HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-11-13 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Statutes Amendment (Planning, Infrastructure and Other Matters) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:21): I rise to speak very briefly on the Statutes Amendment (Planning, Infrastructure and Other Matters) Bill. As other members have canvassed in their second reading remarks, this is a broad bill that contains a number of provisions that I think will broadly improve the planning system in our state.

One of the issues I have raised regularly with the minister, over some time now, is the need for increased protection of our heritage demolition controls. In particular, I have been concerned about the status of local heritage buildings and the risk that can flow for demolition and the absence of third-party appeal rights and the like.

I have certainly raised these issues with the minister, and I am pleased to advise that, as a result of consultation with the government, the minister has agreed to investigate tightening the heritage demolition controls and to put the outcome of that investigation into the Housing Roadmap, part 2, should the government be re-elected. I think that is a positive step in the right direction and certainly something that we in the Greens have been calling for for some time, so I thank the minister for engaging constructively with me around that, and I of course acknowledge the work of his office.

I am supportive of the bill in principle and will support the bill's passage today. I understand a number of amendments have been filed by the Hon. Connie Bonaros. I am open-minded to those amendments. The only thing I will say is that I am cautious: I do not want us to continue to give cave-ins and carve outs to developers. I think they get a pretty good deal from the Malinauskas government as it is, so I will certainly be looking carefully to make sure that what we are seeing is not a capitulation to those vested interest groups that I think already get a very good deal from the government.

I will take this opportunity, in the interest of time, to indicate that I will not be supporting any of the Liberal Party amendments.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (15:25): I rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Planning, Infrastructure and Other Matters) Bill 2025, a bill that introduces measures to speed up housing delivery and simplify development processes. In 2024, the Malinauskas Labor government released the South Australian Housing Roadmap to tackle the housing crisis with clear and practical actions. We continue to deliver on those commitments through major land releases in Concordia and Onkaparinga Heights. The Concordia Code Amendment alone has rezoned land for 10,000 new homes and ensured infrastructure is delivered up-front.

We are addressing housing affordability through first-home buyer programs and major funding to SA Water to support new developments. The housing crisis affects us all, and this bill delivers efficiencies to bring homes to the market faster. It enables the use of technology and artificial intelligence to make planning decisions. AI technology is now being trialled through the SA planning portal, one of the first of its kind globally.

The bill makes sensible updates across several acts, including the Architectural Practice Act, the Law of Property Act, the Real Property Act and the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act. These changes will streamline processes, reduce red tape and modernise outdated systems.

Amendments in this bill that save significant processing time include extending the Government Architect's tenure on the Architectural Practice Board, expanding the rent-to-buy scheme following a successful pilot and allowing electronic signatures for deeds under the Law of Property Act. The Real Property Act will also be updated to enable fully electronic land divisions, further reducing delays. To ensure transparency, landowners must now consent before an application is lodged over their property.

The bill also streamlines the State Planning Commission's functions so it can focus on statewide initiatives. The Minister for Planning will still be able to seek the commission's advice when needed. Further amendments will simplify the process for changing the Planning and Design Code, allowing the minister to initiate code amendments when appropriate, reducing bottlenecks and turnaround times.

The bill clarifies that land division clearance can proceed once agreements with SA Water are in place, rather than waiting for connections to be completed. It introduces a requirement for local governments to prepare local area plans aligned with regional plans, strengthening coordination between state and local planning. Other improvements include allowing infrastructure schemes to transition efficiently between stages and updating language to align with federal laws. Importantly, the bill also recognises First Nations people in the objectives of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act.

The Labor Malinauskas government remains focused on affordability, supply and cutting unnecessary delays. Every week saved brings us closer to getting more South Australians into homes, which is something we all want to see happen. On behalf of the government, I want to thank the State Planning Commission, Mr David Reynolds, and Marc Voortman and his team at the Department for Housing and Urban Development for their work in shaping this important legislation.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister for Autism) (15:29): I thank honourable members for their feedback today on this important bill that is before us, including the Hon. Michelle Lensink, the Hon. Jing Lee, the Hon. Connie Bonaros, the Hon. Rob Simms and the Hon. Tung Ngo. I thank them for their contributions towards a bill that is seeking to provide more efficiencies and release more housing for people during what we all in this chamber know to be a housing crisis.

We know that just this week South Australia was seen as the place to be doing business when it comes to the planning system, after it was voted number one in the country by the Business Council of Australia. The bill before us today enables us to continue to build on creating a more efficient and reliable and certain housing community. I look forward to working through this in the committee stage with the members today.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 14 passed.

Clause 15.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 7, line 2 [clause 15(1)]—Delete subclause (1)

This amendment will ensure that the minister can only initiate amendments to designated instruments after first having sought the advice of the State Planning Commission. Members might recall that during the second reading we were talking about winding back some of those requirements as a streamlining exercise, but as I stated during that contribution this is a fine balancing act between streamlining on the one hand and appropriate oversight on the other.

The Planning Commission plays a critical role in the planning system through the provision of expert and independent advice to the minister on designated instruments, such as amendments to the Planning and Design Code and the preparation of infrastructure schemes. The commission plays an important role in the planning system. It is fundamental to the current operation of the system. It is made up of experts who, in effect, know what they are doing. It is also important that we have this level of independence from the minister, if you like, insofar as it relates to good decision-making and probity in the planning system for not all power to be held, effectively, by the minister and what comes with that.

I do note that there were key recommendations from the final report handed down by the Expert Panel on Planning Reform chaired by Brian Hayes KC in 2014. I guess the amendment tries to strike an appropriate balance between that oversight and streamlining, because we are in a housing crisis and any unnecessary red tape that prevents people getting into much-needed housing should be reduced as far as possible.

It is for this reason that the amendments, which have been the subject of consultation with industry as well, allow by regulation for the advice of the commission not to be sought in prescribed circumstances. If the government seeks to make regulations, they will of course be reviewed by this place, so we can monitor the government's intention and ensure this regulation power is used responsibly.

This is really a balance between that oversight and streamlining measures. I note that there are actually two amendments here that go hand in hand. In terms of speaking to them, I am speaking to amendments Nos 1 and 2. With your guidance, Chair, I will not repeat everything I have said, but it is important to understand that both of these amendments are intended to be moved as a package.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am happy to provide the government's support for these two amendments that have just been moved in the Hon. Connie Bonaros' name. I think the honourable member has outlined in detail the government's reasoning for, firstly, removing but also now supporting the Hon. Connie Bonaros' amendment of putting designated instruments in place where they would have to seek advice from the State Planning Commission.

The CHAIR: Do you want to move amendment No. 2 as well?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 7, after line 2 [clause 15, after subclause (1)]—Insert:

(1a) Section 73—after subsection (3) insert:

(3a) Despite subsection (2)(b), the advice of the Commission is not required for an approval of the Minister under subsection (2)(b) relating to an amendment to a designated instrument in circumstances prescribed by the regulations.

The CHAIR: I will put them both at the same time.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 16 to 23 passed.

Clause 24.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Lensink–1]—

Page 8, line 30 to page 9, line 7 [clause 24(3)]—Delete subclause (3) and substitute:

(3) Section 102(1)(c)—after subparagraph (iii) insert:

(iiia) requirements applying under section 198;

As I think I indicated in my second reading speech, we have had some amendments drafted. We have been listening as we go in terms of this debate. As I said, I think the Hon. Connie Bonaros has had some fairly detailed discussions with a range of stakeholders and with the government and has achieved some level of compromise. I might treat the first amendment to this clause as a bit of a test amendment, if you like. I am deeply disappointed that the Hon. Rob Simms has indicated he will not be supporting any of our amendments.

There are concerns, particularly from the Urban Development Institute, in relation to some of the management of infrastructure, particularly water infrastructure, and so this is the first issue, including how that is managed and paid for and the like. I think we are all well aware of the debates in the public domain about who pays for the infrastructure. Various parties will say various things, but I think it is fair to say that some in the development sector are concerned that the government is going to hold all the cards in its hand in relation to these and have quite significant control over the process going forward, and that is not something they welcome. So this is a test amendment in relation to that particular matter. I am happy to respond to any questions on it.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: The government is unable to support this particular amendment. I appreciate the member has put forward a number of amendments today. I am happy to work through them as the committee stage progresses, but this particular one we cannot support given the importance of ensuring appropriate water infrastructure is in place. We are all very well aware of the impact that occurs when we do not have appropriate water infrastructure in place. It not only slows down any chance of housing supply but it puts a lot of different communities at risk as well. So we see this as an important requirement to have in the bill and it is also supported by SA Water.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 6

Noes 11

Majority 5

AYES

Centofanti, N.J. Girolamo, H.M. Hood, B.R.
Hood, D.G.E. Lensink, J.M.A. (teller) Pangallo, F.

NOES

Bonaros, C. Bourke, E.S. (teller) Franks, T.A.
Hanson, J.E. Hunter, I.K. Lee, J.S.
Maher, K.J. Ngo, T.T. Scriven, C.M.
Simms, R.A. Wortley, R.P.

PAIRS

Henderson, L.A. El Dannawi, M.
Game, S.L. Martin, R.B.

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 25 to 38 passed.

Clause 39.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Bonaros–2]—

Page 15, lines 12 and 13 [clause 39, inserted paragraph (e)]—Delete inserted paragraph (e) and substitute:

(e) land intended to be used for the provision of infrastructure within the ambit of paragraph (i) or (j) of the definition of essential infrastructure under section 3(1).

The amendment will prescribe additional state-level infrastructure as primary infrastructure in the act and remove the ability for this to be done by regulation. Again, this is one of those concerns that was raised by stakeholders and, in short, was asked for to provide certainty to industry in relation to the scope of primary infrastructure not continuing to grow. It deletes the current inserted paragraph (e) and substitutes that with a new paragraph, which reads:

(e) land intended to be used for the provision of infrastructure within the ambit of paragraph (i) or (j) of the definition of essential infrastructure under section 3(1).

The act allows an infrastructure scheme to be established in relation to the provision of primary infrastructure. Currently, that is defined as including basic infrastructure, open space and local community facilities. It does not include land for state-level infrastructure such as hospitals, emergency facilities or schools, and that means that deeds still need to be negotiated alongside an infrastructure scheme to ensure land is reserved for this infrastructure. To overcome this, the bill proposes to allow further essential infrastructure to be prescribed by regulation as primary infrastructure, and the amendment prescribes that state-level infrastructure within the act itself, rather than leaving that to regulation. Again, in short, it is an amendment aimed at providing the certainty that is being asked for by industry.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: The government will be supporting this. Again, as the honourable member has outlined, this is really about putting a safeguard in and putting it not just in regulation but within the act.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 40.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Bonaros–3]—

Page 15, after line 14 [clause 40, before subclause (1)]—Insert:

(a1) Section 163(1)—after 'Minister' insert:

or a person or body interested in the provision or delivery of basic infrastructure (a proponent)

It is, in effect, a set of amendments that all deal with the same issue. I will give an overview, and then deal with each one accordingly. Effectively, the first amendment deals with infrastructure schemes that are approved by the minister. Currently, we only allow the minister to initiate a basic infrastructure scheme. I think the government has acknowledged in the discussions that there can be a significant amount of work that goes into initiating those schemes, including a number of investigations in the suitability of the land for development and the nature or type of infrastructure that is required. One of the asks that has been made is to allow persons interested in the delivery of infrastructure to actually be able to initiate their own basic infrastructure scheme for consideration and approval by the minister.

If I can just speak to this set more generally, there are a number of changes to the infrastructure scheme mechanism throughout this bill. My understanding is that the government is yet to finalise an infrastructure scheme, the statutory tool that allows for the delivery of charging of infrastructure in a growth area, a new community. Because we are still, effectively in some respects, going through the learning stages of how to implement the process, caution does need to be applied to any wholesale changes to this process, which is yet to be fully rolled out and tested anywhere.

The feedback effectively in relation to these is that the amendments that canvass the issue of infrastructure schemes would ensure that new land is properly serviced, but in a transparent manner, and this certainly includes those developing and paying for the land which, as we know, can end up costing a lot of money—money which ultimately can be passed on to the purchaser of the new home. With median house prices now pushing the $900,000 mark in South Australia, I think it is only appropriate that these processes are managed with fiscal and procedural care.

There are a number of other amendments which I will outline now, but get to individually. In relation to those additional costs to the developer, including the government's cost to prepare and administer the scheme, certainly some concerns have been raised around those which have also been addressed. I think in principle it is fair to say that we accept that there have to be those fees payable up-front, including administering costs to government and the studies required to support development of land for housing. It also ensures striking a fair balance where the developer pays their fair share of costs but they understand the costs and what the funding will cover at the start of the process.

This package of amendments that we are going to work through effectively deals with those factors. I will break them down individually, but I think that is a very simplistic overview and, for the benefit of members, it is one of those examples of where we have tried to find a middle ground between what the government has originally proposed and what the concerns were on the part of industry and stakeholders, bearing in mind again that we are not always talking about the big end of town when it comes to these developers, we are dealing with all ends of town, and so these things need to be measured in the way that they are applied. It is effectively this set of amendments, which I will speak to individually, that seeks to canvass those particular issues.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: For the ease of the chamber, we will be supporting all of the amendments being put forward by the Hon. Connie Bonaros, and thank her for the work that she has put into this particular bill. I know she has worked with stakeholders and has put in a considerable amount of time and worked with the minister's office as well, which I would also like to thank at this time for the incredible work they have done.

I know the member herself has had a lot of focus on having greater oversight, which has been able to be woven throughout the bill, but also transparency as well. I know it has been your endeavour to achieve this through your amendments and that is why we have been able to support them.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move amendment No. 3 [Bonaros-1] in amended form, along with other amendments:

Amendment No 3 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 15, lines 18 to 20 [clause 40(2) and (3)]—Delete subclauses (2) and (3) and insert new subclause (2) as follows:

(2) Section 163(3)—after 'proposal' insert 'by the Minister'

Amendment No 3 [Bonaros–3]—

Page 15, after line 20 [clause 40, after subclause (3)]—Insert:

(3a) Section 163(6)—after 'The Minister' insert 'or a proponent'

Amendment No 4 [Bonaros–3]—

Page 15, after line 26 [clause 40, after subclause (7)]—Insert:

(7a) Section 163(6)(h)—after 'as' insert 'the proponent thinks fit, or'

Amendment No 2 [Bonaros–2]—

Page 15, after line 26 [clause 40, after subclause (7)]—Insert:

(7a) Section 163(6)—after paragraph (g) insert:

(ga) provides information regarding the operation and administration of the scheme and the associated costs (to the extent such information is known); and

(gb) identifies further studies or assessments (if any) required to finalise the scheme for adoption; and

Amendment No 4 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 15, line 27 [clause 40(8)]—Delete subclause (8)

Amendment No 5 [Bonaros–3]—

Page 15, after line 27 [clause 40, after subclause (8)]—Insert:

(8a) Section 163(7)—after 'Minister' insert 'or proponent'

(8b) Section 163(9)—after 'Minister' insert:

or proponent (in so far as it is reasonably practicable for the proponent to do so)

(8c) Section 163(9)(b)—after 'Minister' insert 'or proponent'

(8d) Section 163(10)—after 'Minister' wherever occurring insert 'or proponent'

Amendment No 3 [Bonaros–2]—

Page 15, after line 27 [clause 40, after subclause (8)]—Insert:

(8a) Section 163(9)—after paragraph (b) insert:

and

(c) whether the Minister proposes to terminate an agreement or deed under section 167 in connection with the adoption of the scheme.

Amendment No 6 [Bonaros–3]—

Page 15, after line 28 [clause 40, after subclause (9)]—Insert:

(9a) Section 163—after subsection (10) insert:

(10a) A draft outline prepared by a proponent must be submitted to the Minister for approval, together with—

(a) a report to the Minister setting out the outcome of the consultation required under subsection (10); and

(b) any other information required by the Minister.

Amendment No 7 [Bonaros–3]—

Page 15, line 30 [clause 40(10), inserted subsection (11)]—Delete 'will then cause the draft outline' and substitute 'must cause a draft outline prepared or approved by the Minister'

Amendment No 5 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 15, line 33 [clause 40(11)]—Delete subclause (11)

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 41 and 42 passed.

Clause 43.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Bonaros–2]—

Page 16, after line 27 [clause 43, before subclause (1)]—Insert:

(a1) Section 166(1)(c)—after 'with' insert:

subsection (1a) and

(a2) Section 166—after subsection (1) insert:

(1a) A scheme coordinator must, in undertaking consultation under subsection (1)(c) on a proposed scheme, identify whether the Minister proposes to terminate an agreement or deed under section 167 in connection with the adoption of the scheme.

The amendment effectively provides greater transparency and procedural fairness to landowners when the scheme is actually being prepared and finalised for consideration and adoption by the minister. It alters the current act to ensure that the scheme coordinator actually identifies whether the minister proposes to terminate an agreement or deed on adoption of a scheme when the scheme is subject to consultation in line with the community engagement charter under the act.

Again, following consultation in line with that charter, the scheme coordinator has to prepare a report for the minister on the outcomes of that consultation. The amendment simply ensures a greater level of transparency and procedural fairness to landowners when the scheme is being prepared and finalised for consideration and potential adoption by the minister.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: The government will be supporting this amendment, in line with the reasoning for the other amendments. It has a focus on procedural fairness and has a focus on supporting landowners as well.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 44 to 47 passed.

Clause 48.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

Amendment No 16 [Lensink–1]—

Page 20, lines 30 and 31 [clause 48(1), inserted subsection (2)(d)(i)]—Delete '(not exceeding 12.5% of the area of the land to be divided)'

I think this would be very welcome across the community. It removes the upper limit on the 12.5 per cent of land area open space contribution, which will provide more flexibility for larger land areas for public use where justified. It is likely to align with policy on green space in high-growth areas. This is Liberals sticking up for the environment once again.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am happy to say that the government will support this amendment. I thank the honourable member again for the work that was put into this.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I will be supporting this amendment as well. I thank the honourable member for bringing this to this place.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Remaining clauses (49 to 85) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister for Autism) (16:07): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed

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