important part that the minister in the other place is particularly interested in. I am sure there will be a range of questions on this particular clause, so by moving my amendment I will kick things off with asking the minister: what was the rationale? Why did you draw the boundary where you did?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The rationale, the principles, are really in the 30-year plan. This is simply an extension of that. There are two boundaries—the outer boundary and the bits that have been cut out such as towns. In relation to the outer boundary, in general terms for metropolitan Adelaide the EFPA boundary is based on: to the north, the Gawler River and Virginia triangle horticulture area; to the south and east, the existing boundaries for the Hills Face Zone, existing character preservation areas, McLaren Vale, the Barossa Valley and the Mount Lofty Ranges watershed; and to the east (seaward), the LGA boundaries.

In relation to the bits that have cut out the township boundaries, they consider the following: the existing urban-type zones, future urban growth areas identified as part of the 2015 update of the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide, planned urban lands to 2038 from the 2010 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide, Virginia triangle horticulture areas, specific areas removed due to approved residential statement of intent, Roseworthy Township Expansion DPA, Adelaide Hills Townships and Urban Areas DPA, Swanport DPA, DC Murray Bridge, and Brown Road (Residential) DPA, DC Yankalilla.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I notice the boundary. Am I allowed to look at the map in my own seat to explain a road? The local government boundaries west of Murray Bridge seem to go out about 50 kilometres. I think it could even be called Boundary Road. Why is that, if you like, almost L-shaped section—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Almost gone to Karoonda—why is that included in this particular zone?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised because it follows the boundary of The Rural City of Murray Bridge.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: It does not appear to make sense. So, that is now an environment and food production area, out to that boundary. What is the difference between that and up at Port Wakefield or Clare and Gilbert Valleys? I know where I would rather have a food production area, with all due respect to the people of Karoonda. I would much rather have one in the Clare and Gilbert Valleys. It is intriguing to me. It is a bit like you left out the Hill of Grace vineyard and you are putting it in areas that have less economic food production value than other regions. It does not make sense.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that, as I have outlined, there are two types of boundaries. The type of boundary that you are referring to at present is the outer boundary. I am advised that they follow local government boundaries. That is so that we do not end up with complexities of splitting areas that come under the jurisdiction of different local councils.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: My next question will refer to the interaction between every little town (village)—I use the term 'proclaimed town', I do not know whether that is the exact term, but everywhere there is a little cluster of existing allotments. I have them in my office, but I do not have them here, and I thank the minister's staff for providing all the little township maps.

What I am interested in with this now, with your environment and food production areas, and this is in relation to buffer zones, is if there was any development that occurs—and minister Rau says we will have 30 years supply inside all of the boundaries that exist—clearly, development will push up, over time (if we ever have an economy that grows again) towards those boundaries.

The interaction between farming and agriculture is particularly tense at times. I am sure that, not all members but certainly those of us involved with planning or agriculture have been contacted by people like Mr Grocke, Mr Teusner and others, who are trapped, if you like, between developments.

I am concerned about the long term. What is this new bill's approach, if we are not successful in removing this boundary, to the interface between new residential development and agriculture, and on whose side of the boundary fence does the buffer zone reside? Should it be on the farmer's side or is it on the side of the township that is expanding?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that there is a long-standing policy which is in turn captured in this bill that says that, if you rezone a greenfields site, which interacts with land being used for the purpose of agriculture, the buffer zone has to go on to the developers' part of the development.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: So in a township that is growing with an already existing town boundary, and someone is farming up against that town boundary but the houses are not built there, you are saying that the buffer zone will be on the developer's side or the town side?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: In the example the Hon. David Ridgway gives, the township development would be required to include the buffer zone, if to expand the township rezoning was required. There are old legacy issues that are quite complex, that make that more complex, but generally speaking the principles are sound, and that is that if rezoning is occurring, in terms of land that is to going to border agricultural land, the buffer zone must be included in the new development part of the plan.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The minister I think is on the record as saying that we have 30 years supply already zoned inside this boundary (I think it is 30 years). What I am reading into what she is saying is that, because it is already zoned, there is no requirement for the buffer zone to be on the township side of the farmer's boundary. Are you only talking about an extension to the boundary at some future point?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: It would be captured where application for subdivision has been made. So, the land might be zoned residential and currently does not have houses on it (or might not have anything on it), is zoned residential and the boundary is up against agricultural land. However, when buildings are applied to be built, and subdivision of the land is made so that housing, a shopping centre or whatever is to be built, the buffer zone would have to be included at that time, so it would still be required to be part and parcel of the development component of that plan.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: In relation to buffer zones, I am sure the actual distance of buffer zones is not in the bill, and it concerns me. I have a document called the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, the APVMA, its spray drift risk assessment manual, draft for industry feedback, September 2015.

The minister's adviser is nodding his head, so I assume that means he is aware of that document. The interactions between agriculture and residential development are noise, dust, and spray drift, which is the big one that I think every farmer is always concerned about, and everybody living in the house. So I am interested to know what the government is intending. This is only in draft, and, sadly, I have not been privy to a copy of it. All I have is the front page and I have been told what is in it. I am just interested to know how the regulations will deal, if at all, with distance when it comes to buffer zones. Again, they are the issues that Mr Teusner, Mr Grocke and a whole range of other people are really wrestling with.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that the regulations will seek to address some matters, but it is quite complex. There are two issues: one is that you choose a buffer zone to suit a particular context. That depends on what sort of activity is going to be conducted in what area, and that can be affected by the topography or the prevailing winds for that particular position, etc.

The other is that there are two lots of legislation involving decisions in this area: one is in planning, with buffer zones and suchlike; and the other is environmental, which can deal with distances and more prescriptive matters. These intersect, and both legislative arms, if you like, need to be considered to deal with specific examples.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I guess this is because I have been lobbied so much by some of the affected people. As most people understand these days, in farming, properties get bigger or, if you are constrained or do not have the capital to get bigger, you want to become more intensive, so, of course, then you change the land use. You go from grazing or growing a crop to maybe intensive animals—piggeries, a chicken shed—or possibly greenhouses.

I just want to make sure the minister is aware—and I am sure, via her adviser, she will make a comment—that, often, because residential development is close by people's properties, they are not allowed to put in a piggery or put up a chicken shed because of odour and noise, but, of course, their property is not big enough to be viable. Nobody wants to buy it to farm on. A developer would be happy to buy it and put houses on it, but that compounds the problem because then the next property has those same issues. So, how do you deal with land values that get sandwiched between farming that can farm unfettered and those that are, if you like, jammed in between the two?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The honourable member touches on some very complex issues. Some of those relate to legacy issues, which are very, very difficult to resolve, and some of them probably will not ever be resolved. However, I guess the way to go forward is to make sure that we plan in the long term, that we get our buffer zones right and that we get the right quality of expert advice and information to enable us to make the best decisions we can at the time.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I want to add a little bit to the Hon. David Ridgway's contributions about buffer zones. I have every sympathy for the minister dealing with this. They are incredibly complex and many of the issues are so-called legacy issues. Part of the difficulty with the planning system is that it only regulates new development, if you like. We have been talking about existing use rights but you only have to go and get approval for a new development.

If the minister was correct and activities that result in an impact on neighbours were required to have a buffer zone to keep their spray, their smell, their noise within their own boundaries, we would not have a problem. But we do have a problem. I can remember one of the very early cases that I handled—and I am sorry I am saying this just before dinner but it was a very necessary but a very stinky industry out at Kanmantoo. It was the industry that took the dead carcasses of laying hens and composted them to recover value from what would otherwise be a waste product. I am up for recycling: it is fantastic. Composting dead chickens is a very worthwhile activity, but it stank to high heaven.

The difficulty was that this facility was on a relatively small property. The neighbours, and there were a large number of them, had long properties that all backed onto this chicken composting facility. These people, effectively, had the back half of their properties devalued because the council would not let them build houses on it because they were saying, 'That is in the buffer zone for the smelly chicken composting facility.' The neighbours, quite rightly, were saying, 'Hang on, I own this stretch of land, why am I responsible for that smelly industry's buffer zone?' It really was a terrible situation.

There is no mechanism in the planning system to force the smelly industry to compulsorily acquire the backyards of all these properties to be incorporated into the buffer zone. It does impact on the Hon. Rob Brokenshire's legislation: he has got his right to farm legislation. But I felt incredibly sorry for these people. They were forced to live right on the road at the very front of their properties because the backs of their properties were unusable as a result of the buffer zone.

I guess to turn a statement into a question: is this an issue that the minister believes may be able to be dealt with either through regulations or through the Planning Design Code with the principle being that those who are responsible for causing nuisances should be responsible for providing the buffer zone?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that, in the first instance, we would look to a state planning policy which relates to buffer zones and then, if we are not satisfied with the ability to address the matter there, we might then be forced to look at regulations or other mechanisms.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the minister for her answer: that does seem to be a good way to proceed. I guess as a supplementary question: the other document that is not a document under the Development Act but is a relevant document is the document published by the Environment Protection Authority and it is a guideline for buffer distances. In other words, it is a document which says if you want to build a new piggery, oil refinery or chicken shed, or whatever, this is how far away it should be from sensitive receptors, and sensitive receptors are basically residential neighbours, a school or kindergarten, or whatever.

Part of the problem with this EPA guideline for separation distances is that it is not mandatory. Basically, the way the referral system works at present is that, if you want to build a noxious industry that the EPA has to licence, the EPA can insist on certain conditions being attached. They can insist on a buffer distance.

But if you want to build a housing estate close to a noxious industry, then housing estates do not need an EPA licence, therefore the EPA advice might be sought, but the planning authority is under no obligation to take their advice into account, so you do end up with situations: I talked about the houses being built close to the trees, well this is the houses being built close to the noxious factory. If the EPA had their way, they would not allow it, but they are not given the authority to make that decision. So my question is, is the government considering rewriting and reincorporating the EPA's buffer distance guideline into a planning policy under this act?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Yes, I am advised that that is exactly one of the benefits of this new legislation; that it can pick up EPA guidelines and express that in a more obligatory or mandatory way.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: South Australia has had in place for a number of years now the so-called 30-year plan, which is something that particularly from my understanding has had the broad support of industry and the local government sector and really all effective stakeholders, but certainly from the initial response that my office has received, there is strong opposition from many quarters—particularly industry but not just industry—and there are also some concerns in the local government sector and other stakeholders about the introduction of an urban growth boundary and the impact that it might have. Can I ask the minister, what stakeholder groups, as far as the government is aware at this point in time, are supportive of this idea in moving forward, and what specifically is it that they agree to about it, or like about it, if you like?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that stakeholder groups include Business SA, the Conservation Council, Community Alliance and tourism lobby groups.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: What was the last one?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Tourism lobby—the tourism industry.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Was it the Tourism Industry Council or the South Australian Tourism Commission?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Interest from tourism experts or tourism people who have an interest in this area. For instance, this weekend it was suggested by a respected professor visiting from France that the environment and food production area proposed in the bill would bolster South Australia's push to seek World Heritage Listing for the Adelaide Hills and Fleurieu regions, and that that would have a very positive tourism effect.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Can I clarify with the minister, then, because certainly I have had no communication to my office from Business SA, what was the nature of their communication and what aspects do they support?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: An opinion piece in the Sunday Mail not long after the bill had been introduced by Business SA clearly giving support.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I assume, minister, far as you are best aware, that their current position is unchanged.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Yes.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Has the government done any work on the potential price impact of introducing an urban growth boundary into South Australia? Certainly the case has been made strongly to my office that when an equivalent scheme, or similar scheme if you like, was introduced into Victoria, it had a substantial impact and, indeed, there is international data that creates the same case.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: We are not introducing a new concept. An urban growth boundary has been in place, I have been advised, since 1962. This bill does not seek to change that boundary in any substantial way except to the Roseworthy area—and there are other minor changes. It has been in place—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Yes, but it has been in place and has been effectively in place since 1962. It is the government's view that this has had a very positive effect on pricing because it reduces the cost of infrastructure—roads, electricity poles and cabling, water management and stormwater and other infrastructure—that has to go out to homes as they develop and as they push further and further out. It is much more cost-effective in terms of the cost. Infrastructure costs are always passed on in one way or another to the person buying the place and the taxpayer, of course.

We believe that the effect that the urban boundary has had has been a very positive one to reduce the impact of that burgeoning cost of infrastructure. Infilling significantly reduces those costs, and Adelaide is one of the lowest density and lowest level capital cities on the mainland so there is plenty to demonstrate that this is working extremely effectively.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: From that answer—my question was really looking forward rather than looking back—is it the government's view that the changes that have been made under this clause will not negatively impact housing affordability?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Yes; the short answer is yes.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Could the minister provide a brief synopsis of what is the fundamental aspect that creates the difference between inside this boundary and outside this boundary? What is the consistent nature within the boundary that makes it all one parcel, if you like, or one block of land?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The only effect that this has is on residential subdivision. It is exactly the same as for the two character laws, so in environmental food production areas you cannot subsidise, in effect, farming land to become houses—residential.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Can I just paint a quick scenario. I think I know the answer to this and the minister should be able to answer quickly but just to be clear: assume somebody owns a significant parcel of land outside the so-called urban growth boundary and let's say they had three or four acres or something of that nature.

They bought that land some years ago and currently reside on that land—that is, they have their house on that land—but they had always intended to perhaps build another smaller house for their children somewhere on that four acres, maybe off to the side somewhere, or for elderly parents or whatever it may be, and their intention was to create another dwelling. Does the passing of this legislation and the clause we are dealing with here, have any specific impact on those hypothetical plans?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that all of this detail was dealt with when we were dealing with character laws. It does depend on the circumstance but, generally, the answer is, yes, they will be able to do that because most farmers characteristically have several lots to a parcel and they are entitled to build, I think, one housing development per each lot. It would be most unusual and quite out of the ordinary for a farmer who has that intention not to have purchased more than one lot.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have a couple of questions around housing affordability and also some around the Hills Face Zone. I want to correct the minister, too. She says we have had an urban growth boundary since the sixties. We have in a policy sense, but this is—

The Hon. G.E. Gago: Since 1962.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Just a couple of years after I was born, sadly. That was in a policy sense, whereas this is a big step to a mandatory one that can only be changed by both houses of parliament. Up until 6 December, we had not actually seen the map. We were asked to support something in the lower house. Shadow minister Griffiths had seen the map but the broader community had not. We were asked to support something that only both houses of parliament could vary, but we were actually not looking at what we were going to support.

I am interested—and I will perhaps wait for the minister's adviser, who is giving her advice—in the interaction between imposing a mandatory boundary and house prices. I am advised that in Melbourne, in the lead-up to the enactment of their urban growth boundary, there was a rush to buy residential land within it. There was a perceived supply shortage and land prices increased very strongly during this period.

From the month prior to the UGB being foreshadowed in 2002 to the boundary being enacted one year on, the median residential land lot value went from $94,000 to $124,000—a 32 per cent increase. That was the Melbourne experience. I want to know whether the government received any advice on the likely market reaction to this intended boundary,

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I will answer the first question first. Parliament has had scrutiny since the sixties to make decisions about zoning changes, and parliament has had the ability to actually stop rezoning outside of the boundary. The effect of having the zone in place since then has effectively been the same; that is, it has reduced urban sprawl, and that has occurred with parliament having the capacity to have oversight over that, if you like.

Although the Hon. David Ridgway is right that it is a policy, there has been parliamentary oversight. This bill gives legislative muscle to it; nevertheless, the effect has been in place since the sixties. Urban sprawl has been limited and parliament has had some powers to oversight that.

In relation to market affordability, we have received advice that we have more than 20-plus years of zone supply. That was advice given in the 2008 Planning and Development Review that had significant industry input. That is clearly saying that we have 15 years of affordable development available to us.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The minister said we have parliamentary oversight over the existing boundary, rather than being the mandatory one. Can the minister explain how that oversight works? My understanding is that the planning minister can just table a change to the urban growth boundary at their own whim, maybe after a review process. Can the minister explain what the process has been from 1962 until 2015?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that the mechanism by which parliament has had oversight is through the ERD Committee. The Hon. David Ridgway is right; it is about policy, but policy means nothing until there is an application for a zoning change, and that zoning change then gives people the right to develop. Zoning changes have to be put through the ERD Committee.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: My next questions are in relation to this, because they do encompass the Hills Face Zone. My former colleague the member for Davenport, Iain Evans, had said that he had a range of people who were trapped with existing land uses in the Hills Face Zone—not the Hills Face Zone that we can see from the city but parcels of land that are, if you like, perhaps not in water catchment and certainly not visible from the plains—where they want to have some change.

How is the Hills Face Zone dealt with in this? The McLaren Vale Protection Zone goes up to the Hills Face Zone, I understand, and the Barossa and elsewhere. How is it all dealt with? It was a zone that was created by the Playford government because the infrastructure was too costly to get up there; that was the reason at the time. I think now, as a community, we have all grown to love the visual splendour of the Hills Face Zone, but there is a whole range of little parcels of land that are inadvertently captured in that zone. Is there any prospect of that being reviewed at any particular time? How does this new legislation and this new environment and food production area impact on the Hills Face Zone?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: As we have noted in this place before, there are many complex legacy issues and this bill will not solve all of those; however, we hope that it will help with some of them. The first point is that the boundary follows the Hills Face Zone as it currently stands. The second point is to draw your attention to subclause (7c), which says that the commission may recommend a change by the minister if, and only if:

(b) the Commission is satisfied that the change is minor or trivial in nature and will address a recognised anomaly.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Perhaps I will explain a recognised anomaly. There is a development out of McLaren Vale called McLaren Vale Distilling. I was fortunate to be the catalyst to host a distilled industries forum here in parliament during the winter break. We had people come from all over the nation to look at issues including impediments to growth and growing this particularly new boutique industry which in South Australia will add to our food and beverage offering. Of course, the minister's husband is a great contributor to the wine part of that offering, but there are some great boutique industries setting up.

The Hon. G.E. Gago: He contributes to the food industry too.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: He makes a strong contribution across all of it, but probably not to the distilled industries. I am digressing slightly, but in the US about 10 years ago they had about 100 micro distilleries and they are now approaching about 1,000, so it is a growing industry. We see Kangaroo Island Spirits with their gin. I think everybody would agree that it will add another dimension to our tourism offering.

With this particular family company, I think they have turned the sod. When I was there they were pouring concrete a few weeks ago. I am delighted to see them making progress, but one of the interesting things is that they are in the Hills Face Zone and my understanding is—and correct me if I am wrong—they can make whisky; that is no problem. They can store it in barrels; that is no problem; but they are not able to bottle it because bottling is an industrial activity and that is not allowed in the Hills Face Zone.

What they would like to do is to screw the lids on 200 bottles a day as a maximum, so that is 1,000 a week or 50,000 bottles a year, and they are not allowed to do it. To complicate things, the only way they can do it, because it is against the law, is to actually take the whisky in the barrels down the road into McLaren Vale to have it bottled at a bottling facility. The problem is that where they store the barrels is a bonded store so as soon as they move them they actually have to pay excise to the federal government to take it down the road about five kilometres to then have it bottled. They then bring it back and claim the excise back from the federal government. That is just a crazy set of circumstances.

I am talking about small businesses or families putting some life savings and a fair bit of capital—not financial but emotional or physical capital—on the line to grow a new business which I am sure will be an exciting new business. The figures show that a tonne of barley worth about $300 turned into whisky generates a bit over $20,000 in tax, excise and GST for this economy. None of them are complaining about paying that amount of GST or tax. They just want the opportunity to be able to do it.

This thing presents an opportunity. This bill is about cutting red tape and about reform so we can get development to happen. Can you explain to me what the process is that we have to go through so that a family who wants to create a distillery and screw the lids on bottles by hand can do it in their facility without having to invoke paying excise and then claiming it back?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The honourable member has raised a very good example of the need for planning reform. I have to say, though, from the outset that this bill is not the panacea for every planning problem that exists today, so it is not going to address some of those legacy issues, for instance, that are incredibly complex. It seeks to set parameters of simple rules that are streamlined and easy for people to understand and to remove some of the complexities out of the system. So, it is not a panacea; however, we obviously want to use this opportunity of reform to address as many anomalies and problems as we possibly can. I understand that this particular family has written to minister Rau—pardon, the honourable—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: I have, but I think they have also been in contact.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: They may well have been, but anyway, the Hon. David Ridgway has written to the minister. Minister Rau is very interested in this particular example. He is extremely sympathetic, because it is that sort of change to business plans and operations that we need to be able to accommodate. One way may be to address this in the Planning and Design Code; another might be that we might be able to address it more quickly and simply through regulations. I know that minister Rau is very keen to resolve that particular issue and other families and businesses that are captured by a similar set of circumstances.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I have resisted the temptation to make clause 5 the be all and end all of the discussion on the urban growth boundary, because we have a more substantial clause coming up at clause 7, with the opposition moving to delete that clause in its entirety. I have just a couple of observations on the contributions so far. The Hon. Dennis Hood was asking about, of all the stakeholders, who likes this? It is a very valid question, because we have had quite a bit of correspondence about people who do not like it, but the flipside of the coin is that most of the conservation groups, for example, who are concerned about the future urban sprawl for Adelaide, if we do not do something about it, have largely been supportive.

I was reminded that I had weighed into this debate many times, not least of which was in relation to Buckland Park, which was a clear case, in my eyes anyway, of urban sprawl that should never have been approved. I was asked whether that had gone through the ERD Committee, and the answer is yes, the rezoning did go through the ERD Committee, and I voted against it but, as people are sick of hearing me say, it doesn't matter in the ERD Committee because it is government controlled.

That actually triggered a thought that I had, and I am taking the minister back to the government's original response to the Hayes review. I have referred to that previously in relation to the bill being supposedly tabled in parliament in July, and we eventually got it in September. The other important aspect under the heading of reform 4, 'Engage parliament in the development of planning policies,' does refer to the fact that the parliamentary committees system is going to be reviewed separately and that the government's intention according to this was, 'The review of committees is anticipated to commence later in 2015.'

We are in the final stages of 2015, so my question is: in terms of the review of the ERD Committee of parliament, which is in fact the committee in this bill that is going to continue to have oversight of planning, what does the government have in mind and what is the time frame now for review of that committee and its processes?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that, at this point in time, we do not have the details of either a particular time frame or a particular process. It is obviously going to take considerable time and we will be engaging with appropriate people in the design of the process and then the time frame.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I just wanted to return to the Hills Face Zone and the minister making a comment that we can do it by the code or by regulation. I just point out to the minister that the code is potentially three years away, and any broader regulations may well be a similar amount of time away. For the family that I have dealt with—and obviously, as you have advised us, minister Rau is well aware of it—how do we help these people? They have invested a lot of money. They have gone to the bank, regional employment, exports, value-add. How do we help them? Do we just say, 'Oh well, there's a legacy issue and we'll do something about it in three years' time.' How do we make these things happen more quickly?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have already indicated that the minister is in receipt of the correspondence and is very keen to work at ways to resolve this. I have indicated that it could be the code or it could be through regulation—regulation can be a much quicker process. It is in minister Rau's hands at present.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have some questions in relation to the boundary itself. When I was briefed by Mr Stuart Moseley—I cannot remember his exact title, but I think he is finishing up with—

The Hon. M.C. Parnell: He is retired.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: His retirement is imminent, but I think he is still there until the end of this month. Anyway, we will not talk too much about Mr Moseley. He is off to sunnier parts; he has gone to Queensland, I think. I talked about what the government had done through their own urban growth boundary, and the two that stand out, of course, are the Mount Barker development and Buckland Park. The minister has reminded me of 1962, when we started it, but I suspect then Monarto was probably captured in its intention; we were going to have a satellite city outside the urban growth boundary. We never saw it come to fruition, and I wonder maybe whether Buckland Park will ever get to any level of development.

Regarding the point I raised with Mr Moseley, I said, 'What will stop a future government, if it chooses to, jumping over the boundary and rezoning something somewhere else?' At the time he said, 'Nothing,' but he did say, 'It will be so far north that nobody will ever want to do that.' I thought that was an interesting response, because clearly, on the map that I happen to be gazing at on the floor, we have Port Wakefield and I know that there have been various proposals to do some sort of development up and around Port Wakefield over the last few years.

It has all sort of withered on the vine, but I suspect the people who were wanting to develop that were thinking of a regional hub to support the mining industry. It is a little bit out of Adelaide, a bit warmer; there is the freeway all the way back into the city, and now with the Northern Expressway, the Northern Connector being proposed and the corridor through the city over the next decade, all of that potentially becomes possible. What would stop a future government from saying, 'We're going to rezone'—let's pick a figure—'1,300 hectares at Port Wakefield'? They did 1,300 hectares at Mount Barker.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Basically, the parliament can continue to have powers to scrutinise rezoning through the ERD. I guess, theoretically, there is only that, but it is also just common sense in terms of what developments are likely to be viable in some of these locations. Common sense tends to prevail; it has to be economically viable, so that is self-limiting in a way.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: It is still the Hon. Mark Parnell's question here, but if it is going to be common sense, I know we are going a little backwards in history here, but Buckland Park, which had no public transport and no infrastructure, was not connected. If you are talking about common sense, there was really no common sense at all in relation to that particular development. In Mount Barker, you could argue, there was a freeway, an existing township and a whole range of other things that might have made that a little easier.

The question I have is: what process will we have to go through if we establish this boundary? If you explain the process where the parliament will be able to change the boundary, will it only be on the recommendation of the minister or the planning commission, or will a private member be able to get a private member's bill up, as we do here in this place, and the other chamber has done before? If you are fortunate enough to get the support to change the urban growth boundary, can you explain how that parliamentary process will work? Of course, you need to consider the speed at which the government of the day might want to do it. Could you explain how it might work?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that changes to the boundary can occur in one of two ways. Any member at any time could move a bill to amend the act; that is our right as legislators. However, it would have to be supported in both houses. The planning commissioner is required to review the boundary every five years and to provide a public report, the minister can then either choose to act or not act on that but that would require a resolution and that resolution would have to be supported in both houses of parliament.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Just on that mechanism, if the minister of the day chooses not to act on the advice of the independent planning commission, does there remain any device available to the parliament for them to express a view on the independent advice of the planning commission or is the minister in essence the blocking mechanism to prevent that recommendation coming to parliament?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Yes, there is and, as I have already indicated, there are two ways that the boundary can be altered and one is that any member can move a bill to amend the boundary, so if a member had access to that public report and was not comfortable about the minister not supporting any position outlined on that, they could move a bill.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I accept the minister saying that ultimately a member of parliament could seek to get the approval of the government of the day and both houses of parliament to amend the bill, so I accept that. In the end, if the government of the day has refused to accept the advice of the independent planning commissioner, then it is unlikely that the government of the day is going to prove amendments to the legislation anyway.

Put that political argument to the side. I am assuming from what the minister is saying the independent advice of the planning commission goes to the minister and if the minister agrees then it comes before the parliament and both houses of parliament have to approve it if that is the case, but if the minister of the day does not like the independent advice of the planning commission, he or she or the government of the day can just not pursue it and the parliament itself would not be voting on the independent advice of the planning commission.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have already answered the question. What the member is saying is correct; however, if the independent planning commissioner made a compelling recommendation for change and the minister of the day chose not to support that change without compelling reason, then it is obvious that it is within the capacity of any member of parliament to move a bill that could accommodate those changes. The only reason that that would not get up is if there is obviously a good reason for it not to be supported.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The minister has referred a number of times to the fact that the existing arrangements have applied since 1962 (I think). Is the minister's adviser in a position to be able to indicate, or is the minister, through advice from the department, able to indicate on how many occasions has the boundary been changed since 1962? Are we talking a mere handful or are we talking dozens and dozens of occasions during that particular period?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that it may well be somewhere around 10 to 30 times that changes have occurred, varying between minor changes to fairly substantial. However, we do not have the exact figure with us at the moment. If you want the exact figure we could take that on notice and bring it back.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I do not wish to delay the proceedings this week in relation to seeking that information, but assuming the bill might not be completing its passage until February, if the minister could take on notice and indicate or provide by way of answer to question on notice the number of occasions and perhaps some detail about the particular changes under the old system that have occurred. I guess if you are talking about even up to 30, we are not talking about many over a period of 55 years, or something, during that period of time. So, if the minister is prepared to take that on notice we can move on.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am happy to take that on notice.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Just to pursue this issue a little further, there are two points I would like to make. One is, there has been discussion around the mechanism that will be used if the minister wants to change the boundaries that are being enshrined in this act. The first thing I would say is that the government has, in this bill, enshrined a process that I am generally supportive of, which we in the trade call easy in, hard out. In other words, any measure that is designed to conserve or protect something should be easy to implement and should be difficult to undo. So, I think that is the principle or the policy that has been—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Whose principle is that?

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: It is Parnell's principle: easy in, hard out. I think that is what they have done here. Whilst the minister, having been here for some time now, would think it is hard in and hard out, the idea is, I think, that decisions to undo a conservation measure should be difficult, and that is what this bill proposes. The second point I would make is, and it follows from the Hon. Rob Lucas's points—I think the scenario he was talking about is where the minister was minded to change the boundary—the minister is then obliged, under clause 7, to go to the planning commission. The planning commission must conduct an inquiry and must furnish a report to the minister. If the minister wants to proceed, the minister must then table it in parliament and give parliament the commission's report.

The point the Hon. Rob Lucas was making is that if, as a result of that process, the minister decides, 'I'm not going to change anything,' then that report will not be tabled in parliament because there will not be a proposal for parliament to alter the boundary. The question, I think, that flows from that, for me, is: regardless of whether the commission's report results in a formal referral to parliament or not, if this exercise is undertaken by the minister and if the commission does conduct an inquiry and does furnish a report, will that report be published on the planning portal, for example, regardless of whether it goes to parliament? So, that is the question: will commission reports be on the portal?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: We just need to clarify that there is some level of detail that I might need to add to the record, so I will bring that back after the break.

Sitting suspended from 18:02 to 19:45.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: During earlier questioning on the urban growth boundary the minister said that Business SA supported the urban growth boundary, which perhaps they do. However, I thought it important to put on the record that today I received a copy of a letter that was sent to the Hon. Mark Parnell, Steven Marshall, and some other people (I don't know who they are), John Darley and a couple of others from Business SA. It states:

Hi all,

I am writing on behalf of Nigel McBride, who is presently flying back from Perth.

Business SA is quite concerned about the number of amendments to the Government's proposed planning reform bill, and we do not believe there is sufficient time to consider the potential impacts and shortfalls before Parliament rises for 2015.

We do not want to see such considerable legislative changes rushed through before Christmas and later regret the potential adverse consequences in years to come.

This is a landmark piece of legislation for South Australia and Business SA would like to impart a word of caution onto all parties which stand between this bill becoming law to carefully consider the time stakeholders now have to digest the nature of proposed amendments.

While that is not a question, I thought it was worth putting on the record. That is another industry group that thinks the government has got it wrong. To reiterate, my current amendment is the first of a number to do with the environment food protection area. The government has not convinced us, or the significant stakeholders in this state, that this is a step in the right direction for South Australia.

We have had an urban growth boundary, as the minister said, since 1962. At two significant times in the last decade the government of the day has jumped over it, which has been Buckland Park and Mount Barker. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to remember that it was a Labor government, one, sadly, that you, sir, were part of. Of course we had the Monarto experience back in the 1970s after the urban growth boundary was in place as well, although that did not result in any development.

I know minister Rau says he wants to have this boundary in place because he cannot trust a future minister. Well, no, what he should be saying is he could not ever trust his colleagues in the Labor government who have actually delivered this to South Australia. It is a bit like trying to shut the gate after the horse has bolted and then saying it will never happen again. The easy message is to follow due process, to be open and transparent and to make sure that these decisions are not made at the whim of a minister or a cabinet, or at the whim of somebody who is influencing the government.

We are yet to be convinced that the urban growth boundary is a sensible step forward. We worked with an urban growth boundary when we were in government last time. We continue to work with one in a policy sense, but we do not see any justification for a mandatory urban growth boundary that is enshrined in legislation and, therefore, requires both houses of parliament to change it.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government rises to oppose this amendment. Amendments to this clause and clause 7 by both the government and the opposition represent for us a test vote on the proposal for the environment and food production areas of Greater Adelaide. In short, the Hon. David Ridgway's amendments Nos. 1 to 4 to clause 5 are cognate with his foreshadowed opposition to clause 7. Conversely, the government's amendments to clause 7 and the schedule stand in opposition to those moved by the Hon. David Ridgway. In simple terms, the government's amendments provide for:

the boundaries of Greater Adelaide and the environment and food production areas within it to be defined according to a map lodged by the government in the General Registry Office;

the boundaries of the environment and food production areas to be subject to review by the state planning commission every five years; and

continued rights of landowners to subdivide in certain rural living zones in the proposed environment and food production areas.

As I indicated at the close of the second reading debate, the government sees this initiative as an important public integrity measure, an important measure that will protect the long-term stability of the state budget, an important protection for our prime agricultural lands and an important stimulus to the ongoing urban renewal of Greater Adelaide. Because of this and in response to requests made by various parties, including industry, the government has moved to define the limits of the proposed environment and food production areas now as part of this bill rather than leaving them for a later date as an implementation task.

Maps to this effect were lodged with the General Registry Office on Monday 30 November. These maps have been made publicly available on the DPTI website, and magnified versions of each town along with the due diligence document prepared by the department have been provided to the opposition for their consideration. The boundaries of this area have been determined based on the already widely consulted boundaries provided in the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide. Councils have had input through this process and no boundary should therefore come as a surprise.

In the second reading contributions, a number of members raise concerns about the impact this could have on housing affordability. As I said then, the government sees this argument as a red herring and self-serving in the mouths of some in industry who propound that sort of approach. Land supply figures and affordability statistics show very clearly how much of a furphy this argument is.

Firstly, across Greater Adelaide, we now have well over 20 years' zoned land supply. What does that mean? Simply put, it means that we are not about to run out of land anytime soon. Our current analysis tells us that there are 79,900 potential lots able to be developed within Greater Adelaide in both fringe and township locations. Of that, 26,000 lots are development ready right now, with either land divisions approvals or infrastructure agreements, if necessary, in place.

In addition, there is an estimated long-term potential for a further 75,600 additional dwellings in greenfield locations that are currently undergoing rezoning or capable of being rezoned for future growth. On the basis of this, we far exceed the government's 15-year land supply target. As I say, more than 20 years' supply is out there right now.

Secondly, there is the growth that is happening and, as I said in the second reading debate, 59 per cent of growth is happening in the inner and middle suburbs and has been for quite some time. Infill is what the market is demanding, not fringe growth further and further out. One of the reasons our land supply balance has improved is that people want to live in smaller houses.

Contrary to the Hon. Dennis Hood's suggestion that government is forcing this upon people, what we have seen is that the average yields from broadacre land have increased steadily of their own volition over the past decade with the result that consumption rates for broad hectare land have decreased markedly. At the same time, there has been a significant increase in infill development. As I have already mentioned, 59 per cent of growth is now happening in the inner and middle ring of the city.

Why is this happening? Probably for a variety of reasons. Increasingly, younger generations are less interested in the dream of their parents of a quarter-acre block. Coupled with the ageing of our population, we are seeing a sustained trend of smaller households, singles and couples at the beginning and end of their working lives, who are more interested in townhouses, units and apartments closer in, than four bedrooms and a larger block that they would rarely use and have to maintain further. That is why we will be moving to include a periodic review required by an arm's length state planning commission with a 15-year land supply target, statutorily entrenched to keep the issue of affordability constantly in the mind of future ministers, governments and parliaments.

Thirdly, let's look at what the true costs of continuing urban sprawl are. They involve costs for taxpayers and costs for homebuyers. New infrastructure in fringe suburbs costs six times the cost of infill. That has to come from somewhere and, if we do not get it locked up-front, it ends up being a liability that sits on government ledgers and will have to be paid by future taxpayers at some stage.

This parliament is constitutionally charged with the oversight of the state budget and taxation base. It makes sense that we should also have oversight of how far urban growth extends so that we can minimise unforeseen expenses for future generations. If the Liberals are so keen to prove themselves to be responsible economic managers, as they often claim to be, they should be in favour of a tool which will help keep infrastructure costs within predictable parameters and help protect the long-term integrity of the state budget.

I know for some, such as the Hon. Dennis Hood, limits on urban sprawl in the manner that we put in front of the parliament cannot be supported as a matter of principle, but it is difficult for the government to accept that the line the opposition has taken to date is, in fact, a principled one. The Hon. David Ridgway in his contribution talked at great length on the Mount Barker rezoning and the findings in the Ombudsman's report into the Growth Investigation Areas report.

We in government certainly have accepted the findings of the Ombudsman and our proposal in this bill for a hard line that protects our agricultural areas is a direct response to this but, as soon as we proffer this solution, the concerns of the Hon. David Ridgway, who purports to be a supporter of the use of agricultural lands, seem to swing opportunistically to an alternative position.

It seems to the government that the opposition, in seeking to oppose this important integrity measure, is more interested in the views of some industries which do not want to change their tried and true business model of convincing someone in public office to rezone even the most unsuitable land and leave the costs to be paid by future taxpayers.

As the minister said in the other place, it is not the government's task to be the insurer of last resort for land speculators, but perhaps this is simply the case of the opposition listening to a very narrow range of vested interests rather than engaging with the policy conundrum we face and must resolve in the interests of all South Australians. I hope the Liberals and others will see the need to support this measure or move reasonable amendments to it, rather than simply repeat the echo chamber view that some in industry have been peddling in agitated tones, but it seems they are just determined to oppose it. South Australians deserve more than unthinking opposition to this proposal.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: It is no surprise to members here that the Greens are very critical of many aspects of this bill and, as we work our way through it, we will be agitating the criticisms and the solutions that we see to them.

But one area of the bill we actually do support is the concept of the urban growth boundary. It is not called that in the bill; it is called an 'environment and food production area', and we support the concept. In fact, the Hon. David Ridgway has said to me that he supports an urban growth boundary as well but that the issue has been to do with the mechanism and whether it should be locked in legislation. The Greens support the urban growth boundary and we support it being protected in legislation for the same reasons the minister has just given.

Certainly, in relation to the Mount Barker debate, it struck me that you had some of the best quality fertile farmland in close proximity to Adelaide that was effectively being put under bitumen for new housing estates. It is probably also fair to say, and the Hon. Paul Holloway said this a lot, that most of that land, or a lot of it, was not actually being used to its best advantage—a lot was just hobby farms, running a few ponies. The way I look at it from a long-term perspective, which is how the Greens approach these things, is that I find it incomprehensible that our grandchildren or great-grandchildren will not thank us for preserving land close to the City of Adelaide that is suitable for growing food. I am sure that will be the case in a carbon-constrained world: where food miles become an important consideration, we need to hang onto food growing land around the City of Adelaide.

The government is not entirely consistent in its approach to this. We are not going to be critical of this provision. We think that they are finally catching up with what the Greens have been saying for a long time about the need to end urban sprawl. I spent most of my first 10 years here fighting the government's urban sprawl plans, whether it was Buckland Park, Gawler East or Mount Barker. Another campaign the Greens have been pursuing for a long time is better public transport. The response always comes back, 'Public transport is not viable in a city like Adelaide because it is too spread out.' Well, why is it too spread out? Because government policy has been allowing urban sprawl.

If we are serious about turning around the way we do things in this city and adapting to a more carbon-constrained world, we are going to need to do things like move people around with public transport more often, and that is going to require a more compact city. It does not mean that they could not do better with the city we have—of course, the government could, but a more compact city would make it easier. There is a range of environmental reasons why encouraging urban sprawl is bad public policy.

It is also bad social policy, and when I go back to some of the debates over Buckland Park, for example, the phrase that springs to mind is 'a ghetto in waiting'. It was an area that was miles from any services, where young families would be attracted by cheap house and land packages only to be marooned by a lack of transport and a need to rely on probably not one but two cars and commute vast distances. It is just a bad way to plan a city. It has been alluded to before that, whilst Buckland Park had major project status and the zoning has all gone through, I do not put all my faith in the market, but I am hoping that in this case the market will speak and say that that development does not have legs and will not go ahead.

Whilst I think we still have a bit more debate ahead of us around the urban growth boundary, and in particular clause 7, which we are coming to shortly, I know that the minister has said, 'This is a bit of a test.' Well, it is, but I make the point, from a drafting perspective, that if all the opposition amendments to clause 5 are successful I think clause 7 still works. The reason I think it still works is that if we go back to clause 3, which is a clause that we will be recommitting at some stage, the definition of 'Greater Adelaide' is still in there; we have not deleted that definition yet.

I think the main urban growth boundary clause, clause 7, can probably still stand. We will have to debate that again when we get to it shortly, but for now the Liberal amendments effectively remove the concept of Greater Adelaide from clause 5, removing every reference to it, and it follows that if you support the urban growth boundary, you support it being a statutory measure, then we need to oppose the Liberal amendments to clause 5.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I have been intrigued through this whole debate in relation to one aspect of this proposal and that is the minister and the government's contention that this is an important public integrity issue. My question to the minister is: has the government or the minister formed a view that there is a genuine basis for concern that past decisions of the Labor government have been influenced by developer donations?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The short answer is no. I believe that the Hon. John Rau made comments to that in his contribution in the other house so I refer members to that.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: With the greatest of respect, this debate is in this chamber and I have not read all of the comments from the Hon. John Rau so my question is: if the answer is that the government has not formed, on a genuine basis, a concern that past planning decisions have been influenced by developer donations to the Labor Party, what is the public integrity concern to which minister Rau and the government are referring?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I believe that our focus is on the future and wanting to make sure that we forestall any possibility of there being any potential conflicts in the future.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: If the government is contending that it is intended to ensure prevention of conflicts in the future, can the minister clarify the government's concern is that there is a future potential for minister for planning decisions and government decisions in planning to be influenced by developer donations to their political parties, and the government wants to make this change for that reason?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have previously said in contributions in this place—for instance, we note the findings of the Ombudsman's report in relation to Mount Barker, where he identified that the process could have been much better—that we have taken those comments into consideration to ensure that we have the highest public integrity level possible, and that is what this bill seeks to do.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Methinks the government has created a rod for its own back in relation to one of its public justifications for this provision, and that is that minister Rau and the government have sought to pat themselves on the back in some way firstly by saying, 'Planning decisions like Mount Barker and Buckland Park will never happen again under the new minister's watch'—the clear inference being that there was something wrong in relation to the previous decisions taken by previous planning ministers and previous government. There can be no other inference, other than that. Then the minister, to all and sundry—both in the parliament, evidently, and also publicly—has argued that this is a public integrity issue, but the minister has never explicitly outlined what the public integrity issue is.

Clearly, there are two potential public integrity issues. The first and the most grotesque would be that politicians, ministers or public servants New South Wales-style are taking cash in hand through brown paper bags or personal benefits to make certain planning decisions that are not in the public interest but are in the personal pecuniary interests of either public servants or politicians. As I said, that is the most grotesque of the potential offences one might contemplate under the general definition of public integrity.

The second was the one I addressed to the government—which at least has been canvassed in the public arena and in the parliament—and that is the potential for developer donations to political parties and politicians to influence planning decisions. I will not go over the history of that. The Hon. Mr Parnell has referred to that in his extensive second reading contribution and it has been canvassed in the house before. I do not want to traverse the detail of that again, but that is the second broad area.

They can be the only two clear implications. Yet, when one puts the question directly to the minister in charge of the bill in this house, the minister shies away completely from that and says, 'Well, look, we're talking about the future,' and will not directly answer the question as to whether or not there is still a concern about developer donations or donations impacting on ministers and political parties in terms of their—

The Hon. G.E. Gago: I did, directly: I said no.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, I think—

The Hon. G.E. Gago: This is not so: I said no, that it was about future—

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: That is what I said: the future. I said, 'In relation to the future, have a look at the minister's response—'

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am sure the minister will have the opportunity during the committee stage to put further statements on the record should she so choose. As I said, when I put the question to her, firstly about the past, she said, 'No,' and when I asked the question about the future, she avoided answering that particular question. She answered it in a different way with the use of political spin—

The Hon. G.E. Gago: That's just not so at all. You're making things up. You're completely making things up; you're distorting what I said.

The CHAIR: Minister, you will have an opportunity to respond soon.

The Hon. G.E. Gago: He's misleading the chamber. He's saying inaccurate things.

The CHAIR: Allow Mr Lucas to finish in silence.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I have not interjected on the minister during this debate.

The Hon. G.E. Gago: Yes, but I wasn't misleading.

The CHAIR: Go ahead, Mr Lucas.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The minister will have a chance to put on the record again a further attempt to answer the questions that I have put. All I am saying is that this dilemma for the government is one of its own creation. They are the ones who have raised the spectre of public integrity issues being key elements in this particular proposal. It has not been the opposition; it has not been the crossbenchers: it has been the government and the minister who have said, 'Look, the reason we're doing this is this is a public integrity issue.'

When one puts the question directly to them, 'Well, okay, what is the public integrity issue? You must have some genuine grounds upon which you have decided to take action, because you are concerned about public integrity issues,' the minister in this place has been unable to place on the public record any examples of public integrity concerns at least from the government's viewpoint. As I said, they have been canvassed in other debates and the Hon. Mr Parnell indicates he may well traverse the area in later stages of the committee debate. I just wanted to place on the record my commentary in relation to that.

The other issue I did want to canvass was that, just prior to the dinner break, we reported progress and the minister was going to clarify a response that she had given to an earlier question which I think was from the Hon. Mr Parnell. I am just wondering if at some stage—whether it be during this particular debate on this amendment or at a later stage on this clause—she will clarify, should she still need to, the early response she gave to the question from the Hon. Mr Parnell. I invite the minister to do so when she gets an opportunity.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I would like to make a few brief comments on this issue. I understand the Hon. Mr Ridgway has moved his amendment now—

The CHAIR: He has.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Thank you for your clarification, Mr Chairman. Speaking to that amendment, I think the Hon. Mr Parnell is quite right that clause 7 is really the primary clause, if you like, that deals with this issue of the so-called urban growth boundary—although, again as the Hon. Mr Parnell rightly points out, it is called the environment and food production areas within the bill itself.

Partly in response to what the minister said in her contribution to the amendment but also to give a short account of my personal experience with this matter, if I may, the minister alluded to the fact that the industry has been looking for a definition, a refining, a clear-cut explanation, if you like, of exactly where the environment and food production areas would be. She is quite right about that; I do not think any of us would dispute that, it is right. However, I think it is also fair to say that the industry was not looking for those areas to be established by creating what we are referring to as an urban growth boundary around the growth areas of Adelaide.

They were looking for those areas to be defined in terms of what they could not go outside of; if you like, where these environment and food production areas were going to be. Therefore they (being the industry) could build or develop or whatever outside those areas but not inside them. I think it is absolutely correct to say that the industry was not anticipating—in any way, shape or form—that they would be told, 'Okay; here is where you can develop, and anywhere else you can't.'

So I think what the minister has said is absolutely true, but it would have had a very different interpretation from industry, and I think it is important to put that on the record. Certainly, all industry groups I have conversed with—and it has been quite a lot; the HIA, the MBA, the UDIA, the Property Council, they are the main industry bodies of course, even Business SA—were looking for clarity on where the farm areas are going to be and where the development areas were going to be, in simple terms. Whilst I am sure the minister would argue—and, again, she would be right in arguing this—that this bill actually sets it out, it is not in the way they were expecting, and that is the key issue here.

They were expecting, 'Okay, here is this particular parcel of land that we are not going to allow development on because it is appropriate for farming, and here is this parcel of land that we are not going to allow development on because it is appropriate for farming.' None of them had anticipated, from my discussions with them, and hence their opposition to it, a sort of blanket application of, 'Here is where you can develop and anywhere else you can't.' Effectively, that is what the urban growth boundary, or the environment and food production areas, as we are calling them, does. I think it is important to clarify that issue; this is not what industry was expecting and it is certainly not what they are supporting. That much is clear.

I think the other thing that is important to put on the record with respect to this amendment is that there is all this debate about building in the regions, and we hear this term 'urban sprawl' quite a lot, that the city continues to grow, and it does. However, I beg the indulgence of the chamber to very briefly tell my own personal story. When I was a young boy, at the age of seven, my parents bought their very first brick veneer and tile home; a very basic, three bedroom, one bathroom, 110 or 120 square metres, very small house out at Salisbury. At that stage it was the outer region of developing Adelaide.

There was little bit of development at Elizabeth with the Housing Trust and with Holdens and the like but, in terms of private housing, that was about as far as it went in practical terms, except for a few sporadic bursts here and there, in 1977. When this house was built there was nothing there, nothing. There was no bus service, there were no shops, there was no doctor, none of that infrastructure that we hear being spouted about as being so essential these days. In fact, right across the road—literally, directly across the street—there were massive almond orchards. There were acres and acres of almond orchards. There was nothing there whatsoever. It was what we might today call farmland.

Nonetheless, despite the infrastructure limitations, if I can put it that way, my parents made the deliberate and explicit decision to buy that property. Why did they buy it? There was only one reason. It was not the most desirable spot. It was not the spot that met all their needs in terms of having all these great services around it. It was not the spot that their friends even lived close by. They certainly did not work in the region. There was nothing in its favour, to be frank, other than one critical thing—they could afford it. They could afford to buy this house. They scraped, borrowed, begged and stole. They did everything they could to scrape—

The Hon. G.E. Gago: I am sure that is a metaphoric expression.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: It is a metaphoric expression; the minister is quite right. I meant metaphorically, obviously. Don't people know that expression 'beg, borrow and steal'? I am using it in that context. They did not steal anything. Do not investigate that, police. Trust me.

The Hon. K.L. Vincent: It was a different time back then.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: It was a different time, indeed it was, as the Hon. Ms Vincent says. Obviously, I am being metaphorical there. My point is that they did everything they could to scrape together the money to buy this very simple brick and tile house, but they got over the line. My dad ended up borrowing $500 from his dad (my grandfather) because they did not have a deposit, but they got there.

My dad worked three jobs. He would go to work on Monday morning at 7 and he would come home on Tuesday night at about 6 o'clock. He did not go to bed on Monday night for about 10 years to pay for this house, but they could afford it and they could afford nothing else. They looked for years. They could afford nothing else, but there was this affordable new home by this company called Devon Homes, which members may remember; they have since wound up. My parents could afford this home.

My point is that they did not care that there was no infrastructure. They did not care that there was no doctor service or all this other stuff that people talk about. What they cared about was that they could afford a basic simple house to house their children and, ultimately, I think that is true of many families. Why would we deprive those families of that opportunity? That is why we do not support an urban growth boundary.

Houses will be cheaper on the fringe. That is the reality. They will be cheaper on the fringe and it gives the opportunity for young families in particular—not always, but it tends to be young families—the opportunity to buy a house of their own. It is a critical step on the ladder to prosperity and a good life, if I can put it that way. That is why we wholeheartedly support the Hon. Mr Ridgway's amendment and we will also support his amendment to clause 7.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: I have a question for the minister. The minister set out in her response to the opposition's amendment some indications of what the demand was by community members—those at retirement age and young ones—and the size of the houses that they might otherwise want and the land size. I ask her if she could advise the chamber of where that data or that understanding of market demand comes from or is based upon?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that the department runs a land supply monitoring program within the department. The details, I understand, are online. They report every six months and every two years there is an even more detailed body of work done and published.

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

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 8

Noes 7

Majority 1

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

Amendment thus carried.

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

Amendment No 2 [Ridgway–1]—

Page 22, line 14—Delete subparagraph (ii)

Amendment No 3 [Ridgway–1]—

Page 22, lines 15 and 16—Delete ', other than Greater Adelaide'

These are amendments that we need to further implement the policy that the opposition is taking to remove the environment and food protection areas. It is interesting. I will just take a moment here. One of the issues that has concerned me with the whole map and the boundaries has been the lack of consultation. I only read a little bit of the information that the Light Regional Council has provided. I will read this letter rather than selectively quote from it, as follows:

Thank you for making contact…Council first became aware of this via the related article in the edition of The Advertiser dated 2 December 2015—

Consistent with the minister saying that they released the map on 30 November—

I appreciate that your enquiry relates to one aspect of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill 2015 (hereafter 'the Bill') however the first point that I would make is that in Council's view there are sufficient issues with the proposed legislation that it is fundamentally flawed. Not all of these concerns have been addressed by the wide range of amendments during its passage in the Lower House. I am happy to elaborate on the views further if that would be of assistance, however I note that they have already been communicated to Shadow Minister Steven Griffiths previously.

As implied above, Council was not consulted about the release of the Map beforehand but it is noted that the Bill does not require that the Minister does this. The Map can simply be confirmed at the designated time via a Gazettal. A point that has been made in the Council's submission (via the LGA) on this noted how the proposals with respect to Clause 7 of the Bill are in stark contrast to the way that the Character Preservation Districts were introduced, which actually involved a collaborative community consultation process.

That said, the map you attached features an error in that Freeling is shown to be a part of the Barossa Character Preservation District, which is not the case.

Township boundaries for settlements in the Light Regional Council area (in this case Roseworthy, Freeling and Kapunda) were generally included in The 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide (the 30Yr Plan) volume of the South Australian Planning Strategy (the boundary now proposed for Wasleys however was not). When compared with the Map that has been released, the following is noted:

The township boundary for Kapunda has been reduced through the exclusion of a part of the 'Township Fringe' Policy Area (within the Primary Production Zone) located on the eastern/south-eastern side of the township;

The township boundary for Roseworthy has been reduced through the exclusion of the Bulk Handling Zone north of the township (as well as a significant reduction of the future urban growth area originally proposed on Map E6A of the 30Yr Plan, however this was expected based upon more recent interactions with State Government);

There are other areas at Buchfelde and Kingsford that Council has identified previously in its Strategic Directions Report (Development Plan Review) for further investigation/consideration; and

The Map could potentially be improved by excluding areas that are not associated with environment and/or food production (for instance the Recreation Zone, which accommodates the Gawler Aerodrome).

Before last week's release, Council was aware that the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI) had commenced a review of the 30Yr Plan as is required by the current Development Act. Public consultation has not yet taken place on this so an opportunity to contribute formally to this process has not been provided to date.

While the 30Yr Plan was released in February 2010, its township boundary alignments for Freeling and Kapunda actually date back to its predecessor, the Planning Strategy for the Outer Metropolitan Adelaide Region (2007). As these have not been reviewed and/or updated for some 8 years now, Council has recently been looking at spatial planning for Kapunda and Freeling in particular, and would have sought an opportunity to go through its proposals with respect to these areas with State Government as part of the review of the 30Yr Plan. This opportunity may now be lost given what may now occur via the Bill and its associated Map, which well 'set' these boundaries even more rigidly.

There are a few more paragraphs but I think that is the substance of the letter from the council. I make those comments again to reiterate the flawed process that has been gone through in relation to the formation of the environment and food production areas.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: In terms of process, I want to check what we are up to here because there are elements of clause 5 that survive the Liberal amendments. I am just checking the Hon. David Ridgway's amendments 2 and 3—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: Amendments 2 and 3 I have moved.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: You have moved. Yes, I have 2 and 3, but you have not yet moved 4.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes these amendments and we have already indicated our reasons for that.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Family First supports them and we have indicated our reasons why.

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

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Because it is the same issue that we have agitated because we support the urban growth boundary, we will be opposing these amendments.

Amendments carried.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I move:

Amendment No 6 [Parnell–1]—

Page 22, after line 35—Insert:

(4a) The Minister must seek advice from the Commission under subsection (4)(a) before proceeding to give notice to a council under subsection (4)(b) and, in giving that notice, must furnish to the council a copy of the Commission's advice.

This amendment is still of value despite the amendments that have been moved.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: When you say it is of value, you mean it has work to do.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: No, I think when the opposition hears a little bit about this amendment, they will realise that it is just eminently sensible, and I would be surprised if the government does not even support it. We have to remember that clause 5 deals with planning regions and Greater Adelaide. Greater Adelaide is now off the table, but the ability for the Governor to proclaim other planning regions is still alive. The question then becomes one of process about how the government goes about creating planning regions, and in particular who they need to talk to and who they need to consult.

The Local Government Association was keen to make sure that its key stakeholders were consulted about the proposed creation of planning regions before the proposal was passed. They have asked, and I have implemented their request through a recommendation, through an amendment, that the minister has to seek advice from the commission before proceeding to give notice to a council, and that when giving that notice they have to furnish the council with a copy of the commission's advice.

It is really a simple procedural matter to make sure that the local council has a copy of the commission's advice before the commencement of the consultation period. As I say, despite the fact that there will not be any consultation on the planning region known as Greater Adelaide, because that has now gone, there will be other planning regions, and it makes eminent sense to me that local councils that are directly affected should be consulted and that they should be provided with a copy of the planning commission's advice.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendment. We do not see any reason why the minister should not ensure that local councils are given the commission's advice on these matters.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government rises to oppose the amendment. We believe that it creates an unnecessarily convoluted process. It is sufficient that consultation is required with both the commission and the relevant councils for the minister to make a decision.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Yes, we also oppose.

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

Amendment carried.

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

Amendment No 4 [Ridgway–1]—

Page 23, lines 8 and 9—Delete '(either for the purposes of constituting a planning region or Greater Adelaide)'

The Hon. G.E. Gago: It's consequential.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: It probably is but I am just moving it and we can make that judgement in a moment. It is part of the suite of amendments we have proposed to remove the urban growth boundary, environment and food production areas from the bill. I urge all members to support it.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I move:

Amendment No 7 [Parnell–1]—

Page 23, lines 19 and 20—Delete subclause (3) and substitute:

(3) The Minister must, before a notice is published under this section—

(a) seek the advice of the Commission; and

(b) give any council that will be directly affected notice of the Minister's proposed course of action and give consideration to any submission made by a council within a period (being at least 28 days) specified in the notice,

and the Minister may consult in relation to a proposed notice with any other person or body as the Minister thinks fit.

(3a) The Minister must seek the advice of the Commission under subsection (3)(a) before proceeding to give notice to a council under subsection (3)(b) and, in giving that notice, must furnish to the council a copy of the Commission's advice.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I thank the Hon. Mr Parnell for allowing me to speak prior to his explanation of his amendment. I have a question for the minister on clause 6(3), which reads:

The Minister must, before a notice is published under this section, seek the advice of the Commission.

My simple question to the minister is: what if they disagree? What if the commission and the minister have a point of disagreement on something as significant as this? What is the process? What happens next?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: It is really the same with any advisory board or body, the board can give advice and then it is at the minister's will or discretion as to what they do with that advice. The fact that it is publicly available—not necessarily.

The Hon. D.G.E. Hood: Yes, because it has to be published.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Published. Anyway, that does not alter the answer to the question. It is the same governance arrangements as with any advisory board, or most other advisory boards, it is at the discretion of the minister to do with that advice as they see fit. Often the advice given is not the only piece of information that a minister might use to proceed to make a formal response to that.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendment, for the same reasons that we supported the previous amendment: it makes sense to make that advice available to the council so that it can be fully informed. So, we support the amendment.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes this amendment; it is basically consequential. We will not be calling a division.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I do not need to speak to this amendment at any length. It really is the same amendment as the one the committee has just supported in relation to the creation of planning regions, but it applies the same logic to the creation of planning subregions and says that local councils should be consulted and need to receive the advice from the commission. I am pleased that the previous amendment passed, and I expect this one to have the same result.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that it would make more sense and flow better if we dealt with the opposition's amendment No. 5 first. I am advised that this next series of government amendments is really consequential to the last decision made that we lost, so there really is no point my moving them.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I also had an amendment to clause 7, but certainly I understand what the minister is saying, that if the urban growth boundary is gone then tinkering with clause 7 probably does not achieve a great deal to tidy it up and then throw out the whole thing. I understand the logic.

I want to make a couple of observations on this. One of the problems with some of the generic discussion around the urban growth boundary is that people are assuming that it is a line beyond which nothing can happen, and that is not what the urban growth boundary was designed to do. Whilst this clause might not survive this committee at this time, I expect that it is something we can come back and revisit between the houses, next year or whenever.

I make the point that the main work this clause does in relation to restricting future development in the environment and food production areas is in relation to subdivisions. The operative provisions are in subclause (3), which basically says that you cannot divide land and create additional allotments. The general word we use for that is 'subdivisions'—taking a block of land and carving it up into smaller blocks of land.

The minister made the point some time ago (I think in response to a question the Hon. Dennis Hood asked) that often these farming properties are on multiple titles and that the ability to build extra dwellings on these separate titles is not constrained. What you cannot do is divide those titles into smaller and smaller blocks. If we come back to reconsider it, we need to keep in perspective that it is not a line beyond which nothing can happen but a line beyond which housing subdivisions cannot occur.

Another point that I think, again, the Hon. Dennis Hood made, and it is a very reasonable point, goes to the way farming families often operate; that is, it might be a couple, for example, who farm, and they get older and they want to pass the farm on to their kids and want to live on the property still, so I guess the idea of the farmer granny flat comes into it. My understanding is that I do not think it is necessarily easy, but it is not impossible, to create extra dwellings on a single allotment. As long as you do not subdivide the allotment, you can often put that extra dwelling on it, but it stays on the same certificate of title.

The other point I make is that the planning system deals with the use of land; it does not dictate who at any point in time can occupy land. It might seem, in the Hon. Dennis Hood's words, a very reasonable thing to do, to allow a portion to be carved off and for ageing parents to live on it, but ageing parents eventually die and eventually the land gets sold off to unrelated parties. Whilst it is not a broadacre subdivision along the lines of Senator Bob Day's enterprise—it might just be the creation of a single extra allotment—it does not guarantee that it stays in the family. You can have slow subdivision by stealth if you allow separate allotments to be created on these farms.

I make that point, and I appreciate that the numbers are not here today for this to survive, but I do expect it will come back. Part of my criticism of the government proceeding with the bill in the haste that it has is that it may well have had a different outcome if we had had a bit longer to consider it. It may have been that some form of urban growth boundary might have survived in a modified form, but again we will wait and see until February whether it lives to fight another day.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Could I ask the minister to clarify a point she made in answer to a question from the Hon. Dennis Hood in respect of farms consisting of allotments, sections and titles and there being no problem in being able to put a house on one of those allotments. My understanding is that there is a problem there, particularly if the allotment does not conform to the minimum allotment size stipulated by the council.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I think the honourable member is referring to the question asked previously by the Hon. Dennis Hood in relation to building more than one dwelling on a parcel of land that is used for agricultural purposes. My response was that, technically, that is absolutely right: you can only build one dwelling for one lot, roughly. There is some variation between councils, but that is probably a general rule of thumb.

I was saying that, for many farmers at least, those who have been planning to build more than one dwelling are people who generally have more than one allotment. Their parcel of land consists of more than one lot; therefore, they are generally able to build more than one dwelling. That is not always the case, but it is generally the case, and there is also considerable variation from council zone to zone.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: With respect, my understanding is that, unless the allotment conforms to the minimum allotment size stipulated by the council, you cannot build a house on it. In the Barossa, I think the figure is either 66 hectares or 100 hectares.

The Hon. G.E. Gago: Yes, that's true.

Clause negatived.

Clauses 8 to 10 passed.

Clause 11.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I move:

Amendment No 9 [Parnell—1]

Page 26, after line 15—Insert:

(iia) the Adelaide Park Lands Act 2005;

Clause 11 of the bill deals with the recognition of special legislative schemes, and special legislative schemes are defined as one of six things. First, we have got character preservation laws. Basically, I think there are two of those, Barossa Valley and McLaren Vale, as I understand it. Then there are four acts that are named—the River Murray Act, the Adelaide Dolphin Sanctuary Act, the Marine Parks Act and the Arkaroola Protection Act. The clause then goes on to say that additional special legislative schemes can arise from any other act that is declared by that act to be a special legislative scheme or declared by regulations to be a special legislative scheme.

It might seem to people that this is not terribly consequential but it is actually quite fundamental to the future of development in the Adelaide Parklands, and I just need to explain why that is because my amendment is to add an additional act of parliament as a special legislative scheme, that act being the Adelaide Park Lands Act 2005. The 2005 act, as members might recall, was basically designed to set up a regime for making decisions about how the Adelaide Parklands are managed and the way development is to be controlled within the Adelaide Parklands.

I actually spoke about this during a matter of interest speech on 29 July this year. That was a speech that I made concerning the Park Lands Zone development plan amendment, which members might recall covered a range of potential issues, not the least of which was the O-Bahn extension as it touches on the Parklands. I made the point in opposing that development plan amendment that it was a cynical and sneaky method of undermining the intent of the 2005 act. I was not Robinson Crusoe in that regard, because 168 persons and organisations took the trouble to write submissions to the Development Policy Advisory Committee and every one of them was against the government's proposed Park Lands Zone development plan amendment.

One of the common objections to that DPA was that it undermined the Adelaide Park Lands Act. It did that in a couple of ways, but one of the things the DPA allowed was for infrastructure projects to be approved in the Parklands without going through public consultation. I said that that was against the intent of the 2005 act. The 2005 act included two very important provisions that amended the Development Act, and those two provisions, if we are going to be true to the 2005 act, should really be incorporated into this current bill, and I will just explain what the two provisions are.

First, in 2005, this parliament agreed that major project status should not apply to any developments in the Parklands. It is called major projects or major development status, which is used for a whole range of projects. It does not exist in this act under that name. It is not called major developments or major projects anymore. It is now called impact assessed development. The parliament back in 2005 said that, because major project status can be used to by-pass community opposition and was unappealable and unchallengeable in the courts, this parliament was not prepared to allow that fast-tracking or shortcutting method to apply to any development in the Parklands. They wrote that into the 2005 act. The 2005 act amended the Development Act, so that provision, which precludes that tool being used, should now find its way into this bill but it is not here. It is not in section 124. In fact, it is nowhere to be seen.

The second thing that the 2005 act did is that it said, 'There is another sneaky tool available to government that we are not going to allow to be used in the Parklands,' and that is—and I have referred to it before—the crown development stream, that stream for development assessment that applies to government projects, largely infrastructure projects. The parliament in 2005 said, 'We do not want this crown development process to be used in the Parklands because that, too, removes the rights for citizens to have their say and it provides for no meaningful public consultation.' The final decision is made by the minister, for goodness sake, not by any other planning authority.

These two important protections were built into the 1993 Development Act as a consequence of the 2005 Adelaide Park Lands Act. There are two approaches that we could take here: one is that we could amend clause 102 in relation to 'impact assessed development'; and clause 124 'essential infrastructure' which is the old crown development provision. So they are the two clauses—102 and 124. Ideally we would amend those clauses and we would insert a reference to the Adelaide Park Lands Act.

But there is another way of doing it and that is the way that I have proposed in this amendment, and that is, if we add the Adelaide Park Lands Act 2005 to the list of special legislative schemes, then it triggers another clause in this bill. It triggers clause 60 of the bill which requires the planning commission to prepare a state planning policy to give effect to the provisions of the act. In other words, it is a roundabout way of amending this current bill before us to make sure that the government puts in place measures—in this case, a state planning policy—that prevent future governments from using these fast-track methods to allow development in the Parklands.

I have done my best to try to explain why it is important. If you want a colloquial example, anyone who has expressed concerns about the O-Bahn project, for example, and the fact that the government is developing in the Parklands without going through proper consultation under the Development Act, if you think that that is a bad outcome, it is worse under this bill if you do not support my amendment. Anyone who has ever raised criticisms about projects and developments that the government wants to build in the Parklands—and when we discussed that DPA it included things like, I think, sewage works; I think a nuclear power plant, if it was legal in South Australia, which it is not, could be built in the Parklands under that DPA, and all manner of public infrastructure without going through proper consultation.

If you think the Parklands are worth protecting and you want to stop the government using fast-track sneaky methods to build on the Parklands, then you need to support this amendment. If you want to be doubly sure, then we could move additional amendments to clauses 102 and 124 when we get to them and that would put it beyond doubt. To make it really clear, legislative protection for the Parklands that exists in the current 1993 Development Act is removed in this bill. My amendment is an attempt to reinstate that protection for the Parklands.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government rises to oppose this amendment. We believe that these matters are much better dealt with by regulation.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I think one of the great things about being an MP is that we used to be able to travel and see the world, and now of course we do not have a travel allowance, so that those things have changed. Members who have had the opportunity to travel—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: Stick to the bill, Mr Hood.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I am sort of incorporating another crucial issue, Mr Chairman. Members who have had the opportunity to travel would have been to places like New York presumably, and Paris, and some of the great cities of the world, and what I have noticed in the great parks they have in these wonderful cities is that they are full of development. They are full of cafes, restaurants and, in some cases, ice skating rinks. They are full of terrific things that attract families and people.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Amenities, that is right; toilets even. I understand there is passion about this and I respect that there are different views but this is my view; this is our party's view. There is an opportunity to do wonderful things in the Parklands. I think the original vision for Adelaide was a truly wonderful vision. Colonel Light's vision of having a city surrounded by parks I think today, all these years later—approaching 200 years later—stands up as one of the great planning decisions that has almost ever been. It really is a wonderful thing.

Certainly I do not think anyone is going to argue for a nuclear waste dump in the Parklands. If you did that it would be stupidity in my view, but what is wrong with having cafes and restaurants, etc., in the Parklands? I say, 'Nothing.' Again, I appreciate that there will be different views on that, but that is very much our view.

I make the other point, and I think this is particularly relevant, that if I was arguing for self-interest here I would probably argue against having development in the Parklands. As members know, I live in North Adelaide and there is only one suburb in Adelaide that is surrounded by the Parklands and that is North Adelaide. As a result of that, they are closest to people who live in the area that I live just by geographical fact. For my self-interest I would argue against any development there, but I think it is in the interests of our state and in the interests of our city to develop what are these wonderful great open spaces that people can really enjoy.

Unfortunately, my experience in the Parklands, when I go there, is that there is nothing there. There is basically nothing there and I think because of that they are underutilised. I am not saying to overdevelop them but certainly I think there is an opportunity to make the most of them, and that is very much our view.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the Hon. Dennis Hood for his response. I agree with most of what he said. I think there are great things that we can do in the Parklands to make them more attractive for people. However, what I am going to insist upon, I have to say, as a citizen, is that the government follows the processes set out in the legislation—and I include in that the legislation from 2005, which does not say that nothing can happen in the Parklands; it says that it has to go through a proper process, including public consultation, and that these developments cannot be fast-tracked in a way that no-one can really object or challenge them.

I think the Parklands are so important that, even if the Hon. Dennis Hood and I agree that certain infrastructure development might be a great idea, I want to insist on the public having a say. If that includes running the gamut of public comment and debate and challenge or whatever, so be it. If it is a meritorious project then it should get up. What I am not prepared to countenance is the fact that the government can use sneaky, backdoor methods to approve development in the Parklands which, the way the government is currently approaching it, they are category 1 which means no consultation, no right to lodge a comment and no right to challenge.

I do not have to be that far apart from the Hon. Dennis Hood—we want to see the Parklands developed in a way that benefits all South Australians, but I do not think we need to endorse sneaky, backdoor methods of doing it. The protections put in place in 2005 were put in place for a reason: they amended the Development Act and I would like them to amend this act as well.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I rise to indicate that the opposition will be supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendment for the very similar reasons that have been outlined. My recollection of the 2005 debate was that we supported aspects of it and that we have also seen development. The O-Bahn tunnel is a classic one where we have seen various iterations of the O-Bahn proposal to save just a handful of minutes coming right through the Parklands when there have been other options suggested by members of the public. I am on a select committee that is looking into that and we have asked for advice and asked what other alternative routes has the government looked at, and it has not yet been able to give us an answer.

Like the Hon. Dennis Hood and the Hon. Mark Parnell, I think the Parklands should have some more development but it is everybody's park and it does need to go through a process of proper consultation, especially with things like cafes and some of the smaller amenities that may be excluded when they will be there for everybody's benefit. Some mornings I walk to work and I very much enjoy my wander through the Parklands. Some mornings I wish there were a couple more toilets in the Parklands, a little closer than where they are, and also disabled or wheelchair access toilets for the Hon. Kelly Vincent. Nonetheless, the Liberal Party has resolved to support the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendments and we do so this evening.

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

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Can I just clarify with the government: what was the government's position in relation to 2005 and the Adelaide Parklands protection legislation? I am just not clear. What is the government's current position, given that they are opposing these amendments, in terms of the protection of the Parklands?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I will need to check the details of 2005. We believe our position was supported, but we will have to check the detail.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: It was an election commitment from premier Rann.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Yes, but I just cannot remember the level of integrity of what ended up going through and how close it was to what we supported. I would have to take that on notice. In terms of what our position is in relation to the Parklands, the current Parklands legislation remains unchanged and in place. These are planning issues that we think are quite separate to that, but we are not proposing any changes to the Parklands legislation.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I take the minister's point that the Parklands act of 2005 will remain, but those provisions that amended the Development Act disappear when the Development Act disappears. My point is that I want to try to reinstate them. If the Parklands were worth protecting in 2005, they are certainly worth protecting in 2015.

I am not suggesting that somehow this repeals the Parklands act: it does not do that. What it does is effectively extinguishes two of the most important provisions which were those protection measures that I put in. They were consequential amendments to the Development Act included in the 2005 Adelaide Park Lands Act. The act will remain but these provisions will effectively become redundant because the act that they amend is going to be repealed by this bill.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Hon. Mr Parnell has raised the O-Bahn but what about the permanent facility in the Victoria Park racecourse—the grandstand—and developments at the existing Royal Adelaide site and the Festival Plaza or the Walker Corporation site? Clearly Victoria Park is Parklands, I assume, and therefore would be subject to the sort of amendments the Hon. Mr Parnell is talking about, but are the issues that relate to developments at the existing Royal Adelaide site and the Walker Corporation and the Riverbank Precinct impacted by the amendments of the Hon. Mr Parnell?

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Certainly something like Victoria Park is pretty clear. If this bill had been in place when the Hon. Kevin Foley was trying to build his grandstand, I do not think he would have been able to be stymied the way he was. I think he would have got that through because the protections would have disappeared.

The Riverbank Precinct and the footbridge, for example, were under a slightly different regime because, having had these two fast-track backdoor methods taken away from them, the government has actually found a third one. They have found another way of doing it, and they are doing it through development plan amendments. They are changing the planning rules to bypass the act.

My memory is that it might have been the Hon. Michelle Lensink who originally, in relation to the footbridge, tried to move to disallow regulations. The government came back with a development plan amendment that we cannot disallow. We will come back to that conversation later, because I am very keen for this parliament to be able to directly disallow the new versions of DPAs. I think the Riverbank is slightly different because the government found another backdoor method of dealing with that.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: And that includes the Walker Corporation building?

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Sorry, the Walker Corporation—I am just trying to think. I cannot recall the exact boundaries of the Riverbank Precinct DPA. It certainly covered the footbridge, and I think it covered some of the Festival Centre redevelopment, because it had a reference to offices in there. A few of us raised concerns about whether that meant office towers, and the government assured us that it just meant offices in the Festival Centre that I think needed to be relocated as result of the redevelopment.

I do not have the full detail in front of me as to whether this impacts directly on the Walker Corporation plan; it may well. However, from a generic point of view what I am saying is that those two fast-track techniques should be removed, and this is my best effort to do it, apart from amending those two clauses to which I referred before. That would be the cleanest and clearest way of doing it but—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: And the existing Royal Adelaide site?

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The existing Royal Adelaide site is technically Parklands, from memory. I think it is in the institutional zone. I do not have an answer about whether major project status or crown development status would apply to that land; I would have to check that out.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: There appears to be some chance that these amendments will survive the debate this week, and I accept the fact that the Hon. Mr Parnell cannot be the fount of all wisdom in relation to all these planning issues during the committee stage this evening, but I would be interested to know the impact of his amendments, should they survive the parliamentary debate on development such as the existing Royal Adelaide site and the Walker Corporation development, for example, in relation to this particular site. As the honourable member concedes, there is that argument that these are all parts of the Parklands, although many of us would see the Parklands as being different to the Riverbank site around here, for example.

However, they are technical descriptions of what the Parklands are, and I guess not all of us are fully aware of exactly what is included within the Parklands when we get into the more built-up areas, as I will refer to them, such as the Festival Centre, behind the Casino here, and the Royal Adelaide site, as opposed to the areas that the Hon. Mr Parnell is talking about and the Victoria Park Racecourse, which everyone concedes are clearly Adelaide Parklands. So, as I said, whilst it is likely to survive the debate this week, if the debate is sensibly adjourned until February next year I think it would be useful to clarify the impact of the Hon. Mr Parnell's amendments on some of those issues.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I might be able to shine some light on this. In relation to the Adelaide site, and it also includes the Royal Adelaide—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: The old one or the new one?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I think both, and including the Casino but obviously not Adelaide Oval, they are all zoned as institutional zoning, and the advice I have received is that major developments and crown developments can be declared for those areas that are zoned institutional.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I sort of feel that the moment has passed, but I indicate that Dignity for Disability will also be supporting the Hon. Mr Parnell's amendment. As he said, this is clearly about trying to strike a balance. I do not think he is trying to suggest that no development whatsoever can happen in the Parklands but, given that it is an area of Adelaide steeped in a lot of tradition and has various interest groups looking after it, so to speak, it makes sense to ask the public what should happen to it.

I also take some umbrage with the Hon. Mr Ridgway's suggestion that my key interest would be to see more accessible toilets in the Parklands. Of course I would welcome that suggestion, but I take umbrage with it for two reasons: first, he seems to be suggesting that I am a sort of oracle of all disability, the only user of these toilets; and secondly, that they are my only interest. I for one would also like to see more cafes.

Thinking about my other interests—it might surprise the Hon. Mr Ridgway that I do have more—perhaps we could even put some temporary staging in the Parklands to allow for public performances and things like that. I think there are many areas where the Parklands could be more utilised, but I think it has to be done in a way that is respectful both to the heritage of the area and to the opinion of the general populace.

I think we have to strike a balance given that on the one hand we want to activate these spaces and make them vibrant—to borrow those words from the Adelaide City Council—but, on the other hand, we are also learning more and more about the need to balance time and nature, so we need to strike an elegant balance. Call me crazy, but I think the right way to do that is by asking the people of South Australia what they think; so we will support the amendment.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I want to just clarify the record. My trusty adviser has double-checked, triple-checked, so I will need to correct the record. In relation to Parklands, no major developments can be declared in any Parklands, including institutional zones. It is crown developments that can be declared in institutional zones.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I want to offer an apology to the Hon. Kelly Vincent. I was speaking about the times when I am walking through the Parkland and wishing there were more toilets, and I heard you make a comment so I just assumed that you were adding to the idea. I did not mean to suggest that that was the only interest you had, but that was the way I heard some brief comment in my ear. So I do apologise if I have caused you any offence, unintentionally. I do have a question for the minister, just for my own clarification, about the institutional zone. My recollection is that it is from the western end of the Botanic Gardens. Where does it end? Does it end at the old police barracks, running right through past the new Royal Adelaide Hospital, and does it run down to the water's edge of the Torrens?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Can we just take that on notice and we will get the exact details. It is Government House, Riverbank, the old hospital site and the uni.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: What about the Library, the Museum and all that stuff? That is all part of it?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: We will get you a map. We will get you a nice big coloured map.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I just want to ask a question of the Hon. Mr Parnell. Notwithstanding your remark that the objective of your amendment is to permanently preclude any development on the Parklands, I would simply like to know: if your amendment was successful, would it make it more or less likely for governments in the future to be able to put developments on the Parklands?

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the honourable member for weighing into the debate on this bill. My intention is not to promote or discourage any particular form of development on the Parklands. I have said that I am up for appropriate development of the Parklands that adds to their character as a—

The Hon. G.E. Gago: This doesn't include anything.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Well, no, what—

The Hon. G.E. Gago: Nothing meets your criteria, that's the problem. It's a complete no-go zone. Nothing happens.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: No; I think people are over-egging the pudding here big time. We have to remember that the 2005 act did lots of good things. It created a management authority. It created the mechanism for how the Parklands would be managed and decisions would be made. Does my amendment mean that there will be more or less development in the Parklands? Does it make it easier or harder?

I do not think, with all respect, that that is the question because my amendment only relates to the process that needs to be gone through in relation to whether a development can be approved or not. You can still put applications in for cafes. You could still put applications in for power stations or whatever else, but under the 2005 act they have to go through the normal planning process. Most of those big developments are noncomplying. Small cafes, toilets blocks and things like that are not. They can just go through. There is no great drama over those, but certainly everything that is big has to go through a proper process, including public consultation.

My point is that the government has wound back the protection already and they are proposing to wind it back even more in this bill. My bill does no more than attempt to reinstate some of the protections. In fact, it is not even that, to be honest, because all I am doing is adding to that list of special legislative schemes this act, which requires the state government to prepare a state planning strategy to give effect to it.

When they do that job, when they start writing that state planning strategy, they will see that there are certain minimum processes that have to be gone through before development can be approved in the Parklands. They will then construct the planning and design code accordingly. If the government still wants to do a shifty, they can, even with my amendment. I am just trying to make it harder for them to make really bad decisions in the future.

The Hon. G.E. Gago: Make it harder for government to govern.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: No, making it harder for the government to undermine the intention of this parliament as reflected in the 2005 act. If this parliament, in its wisdom, decides that the Parklands no longer need any level of protection and they are happy to have open slather, any development being put forward by the government with no public consultation and no right of comment, then you are welcome to do that.

You will have people out in the streets. The Parklands are important and people expect proper process to be followed, including consultation rights. That is what the government has been removing. I am making an attempt to try to claw back some of that protection. Members have spoken; I think this amendment seems to have the support of the council and I would love that to be reflected in a vote shortly.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I have a question for the minister, if I may. Just a point of clarity—I don't want to prolong this debate, because as the Hon. Mark Parnell has indicated, we have been talking about it for a little while now and it is probably time to wind it up. First of all, for the record, it seems that two government members here have expressed some interest in developing a cafe or something of that nature in the Parklands.

The Hon. G.E. Gago: I want the loos fixed!

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Hear, hear to that. I would certainly agree with that, minister.

The Hon. G.E. Gago: And a cup of tea.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: And a cup of tea—I would agree to that as well, minister. I just say on the record that if the government is looking at some sort of appropriate cafe, restaurant type thing in the Parklands, you would certainly have Family First support. But, that issue aside, I wonder if the minister would just for the record please, and for my understanding I must confess, outline the difference between—we have heard these terms thrown around a lot—the so-called institutional zones and crown zones. What precisely is the difference? That I think is critical in this debate.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: It is really a three-gear approach to assessment pathways. One is through the traditional planning process—first gear. Second gear is major projects, which is faster tracking than the ordinary planning process, where the government declares a particular project to be a major project of some sort of reasonable significance and it bypasses the council planning processes but is required to have an EIS. Crown projects are third gear; they do not require an EIS. It is usually used for government's own infrastructure, but does not have to be, and it is an even faster and simpler process again.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Thank you, minister. Why don't you give an example of perhaps a recent crown development? It has been suggested to me that the footbridge might have been one. I am not sure, but—

The Hon. G.E. Gago: No.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: No? Okay.

The Hon. G.E. Gago: They are fairly rare, but one will come to mind and I will share that with you as soon as I can.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Hon. Mr Chair, I do not want to be pedantic but the minister should be addressing this on her feet, I assume, rather than just chatting from her seat.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I will take it on notice and bring back a response.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I want to clarify the minister's answers to my earlier questions and some of the other members' earlier questions. The minister outlined earlier in response to some questions about the institutional zone and what applied within the institutional zone which covered the existing Royal Adelaide Hospital site and the Walker Corporation site here. Is the minister suggesting that the Hon. Mr Parnell's amendments would impact in any way on those? I understood what the minister was saying was because it was institutional it was unaffected or not likely to be impacted by the Hon. Mr Parnell's amendments. Is that a correct interpretation?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Yes, that is my understanding.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 12.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Firstly I apologise to members that they only got this version of my amendments relatively recently but my office has been in negotiations with the government about the particulars of these amendments for a couple of days now and I have only just been able to reach a compromise in recent hours.

As members would be keenly aware, I would hope from my second reading to this bill, Dignity for Disability is quite concerned about the lack of consideration of universal design currently in this bill and sees this as a great opportunity to insert consideration of universal design and thus make future building projects accessible for the lifecycle of a venue, whatever it may be, be it a house or an oval or another public venue, for example.

We would like to move forward with these amendments. I will briefly explain the difference between these amendments and the ones that I had filed previously. They are in some regard quite technical and minor differences in the context of things. I understand that the advice of the planning minister in the other place was that the wording of my previous iteration of these amendments was too forceful, I suppose you could say, and he was getting some lobbying from particular bodies to say that incorporating universal design would be too expensive.

I will deal with that assertion in just a moment. For now, I do not think the previous wording of our amendment was particularly forceful at all. From memory it talked about the fact that government should—and I emphasise that word 'should'—implement universal design in planning, but nonetheless we have had to reach this compromise which the government is willing to accept, and I thank them for that.

Can I say, though, that I am disappointed to see the planning minister and the government cower to lobbying, the idea that our previous amendments would have resulted in too much expense. I touched on this at length in my second reading but I will do so again shortly. Can I touch on the fact that we have fought very hard to keep at least two mentions of the wording 'universal design' in the amendments.

Some you will notice like the first one which talks about 'liveability and prosperity in ways that are ecologically sustainable and meet the needs and expectations and reflect the diversity of the state's communities,' that is incorporating people with disabilities, older people, people with temporary injuries and so on without necessarily talking about universal design as terminology. However, later amendments talk about universal design including [Vincent-2] 2:

, including by providing for policies and principles that support or promote universal design for the benefit of people with differing needs and capabilities.

And on it goes. I want to touch for a minute on why Dignity for Disability believes it is very important to always keep a couple of mentions of the specific terminology of universal design in the bill. Rather than rely on my old noggin to explain why, I thought I would quote some research. I found a very useful universal design fact sheet from the Victorian government department of sport and recreation, and I would like to quote from this passage:

How is this—

'this' being universal design—

different to accessible design?

'Access' and 'accessibility' is largely concerned with fulfilling a set of measurable requirements (technical notes and specifications) as prescribed in legislative requirements such as the Building Code of Australia and other relevant standards. This often results in 'accessible' features being incorporated as afterthoughts, and commonly relies on specialised features to fulfil legislative requirements such as lifts and ramps. Mechanical features such as lifts can break down, and a dependence on these can render an entire building inaccessible to sections of the community.

Universal Design separates itself from accessible design by focusing on user-centred design from the earliest stages of a project, rather than just at the end stage. This results in the seamless integration of inclusive features that are in many cases invisible and does not stigmatise or separate users, and ensures that the experience of a building is shared by as many people as possible.

To put it in a nutshell, 'accessible' is the things we do afterwards. They are the tangible things that we can measure—for example, somebody has put a ramp over step—whereas universal design is about the fact that there was never a step there in the first place: the entrance was flat and the door was wide so that anyone with a disability or an elderly person, or anyone less mobile due to any kind of impairment, would have been able to use it from the get-go rather than having to fight for access as an afterthought. That is where the idea of accessibility differs from universal design and why Dignity for Disability thinks that universal design is the standard that we as a parliament and we as a community should be aiming for.

I will touch, though, on the fact that the planning minister in the other place and, I believe, some other members as well have indicated that they have been lobbied by particular organisations suggesting that universal design will cost too much. I made a significant contribution about this issue in my second reading speech to the bill and tried to debunk that myth and encourage the parliament to look at the life cycle and the lifetime of the building and to look at universal design as an investment in that lifetime.

The more accessible or the more universally designed a building is, the more likely it is to be used for longer periods of time because it can be used by greater numbers of people. This is particularly important as the population ages, which we know is happening at at least three times the rate at which the population is growing. Again, I would like to quote from this very handy fact sheet from the Victorian government.

I must say, as an aside, that quite often, and more often than not, when I am looking for these kinds of facts on health and disability-related matters, the Victorian government is always the first government to pop up on my Google. It would be great to see the South Australian government investing in more of this research, but perhaps that is neither here nor there for the moment. I will return to quoting this fact sheet. The heading is, 'How much will universal design add to the cost of my project?' The fact sheet continues:

In most cases Universal Design will not add any additional costs to a project. In fact, applying Universal Design principles can often save costs, particularly in the long run, by lessening the dependence on mechanical features that require maintenance such as lifts, or retrofitting features to comply with legislation.

In addition, Universal Design can often increase revenue and financial viability at a facility by catering for a broader cross-section of the community, thereby increasing patronage.

Which is exactly what I talked about at some length in my second reading contribution, that if you make venues accessible then people with those needs will come to that venue and spend their money.

I also want to quote from another report. I have a few more quotes. I hope members will bear with me, but I think it is important to get this issue about cost on the record, seeing as particular lobby bodies seem to have gotten in the ear of some members. This one is from the Australian Network for Universal Housing Design. The report is called, 'Universal Design: A lifecycle approach to sustainable housing design'. The report mentions the experience of several countries which have embraced the use of universal design, or at least embraced it a lot more than we have in dear old South Australia. Just bear with me while I find the appropriate page. I am working off several reports. This particular paragraph talks about the experience of the United Kingdom. It states:

United Kingdom: A proactive approach to 'Lifetime' homes.

In England, the recent 1999 revision of Part M of the Building Regulations, introduced a mandatory requirement for all housing to incorporate basic 'visitability' requirements to improve the lifecycle sustainability of traditional housing.

The universal housing provisions called up in Part M seek to ensure new dwellings are sensitive to the needs of all potential homeowners. The Part M provisions are designed to support home owners to:

1. approach and gain access into a home dwelling

2. achieve circulation within the entrance storey of the development

3. easily access switches and socket outlets in the dwelling

4. have access to passenger lifts and common stairs in blocks of flats

5. have access to a visitable WC in the entrance storey of the dwelling.

A recent review of the impact of Part M in housing indicates that while industry opposed the original 'visitability' requirements, overall the design changes have enhanced the market appeal of housing developments. Builders and developers concede that whilst there was an increase in costs to develop housing to the Part M criteria, overall the market appeal offset costs.

That quote, I think, clearly illustrates that even when there is an additional cost due to universal design, it is an investment that is far outweighed by the benefits, the increased useability and, therefore, the increased lifetime of the venue. Of course, the provisions in this particular bill will not apply to private dwellings. I would love to see more people considering applying universal principles to their private dwellings, but I think the same, as shown in that report, would be easily applicable to the public realm.

Finally, I would like to read to members one other very brief section from a report which I already quoted in part during my second reading contribution to the bill; that is, the report from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), the Accessibility Design Guide. I read some of this in my second reading contribution, as I said, but given that we are still having an argument about cost I think it is important to get these issues on the record again and get some new points on the record as well. This quote is from section 3.5 of the Accessibility Design Guide. Section 3.5 is entitled, 'The cost of incorporating universal design'. It states:

Universal design is not as costly as many might think, especially when accessibility is addressed during planning and construction. Some developers and owners assume costs are larger than they are. This can be due to lack of knowledge and experience. Others rely on inaccurate construction cost estimates.

Some studies conclude that costs for accommodating accessibility regulations are small in relation to gross domestic product (as low as 0.01 per cent).

I will repeat that for emphasis, 'as low as 0.01 per cent'. It continues:

A study commissioned by the GTZ—

which is a German institute (the name of which I cannot pronounce, but I am happy to give to Hansard later)—

The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: The Hon. Mr Wade will be happy to know that I am working on my German, having now adopted a German grandmother from my partner Nick, but I have not quite got to the point where I can pronounce this five-word name, so forgive me, but I will refer to it as the GTZ. It states:

A study commissioned by [the GTZ] outlines some cost estimates for incorporating universal design. Providing fully accessible facilities increases building costs by as little as 0.5% to1%, if planned, designed and implemented from the outset. Handicap International estimates that this is the case for new buildings or facilities, and that additional costs are as little as 1% to 2% for public buildings. Even refurbishment costs can be significantly reduced when adaptations are properly planned and managed. The cost of retrofitting for accessibility after building completion is far greater.

Another misconception relating to the cost of incorporating universal design is how much extra space is required. In many cases, it may only require rearranging and plan within existing space. This was demonstrated in an AusAID-funded project in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea. At the Elementary Teachers Training College the wheelchair accessible toilet and shower room doubled as a night bathroom in the dormitory blocks, saving people having to go outside the main dormitory building at night.

I will briefly read from a couple of other sections:

3.6 Cost of not incorporating universal design

The cost of not implementing universal design can be significant. Inaccessible environments limit economic, education, health, social and other opportunities for people with disabilities and make them more dependent on others.

I read that as 'make them more expensive because they could then rely on funded support to access community and venues that they would otherwise been able to access independently'. The quote goes on:

It is important to consider the following three components when working with universal design. Each component can affect the economic viability of family units and contribute to a cycle of poverty:

direct costs for people with disability, including access to services such as travel;

indirect costs to support persons and/or family members of people with disability;

opportunity costs of foregone income for people with disability.

I will leave those quotes there for now, but I hope I have clearly demonstrated that Dignity for Disability simply does not accept that the cost of implementing universal design should be a reason not to proceed with it now or at any other point, and that is why we have been disappointed that the government has not supported our original set of amendments, but we are at least in some way pleased to see a compromise, to see at least some mention of universal design that is to allow for serious consideration. A further quote states:

Improving access to the public realms through the design of inclusive and accessible public buildings for people with differing needs and capabilities (including through the serious consideration of universal design practices).

I do not believe that our original set of amendments was particularly forceful—it used words like 'the government should' consider universal design—but I accept that we have this compromise now and am pleased to have at least some mention of universal design in this bill. I thank those members who have indicated their support.

Quite frankly, what I have said just now and what I said in my second reading speech on the bill, given that we have between 18 and 20 per cent of people with disabilities currently in our population and a growing ageing population, we cannot afford not to do this. I am disappointed that the government and some other members have bowed down to some pressure and not taken the opportunity to be a true leader on this issue and invest in the future of this state, but I thank members who have shown their support for our compromise amendments.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government rises, I am very pleased to say, to support these amendments. We support these amendments because they are very good amendments. We congratulate the Hon. Kelly Vincent for putting these amendments forward and thank her for her cooperation in reaching a position that the government was able to endorse. We very much appreciate her efforts and hard work in working with us to land on this. Just so that we know where we are going, the government supports these amendments. It will not be supporting the similar sorts of amendments that the Hon. Mark Parnell will be moving. We think they go too far.

I also just put on the record that I appreciate some of the comments made by the Hon. Kelly Vincent and the frustrations that she has expressed in terms of the lack of progress in incorporating these guidelines, but I want to just point out very quickly that both Renewal SA and the Housing Trust, particularly Renewal SA in its public realm guidelines and the Housing Trust in its guidelines, do incorporate universal design in their guidelines. Although, obviously, we still have a long way to go, we have made a start and we are pleased to be supporting these amendments to be incorporated into this planning bill.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Just very briefly, I think the Hon. Ms Vincent has made a compelling case, and Family First will also support the amendments.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I just rise to indicate that the opposition will also be supporting the Hon. Kelly Vincent's amendments. In doing so, I would like to ask the minister a question. Members would know that both the minister and I have some amendments on file—although I did receive an email from one of the minister's advisers that some amendments had been superseded—around adaptive re-use of buildings. The principles that the Hon. Kelly Vincent is referring to, I think, we all support, but I am just wondering whether the minister and her adviser have had any opportunity to discuss the interaction between the principles and the intention of what the Hon. Kelly Vincent is trying to do and also the amendments that either one of us will move on adaptive re-use of older buildings.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be supporting the Hon. Kelly Vincent's amendments.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the adaptive re-use amendments are complementary to the Hon. Kelly Vincent's amendments. While I am on my feet, I will also just put on the record that an example of a Crown project was the modification to a wharf in Ardrossan, and an example of a major report was a deep sea port at Cape Hardy by Iron Road Limited.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The Greens, too, will be supporting the Hon. Kelly Vincent's amendments. As I told her previously, we would have supported her earlier amendments as well. They went a little bit further; nevertheless, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, apparently, so we have got something here.

The Hon. Kelly Vincent referred to how much more expensive it is to try to retrofit existing buildings to make them accessible compared to building those features in from the outset. I suppose that is stating the obvious, but I just wanted to reflect on an article that was in The Advertiser some time ago where they listed the most profligate politicians and their spending. The two targets that the journalists love to pick on are travel and office refurbishment—they are the two.

My wife, then senator Penny Wright, was horrified to find herself on the list. The Advertiser, of course, does not necessarily dig very deeply to find out why. The reason she was on the list is there is now a CBD building that is accessible that was not before. The office refurbishment consisted of making 27 Leigh Street (which I think is next door to what used to be Liberal Party headquarters, above Rigoni's restaurant) an accessible building in the city with a ramp where there used to be stairs; and the office on the third floor now has an accessible toilet, which it did not have before, and an accessible shower, which it did not have before.

Building by building, step by step, we are slowly making Adelaide accessible. But I take the honourable member's point: it is a slow old process and, if all we are really doing is sticking with public buildings and office and commercial buildings rather than houses, it is going to be a very long process. I am pleased to support the amendment.

When we get to my amendment, I will have a few words to say about why the minister considers it is going too far when all I have done is copy the provisions from the existing act and incorporated them. I am pleased that the Hon. Kelly Vincent has, in her amendment, succeeded in incorporating the concept of ecologically sustainable development because that is what my amendment seeks to do as well. So, regardless of the fate of mine, hers will survive. I still will be agitating my amendment—it is one of the top amendments that I am keen to get through—but I will wait until we get to that before I talk further on it. For now, I am very pleased to support both of the Hon. Kelly Vincent's amendments to clause 12.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would like to join in this discussion, too, and, as my leader has said, support these amendments. I also identify myself with my leader's remarks that to understand the implications of these amendments will take a lot more consultation with both the private sector and the community.

I would like to unpack that by to trying to unpack the phrase 'universal design'. The principle of 'universal design', 'universal accessibility' or 'accessibility for all', I think it is important to appreciate, is more than just a physical accessibility. The Hon. Kelly Vincent has quite rightly distinguished between accessible design and universal design as it applies to physical facilities but, as I know the Hon. Kelly Vincent has reminded us time and time again, accessibility is not just about the physical accessibility of places.

Universal design, as I will quote the United Nations convention in a minute, does include programs, services, facilities, whatever it takes. In that regard, the Liberals are strongly committed to equality of opportunity: that is a fundamental tenet of a just society. We do not see that merely as a formal openness to being able to access, but that people should have a fair chance to attain it. One could specify this idea by saying that a fair go is saying that those who have the same level of talent and ability, the same willingness to use their gifts, should have the same prospect of success regardless of their class or origin or circumstance.

For example, education is seen specifically by Liberals as an important element of opportunity. It is not just a matter of making sure that schools are free, but universal design would say it means you need to make sure that a person with mobility issues can access the facility perhaps through ramps, wider doors and so forth. But, also, within the education environment it may mean that a child with a disability needs to have a specially designed behaviour regime. Universal design is not just about facilities. In that regard, let me quote the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It defines universal design as:

…the design of products, environments, programmes and services to be useable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design.

The National Disability Strategy, to which South Australia is a signatory, specifically refers to universal design. The first of six key outcomes under the strategy is inclusive and accessible communities. The outcome sought is that people with disability live in accessible and well-designed communities with opportunity for full inclusion in social, economic, sporting and cultural life.

In policy direction 2 within that outcome, it specifically deals with planning, so it validates the Hon. Kelly Vincent trying to have universal design recognised within the planning legislation, where policy direction 2 says:

Improved accessibility of the built and natural environment through planning and regulatory systems, maximising the participation and inclusion of every member of the community.

Let me stress again that the UN convention talks not just about physical environments; it talks about products, it talks about programs, it talks about services. Let's think about how that plays out in our community at the moment, for example, in accessible public transport where of course it is important that we have 80 per cent of the Adelaide Metro bus fleet with low floors and with wheelchair allocated spaces. It also means we need to have policies which allow people to access a bus with an accredited assistance animal; and if they cannot use a Metro card, they can use a mobility card.

Another example of universal design in public spaces is the work that the honourable member for Bright in the other place is doing in bringing a beach mat to his community. He is partnering with Surf Life Saving SA and the Seacliff Surf Life Saving Club to trial a beach access mat at Seacliff beach. In the first instance they hope that the mat will be rolled out for surf lifesaving patrols to direct users towards the safest part of the beach.

We had another example of universal design in services this year when, through the work of the Hon. Kelly Vincent and other members of this place, we introduced emergency warnings to be signed. I was interested to note that Alzheimer's SA has produced a publication called 'Dementia-Friendly Communities' and they specifically reference this clause in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They talk about universal access, and they do not just talk about paths that are, if you like, not just about the physical access; they talk about the physical environment which enables people to get around safely, but they also talk about training health and banking staff to identify and support people, and provide respect and empathy for people with dementia.

What I am trying to stress in these remarks is that, whilst the Liberal Party fully supports universal design and we appreciate the moves by the Hon. Kelly Vincent to identify this in the legislation, it is a lot more than the physical environment, and the Hon. Kelly Vincent reaffirms that in some of the words that she has in her amendments. For example in amendment No. 3 it says that 'the public realm should be designed to be inclusive and accessible'. In other words, it is not just about the physical, it is about, if you like, the network of—to quote the UN declaration—the programs, the services, the environment, whatever it takes, to make sure our communities are inclusive and accessible.

In amendment 4, it again talks about 'to promote best practice in access and inclusion planning.' I like the words 'inclusion planning' because it is something that will evolve over time. The Alzheimer's guide has an eight-stage, very clear strategy that it encourages communities to go through to make sure that their community is working in accord with universal design and is accessible.

The Hon. Kelly Vincent has quite rightly highlighted that access is not just for people with disabilities, which reminds me that you are getting old when you start quoting your own speeches, but on 13 March 2007, I was speaking on an affordable housing bill and I made this comment:

Just as the community has grown to demand energy efficiency, I hope that one day the community will demand universal housing design. Everyone will be a winner. People with disabilities will be able to access the homes of friends and relatives; more people will be able to age in place; more people will be able to function at home during periods of illness and injury; and, of course, people with disabilities will be able to acquire suitable housing. Housing—affordable, accessible supported housing—is vital to the full participation of South Australians with a disability.

So I think these amendments are fully worthy of support. There's a lot more work to be done in understanding their implications and in that regard we, as a Liberal Party, are keen to unpack them with the private sector. I think it would be better to do the unpacking before they are adopted. My concern in that regard is supported by the fact that I do not have much confidence in the government's support of these amendments. I fear that they will be yet more hollow words. Let me explain why.

In October 2011, Monsignor Cappo's Strong Voices report called for:

…all State Government agencies, local councils, statutory authorities and State Government contractors to develop and implement an annual Access and Inclusion Plan.

And also specifically stated it must:

…prioritise universal access design principles in planning, design and contracting for the renewal of existing built environments and public space.

So here we are, four years later, and the Hon. Kelly Vincent is putting in legislation. I do not have any great confidence that the government will take any more notice of these changes in this legislation than it did in relation to Monsignor Cappo's report. After all, in response to that report, the Labor government stated:

Universal design principles will be adopted across Government, including at the Local Government level for all new projects. This will promote greater access to community facilities and public spaces for people with a disability.

As I said, I have already noted that the Hon. Kelly Vincent's amendment talks about inclusion planning. I note also that the Labor government's response to its own Monsignor Cappo's Strong Voices report stated:

…all State Government agencies and some statutory authorities will be required to produce Access and Inclusion plans to be lodged annually with the Minister's Disability Advisory Council.

In some ways I think that the government's support for these amendments is actually less than what they said in 2011. Personally, I cannot remember the last time I saw in legislation that we should give serious thought to something. In 2011 the government said it was going to prioritise universal access design principles in planning, and in 2015, 'We are going to give serious consideration to universal design principles.'

I think the people with disabilities and others who have problems accessing and inclusion in our community require a government that actually responds to their needs and is consistent in a thoroughgoing way and includes access and includes inclusion planning—but I think the government's record in this area is poor. I commend the honourable member for raising this issue before the parliament yet again but I fear this parliament would need to be dogged in its advocacy for people with disability because progress has been all too slow.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Just before I formally move the amendment—because I think I am right in saying that I got a bit carried away and I have not actually done that yet, as is my wont—I might give a little bit of feedback as to what the Hon. Mr Wade has said. First, I certainly do not think that I disagree with anything that he has said. I think that universal accessibility does have to go beyond the built environment to the kind of things that he talking about.

I am not wanting to make a cop-out by saying this but I suppose we are here debating the planning and infrastructure legislation and so the built realm is really all that I can deal with in terms of the context of this bill. Certainly I would love to see things expanding towards increased acceptance of assistance animals and the things that the Hon. Mr Wade touched on, but I suppose we can only deal with issues of planning and infrastructure because that is the bill that we are talking about.

Secondly, the Hon. Mr Wade gave an example—and I think I am correct in saying this—about the need for something like increased policies to allow assistance animals on public transport or something like that.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: Just using an example of a mix of services and physical access.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Right, as an example of a mixture of services and physical access and the kind of supports that go along with accessing the built environment, I suppose, is what Mr Wade was getting at. With respect, though, to Mr Wade, we already have that policy that allows assistance animals on buses: it is the federal Disability Discrimination Act 1992. It could always be enforced more often but, certainly, we do have policy around that.

Thirdly, with regard to his cynicism about whether the government will actually implement these measures and these amendments, I say that, to some extent, that is a cynicism and a concern we share. That is why we were disappointed to see the government not support our original set of amendments, even though, as I said, they were not even as forceful as I would have liked them to be, but I suppose every step along the path gets us a little further. I think the more measures we have in legislation and the more discussion we have in this parliament and in the community the further along we get to actually getting this understanding that results in that holistic and lasting change.

I think, though, just to put a slightly different angle on that, Dignity for Disability would like to investigate the feasibility of universal disability access audits for buildings in the public realm. In the same way that we have fire safety audits and health inspectors, why can we not have access audits? Quite frankly, even though we could go much further with universal design, if more people and more businesses and more venues in the public realm actually complied holistically and completely with existing law around accessibility, then things would not actually be half as bad as they are currently.

We could go further with universal design, but I would certainly like to see more enforcement of existing policy and, of course, increased enforcement of any policy that we implement in future, including universal design. I would certainly like the government to consider the idea of access audits and that is something I am sure we can talk about—perhaps at a reasonable hour—in more detail. With those few comments, I thank all those who indicated support for the amendments, particularly the Hon. Mr Wade for what was a very comprehensive and passionate contribution. I move:

Amendment No 1 [Vincent–2]—

Page 26, line 27—Delete 'prosperity' and substitute:

liveability and prosperity in ways that are ecologically sustainable and meet the needs and expectations, and reflect the diversity, of the State's communities

Amendment No 2 [Vincent–2]—

Page 27, line 12—After 'practices' insert:

, including by providing for policies and principles that support or promote universal design for the benefit of people with differing needs and capabilities

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. G.A. Kandelaars): Just to clarify, you do not intend to proceed with [Vincent-1].

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: No; my understanding is that we have withdrawn the original set.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I just wanted to add to the contributions supporting these amendments that the government, in the implementation of this bill, will seek to work with those who have the knowledge and expertise in universal design to help us develop the new planning and design rules.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: May I ask the minister for some further clarification as to who those people with that expertise in universal design might be, what kind of qualifications and experience they might have and whether the government will also be seeking feedback from people with a variety of disabilities, including physical and sensory, and perhaps even older people, for example?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: We are happy to have industry disability groups advise us on that as we go forward.

Amendments carried.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I have a question on clause 12. This is a relatively minor point, but I would like to make the comment, and if the minister would like to make comment in turn I would appreciate it. She may not because, as I said, it is quite a minor point.

Clause 12 talks about the objects of the act, and section 2(d) provides 'promote high standards for the built environment through an emphasis on design quality in policies, processes and practices'. I do not mean to be pedantic, but I always get a little sceptical when I see terms like 'quality', subjective terms, if you like, being used in legislation. I note that term is subjective; what is quality to me may be different to someone else and may be different to someone else again. I wonder if the minister would just make a comment on that, although I accept that she may choose not to comment because it is a minor point.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The issue around providing some guideline around what constitutes quality is elaborated in two sections. One is clause 14, that looks at the principles around what is quality design, and the other one is in clause 58, where there is a separate design quality policy that helps elaborate around that as well.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I move:

Amendment No 10 [Parnell–1]—

Page 27, after line 15—Insert:

(ea) facilitate sustainable development and the protection of the environment; and

(eb) encourage the management of the natural and built environment in an ecologically sustainable manner; and

This very simple amendment seeks to put the environment back into the objects of the act. Being a generous soul this time of night, I think the minister may have misspoken before when she suggested that the amendment went too far, and I will tell members why I think she may have misspoken. The words I am proposing to put into the objects are identical to the words in the current objects, so what the minister is saying is that the current objectives of the act, in daring to mention the environment, go too far, and putting them back into this bill is something the government will oppose.

I find that remarkable, but I need to explain the context and how this objects clause works. The starting point for me is that one of the most common criticisms of this bill in stakeholder communications from community groups and from local councils, in particular, is that there is no mention of the environment in the objects of the act. If one looks at clause 12 there is no mention of it—although that is not quite true, because we have just passed an amendment of the Hon. Kelly Vincent to put the words—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: She snuck that in. The words 'ecologically sustainable' have found their way into clause 12, and I commend the honourable member for achieving that feat. The commentary from the community sector and the conservation sector, in particular, is that the objects of this bill are all about promoting development, and there is no attempt to balance economic, social and environmental considerations.

This concept of triple bottom line has been around forever yet it is the most telling provision, in some ways, in this bill, that even the vaguest mention of the environment, that has been in the bill for 22 years—poorly enforced and poorly implemented for 22 years—is somehow now improper to put back in.

The other thing I would note is that there are two sections of this bill where, if you like, objectives are to be found. The first one is clause 12, titled 'Objects of Act'. The other one is clause 14, titled 'Principles of good planning'. The environment does get a minor guernsey in clause 14, 'Principles of good planning', but there is a clear pecking order in this bill and the pecking order is to put clause 12 ahead of clause 14. If people do not believe me and they think these clauses are of equal importance, they are not. The reason there is a pecking order is if you look at clause 13 it says:

A person or body involved in the administration of this Act must have regard to, and seek to further, the objects established by this section.

In other words, clause 13 makes furthering the objects in clause 12 mandatory. It says that persons 'must have regard to, and seek to further, the objects established by this section'. It is a mandatory provision. The environment gets a minor guernsey in the 'Principles of good planning' in clause 14 and the obligation of decision-makers in relation to clause 14 is much more muted. What it says is:

In seeking to further the objects of this Act, regard should be given to the following principles that relate to the planning system...

So, regard should be given as opposed to 'must have regard to, and seek to further, the objects'. It might seem like a minor drafting difference but, honestly, there is a pecking order. Clause 12 is more important than clause 14. The environment is relegated to clause 14. My amendment seeks to reinstate the environment, but just to make it really clear as to why this is not a radical move, the words that I have proposed in my proposed new paragraphs (ea) and (eb) are identical to the words in the current objects clause of the Development Act. The Development Act's objects section is section 3 and it uses exactly the same words:

(ii) to facilitate sustainable development and the protection of the environment; and

(iia) to encourage the management of the natural and constructed environment in an ecologically sustainable manner...

These are exactly the same words in the current act that I am seeking to incorporate in this bill. It is about as modest as I can get because, really, if we were serious we would have rewritten this objects clause in the same way that the Labor government in Queensland is proposing to rewrite their objects clause. Queensland is going through the same process. They are rewriting their planning laws; they have a planning bill, which is described. Compared to our long title, which is just a list of acts being amended really, the long title of the Queensland bill is:

A Bill for an Act to facilitate ecologically sustainable development by providing for an efficient, effective, transparent, integrated and accountable system of land use planning and development assessment.

So they have ecologically sustainable development in the title of their bill and then you go to the objects clause of the Queensland bill, clause 3:

The purpose of this act is to facilitate ecologically sustainable development that balances—

(a) the protection of ecological processes and natural systems at local, regional, State, and wider levels; and

(b) economic growth; and

(c) the maintenance of cultural, economic, physical and social wellbeing of people and communities.

The Queenslanders have got it. They recognise triple bottom line. They recognise that this bill is about economic, social and environmental considerations and they have put it upfront in the objects clause. This government has taken the environment out of the objects clause. I am astounded by the fact that the minister, who I generously suggested may have misspoken, apparently did not and apparently thinks that the current Development Act is too radical and goes too far in recognition of the environment. I think that is an appalling position for this government to take.

This is one of my top amendments, and it is one I dearly hope the committee will support, but if the committee does not support it I will certainly be dividing because I am sure that community groups out there are interested to know whether this bill is a step forward or a step backwards. Removing the environment from the objects clause is a step backwards, and they are going to want to know which members and parties thought that the environment is less important in 2015 than it was in 1993.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government rises to oppose this amendment. We certainly do agree with the Hon. Mark Parnell that this bill should be underpinned by the triple bottom line approach—social, environment and economic. We believe that it is and that the amendment of the Hon. Mark Parnell is not necessary. We believe that the current bill addresses environmental concerns.

If you look at clause 14, the long-term focus principles talk about intergenerational equity and focus on long-term trends and cumulative impacts. They also talk of the need for policies to be ecologically sound. There are also sustainability principles, which touch on issues such as resources, re-use and renewal and minimising impacts on our natural systems.

The sustainability principles also particularly single out the need to address climate change and promote energy-efficient built environments, and of course the bill itself has a major focus on urban renewal and reducing urban sprawl, practical ways that sustainability can be achieved. It is for those reasons that the government does not support this amendment but clearly does support a triple bottom line approach to planning.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I rise to indicate that the opposition will also not be supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendment, but I guess it is again one of those where the government has wanted to rush things through this week. It is a party room decision that we have made not to support it. I dare say that there will be opportunities to have a further look at a whole range of amendments as we work our way through things.

Certainly, the minister has indicated that it is the government's intention to have the triple bottom line approach. That certainly has been our approach to a whole range of policy initiatives, although I always like to think that we put 'economic' at the top of the list. It is hard to provide the social and environmental support if you do not have a strong economy to fund all that. The minister might put her triple bottom line in a different order, but certainly, from the opposition's point of view, we will not be supporting this amendment this evening.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 3

Noes 13

Majority 10

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

Clause 13 passed.

Clause 14.

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

Amendment No 11 [EmpHESkills–1]—

Page 27, lines 32 and 33—Delete 'responsive to emerging challenges, changing trends' and substitute 'able to respond to emerging challenges'

This amendment addresses the comments in the other place seeking clarification of subclause 14(a)(ii) and we have reworded the provision accordingly.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the government's amendment. As the minister indicated, it was one that needed clarification from the debate in the House of Assembly, so we are happy to support it.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Vincent–2]—

Page 28, after line 13—Insert:

(iiia) built form and the public realm should be designed to be inclusive and accessible to people with differing needs and capabilities (including through the serious consideration of universal design practices);

Given that I have spoken on these issues at length, I am happy to see this as consequential.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 15 and 16 passed.

Clause 17.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I move:

Amendment No 11 [Parnell–1]—

Page 30, lines 24 to 27—Delete subclause (6)

We are racing through. Certainly in the other place there were questions on every clause. We are far more efficient here. We are skipping over clauses that we do not need to debate. My amendment relates to clause 17, and clause 17 is one of the big ticket items in this bill. It is the establishment of the state planning commission, and the Greens support the establishment of the state planning commission. We have no problem with that.

The state planning commission was always pitched as being an independent body. In fact, the words 'independent' and 'state planning commission' usually go hand in hand, just as the government always refers to the Environment Protection Authority as the 'independent EPA'. Whether these bodies are independent in fact or in fiction depends on the legislation. This clause 17, which establishes the state planning commission, says in subclause (4):

The Commission is subject to the general control and direction of the Minister.

So the first thing to say is that it is not independent. Subclause (5) then goes on to list the areas where the minister may not give a direction. In other words, it sets out those areas where the state planning commission is at arm's length from government. On that list in subclause (5) are some obvious candidates. For example, if the commission is required to make a recommendation to the minister, then there is not much point in being under the control of the minister. The minister is not going to tell them what recommendation he or she wants the commission to make; they are independent.

Secondly, it is the same with advice for the minister; they are independent. If the commission has to give effect to an order of the court, then it is independent. But the important one is paragraph (d) of subclause (5), where it says:

…the Minister may not give a direction where—

(d) the Commission has a discretion in relation to the granting of a development authorisation.

That is an important provision, because if it was not there, you would have the minister saying to the planning commission, 'Give my mate an approval.' He would be directing the commission which developments to approve and which ones to reject. That would be outrageous; that would be corrupt, and I am glad that provision is in the bill to prevent that from happening, but it is undermined, I think, to a large extent by the next subclause, which is subclause (6). My amendment seeks to delete subclause (6). Subclause (6) says:

The Commission must, in the performance of its functions, take into account—

(a) a particular government policy; or

(b) a particular principle or matter,

specified by the Minister (subject to any relevant principle of law).

In other words, what this provision does is it directs the planning commission to take into account a particular government policy—we do not know what; or a particular principle or matter—we do not know what. We need to explore this, because my first question of the minister is: what sort of areas is the government intending to cover in these particular government policies or particular principles or matters? What type of areas does the government have in mind? What are the topics that are under consideration for these policies, principles and matters that the bill obliges the state planning commission to take into account when performing its functions? I remind members that those functions include development assessment.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: A good example is that the government has a carbon neutral policy target or ambition for our CBD, and that might be something that we might ask the commissioner to take into consideration.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the minister. That is a good example and certainly one that I would support, but it could equally be another government policy, maybe. We have talked about the conflict between cafes and restaurants, and bricks and mortar and food trucks. I mean, if the government had a policy that was supportive of a certain type of industry, is it conceivable that the government could attempt to influence the development assessment decisions made by the state planning commission by developing policies around things such as bricks and mortar cafés versus food trucks? Am I completely out of left field or is there some limit to the types of policies or matters that the government can direct the planning commission on?

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I am trying to work out what the—

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: No, it is a fair call. What are the boundaries? I mentioned food trucks; probably farmers markets might be a better one. If the government had a policy for or against farmers markets, could it basically then give that policy to the state planning commission and say, 'You people, take this into account when you're making your decisions.' In other words, when it comes to development assessment decisions, the normal process is you have planning policies that are set out. They are on the portal. Everyone can see them. They go to a parliamentary committee. There is no secrecy; there is no doubt what they are. But that is not what this bill says. The bill says that the minister can identify particular policies, principles or matters and direct the planning commission to take them into account.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Firstly, part 3, division 1, subclause (6) talks about what 'The Commission must, in the performance of its functions, take into account' and the last point states 'specified by the Minister (subject to any relevant principle of law).' So, that is certainly an overriding element. This provision only allows for the commission to take into consideration; it is not a direction. The minister cannot direct the commission, other than to consider. The commission is likely to use a range of information to make its final decision. All this is saying is one of the things that they must consider is—it could be, for instance, the policies the government has in place.

So, it allows for the minister of the day to require the commission to take into account specified government policies and/or any other relevant principles. It is clear, in how this provision is drafted, that the effect of this clause does not transgress upon the commission's independent discretionary powers. It does not bind or direct the commission to incorporate these policies in its decision, it just says the commission must put its mind to these in its considerations.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the minister for that answer. I am not satisfied because this introduces a level of uncertainty and randomness that is not in the current system, and I will explain that. At present, if you are a decision-maker who is making a decision about a development application, the act makes it very clear what you are allowed to take into account, what you are required to take into account. You are supposed to take into account planning policy set out in the development plan. Your obligation is to not make any decision seriously at variance with that policy.

There is nothing in the current Development Act which says the government may, out of left field, throw a whole bunch of policies and principles to a decision-maker and oblige them to take them into account. I agree with the minister, it does not say, 'You must follow this government policy; you have no discretion.' Sure, they have discretion, but if the government is throwing a whole bunch of government policies at them and saying, 'Take this into account. Take this into account,' it is, in fact, interfering with the way the planning system has run for the last several decades.

So, maybe to tease this out a bit more. I am saying it is unaccountable. The minister might be able to clarify this. About these two things in paragraphs (a) and (b), particular government policies or particular principles or matters, will the minister keep a list, will the list be published, will it be published on the planning portal and, an overriding question, why on earth does not the government use the existing mechanism, which is to incorporate government policy, government principles, into a state planning policy? That is using the framework of the bill—the state planning policy framework.

Why on earth do we need to have this extra provision, which looks to be completely unaccountable? To start off with accountability: will we see the list, will we be able to comment on them, will it be in the citizen charter to be able to comment on these government policies, principles or matters, or will they simply be randomly at the whim of the minister of the day?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The advice I have received is that in relation to this particular clause it really is just an expansion or clarification of clause 4: 'The commission is subject to the general control and direction of the minister'. This starts to describe the elements to that, so really that is all this section seeks to do. In terms of the details about how this might be done, I do not believe that level of detail is available yet.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I gather what the minister is saying is that the government has not yet addressed itself to this. The questions the Hon. Mr Parnell has raised are not unreasonable at least in one respect, and that is that, if this particular provision is to stay in the bill, then what is the accountability for that; that is, how does anyone in the public know what the minister has specified, what is the particular policy or principle? Surely the government must have addressed the issue that, if they are going to say that you must follow this policy or this principle, I assume it will be by way of written direction to the commission. There is no provision there for a written direction, as in some other pieces of legislation, for that to be either included in an annual report or tabled in parliament within a certain number of days, but at least in some way to be publicly available does not seem to be an unreasonable position.

Is the government's response at this stage that they have not really addressed that? Given that there will be at least another two days this week, is it an issue the government might like to reflect on? Certainly, irrespective of what happens to this particular amendment either tonight or tomorrow morning, I think it is not an unreasonable position to address.

The other issue that appertains to this is whether it is the government's intention that the State Planning Commission, which is to be a body corporate, will be a public corporation for the purposes of the Public Corporations Act.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: While we are checking the second part of the question, in relation to the accountability, typically the types of matters that the minister might want the commission to consider would be put in correspondence to the commission, and obviously the public accountability for that can be made publicly available through FOI, for instance. More importantly, no doubt the commission would include that in any report that it might write or make available, that is, they would outline those matters that the minister has asked them to include in their consideration. We are confident that there are a number of ways that these matters would be made publicly available.

What we were trying to do was avoid being overly prescriptive and bureaucratic, but I take your point, and I am happy to take those questions on notice to the minister and see if he might want to give some further thought to that or whether he has already put more detailed thinking to this particular matter. I am happy to take that on notice.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Public corporation?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that it will not be a public corporation. Typically, public corporations apply when significant assets are held, and it is unlikely that that is applicable to the commission. It has an advisory capacity and needs corporation status to fulfil its functions—to sue and be sued, for instance, and to enter into contracts—but it is unlikely they would be holding significant assets.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have quite a large number of questions I would like to ask. Time will not permit this evening to cover them all in relation to the planning commission itself but, certainly in relation to the Hon. Mark Parnell's proposed amendment, there is one particular government policy that I think the Hon. Mark Parnell was quite in love with, so he probably did not want to use it as an example.

We saw the ministerial DPA for wind farms, where it was clearly government policy to make sure that wind farm developments were to be given a fast track or a green light for a period. The current interim positions for a DPA were used in a strange way. It is probably not the right time now to talk about, with the new proposals, what form the interim DPAs, as we know them now, will take under this new bill. Nonetheless, if you have a government policy that we are going to have and, for the current terms, I will use a ministerial DPA, to, if you like, set in stone a set of rules around wind farms, how would the planning commission address that in relation to the amendment the Hon. Mr Parnell is moving?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that, in relation to interim DPAs or interim control issues, they are dealt with in clause 74, so we can deal with that in detail then. In terms of this clause, really all it does is say that we can ask the commission to be aware and to consider, for instance, our wind farm policy and to take that into consideration before giving advice, so that is all this clause is doing.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: A further question. It is probably a bit awkward because I do not want to explore the interim DPA issue tonight. It is too late to go to the interim DPAs. I am still a bit confused that, if it is a government policy that we are going to have 20 per cent or 40 per cent of our electricity from a renewable source and we are going to have an interim DPA to make sure those developments are not hindered by the current planning laws, I would assume, 'The commission must in its performance and functions take into account particular government policy' would mean the commission would be obliged to adhere to the policy of the government of the day, in this case in relation to wind farms.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Again, this provision does not require the commission to adhere to government policies and principles. What it requires them to do is consider those policies and principles in their decision, or in the advice that they are giving. The commission will no doubt consider a wide range of information from different sources. All this is doing is making sure that the commission is connected, the decisions and advice are connected, to government policies and principles, and it directs the commission to consider those particular matters in its advice. The commission could consider it and dismiss it, for a range of reasons, given other information and advice. It is not requiring them to adhere: it is requiring them to consider, to put their mind to it.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: It is interesting that it says, and I will read it, 'The commission must in the performance of its functions take into account.' The minister is interpreting the 'take into account' as, 'We can have a look at it but we are not going to bother with it.' They take it into account, or they are not obliged to consider it is what you are saying, but where is the level of discretion for the commission to make that judgement to say, 'We are going to take it into account but then reject it,' if it is government policy?

I will hark back to the wind farm policy. That was clearly a policy designed to facilitate the development, or approvals, of wind farms. None of them have been built, I might add: they did not get development approval in that time frame. I am confused. If they must do it, where is the level of discretion for them to reject it?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I do not think I can elaborate much further. I cannot give an example. We cannot come up with an example this evening but we will put our mind to it overnight. I can only reiterate what I have already said.

It is similar with a wide range of other advisory bodies. There are different rules around various committees and boards, and what have you, but the advice I have received is that this is not requiring them to adhere to: it is requiring the commission to consider, and to consider along with, no doubt, a wide range of other advice and considerations, and for them to then provide the advice that they are able to support after considering all that advice. I can only reiterate what I have already said.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Given that the time is some 15 seconds to 11pm and it was the view of the crossbenchers and the opposition that we would sit from 10.15am to 11pm, I move:

That progress be reported.

Ayes 11

Noes 4

Majority 7

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

Motion thus carried.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

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