Development (System Improvement Bill) in Committee

Extract from Hansard

Legislative Council
28 November 2000

Mike Elliott
Leader Australian Democrats
Member of the Legislative Council

Parliament Index
2000 Spring Sitting Index
Browse by Subject
Search all Democrats material
About the SA Parliament
Hansard on line

2A. Section 3 of the principal Act is amended by inserting in paragraph (a) `and to encourage the management of the natural and constructed environment in an ecologically sustainable manner' after `planning and development'.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that development is about a whole range of matters: it is about trying to maximise an economic benefit for the community; it is about trying to address issues of comfort of individuals, which is why we do not want factories making lots of noise directly adjoining residences; and it is about ensuring that, as development occurs, it occurs in an ecologically sustainable manner. I am seeking to ensure that, in all aspects of this act, not just in relation to the development plans themselves, consideration is given to issues surrounding the need for management of the natural and constructed environment in an ecologically sustainable manner.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I have had discussions with the minister about the appropriate location within the objects of the act for this concept of ecologically sustainable development. My concern is that, on a reading of the Development Act, one finds that development plans are just a component of the act and that many decisions are made and many actions happen under the Development Act outside the actual development plans themselves. In fact, major projects, for example, effectively go out of the standard planning procedures under development plans.

To refer to ecologically sustainable development, which the minister now acknowledges is appropriate in the act, only so far as it relates to the development plan itself is a failure to recognise that the act is about a lot more. For that reason, I believe that it should be incorporated within section 3(a) rather than, as the minister proposes, in a new section 3(c)(iia), which relates just to development plans.

The Hon. Mr Elliott's amendment negatived; the Hon. Ms Laidlaw's amendment carried; new clause inserted.

This part of the subclause gives the minister a new power to prepare an amendment to a development plan. I am quite happy in regard to issues surrounding a major development, but I do not think that a case has been made for this additional power and, unfortunately, as ministerial powers to prepare amendments to development plans proliferate throughout this act, it actually guts the original intention of the act.

These clauses are sometimes put in with the best of intent and end up being used for other reasons. The one that sticks in my mind most clearly is from some years ago, when a new PAR was done for the Craigburn Farm area. It is a classic case. The minister's power then related to a development plan that could be declared by the minister if it covered more than one council area. The reason for that originally was to try to get some continuity and consistency in planning in contiguous areas.

As I recall, the area that the PAR applied to in fact was about 95 per cent in Mitcham council and 5 per cent in the then Happy Valley council, and the area that was of interest at that stage was solely within Mitcham, so something that was put there for good reason became a device to walk straight around the intentions of the Planning Act in terms of local involvement, etc. The fact that interim effect was used at the same time was a second abuse of ministerial discretion.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: No, I did not say that it was a major development. What I said was that it was a case where a minister had been given a particular discretion in relation to preparing development plans, away from the normal process of coming up through councils and, having been given that power for what I think was a good reason, used it for one that I do not think most people in the community would have supported.

As I said, there simply has not been a case made for what I see as likely to be this additional loophole, particularly when it attaches to major developments that are already causing some significant concern in the community, and for good reason.

(1a) However, a declaration cannot be made under subsection (1) in relation to an amendment-

(a) that would change the category of a form of development from category 3 to category 2 or category 1, or from category 2 to category 1; or

(b) that would otherwise have the effect of increasing the likelihood of development being approved under the development plan as amended (when compared to the development plan without the amendment).;

I raised this issue during the second reading debate. On three occasions, the Environment, Resources and Development Committee has written to a number of ministers expressing concern about the use of interim effect. There is no question that interim effect was always intended to be used for a particular purpose: that is, that, where the government-or, for that matter, a council-wants a change to a development plan which will lead to something not being allowed which currently is allowed, without interim effect, the moment one puts the draft amendment out for public display the smart people will quickly rush in and get an application to do what the amendment plans to stop.

A couple of years ago, we had a PAR with interim effect applied to the Mount Lofty Ranges. There was wholehearted support by the community in relation to that interim effect. However, it is possible that interim effect is not used for that purpose and that what happens is that, instead of the interim effect stopping something which otherwise would have been allowed, it actually enables something which previously was not allowed. Then, as it travels through the normal public consultation process, applications can come in.

The whole idea of having a planning process in place and the right of the public to express their opinion is that there may be a further change to a draft PAR. It would be quite pointless at this stage to change the draft PAR and amend it further because the applications have, if you like, snuck through a loophole that has been created by the interim effect. I can think of at least one example where an interim effect actually led to something happening which was probably regretted later, but by then it was too late.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: No. More recently, in the hills face zone. Although the minister sought to tighten things up, as it turned out-and it was not the minister's intention-the PAR that came in with the interim effect enabled something which, after the court interpretation came through, would not have been possible. I am referring to the vineyard on Brown Hill. That is what ended up happening. If an amendment such as this had been in place, after the court ruling it would have been found that the initial PAR was stricter than the later one. Regarding an application which was using interim effect, if the minister chose later to change that plan in response to further public comment it would not have been able to sneak through that loophole period as it has now been able to do. We still do not know what other court challenges might arise from that. I do not say that by way of criticism because, in this case, I think the minister was trying to tighten things up. However, as it turned out, the interim effect actually enabled something which otherwise would not have been possible.

As I said, interim effect was always about trying to make sure that somebody does not rush something through in that loophole period while consideration is being given to the plan. What my amendment seeks to do (and the reason I had it re-worded) is to try to make it quite plain that something that could not happen under the previous plan, while there might have been an application-and I have no problem with that while the interim effect is there-would not stand later, and that somebody cannot use that loophole period to get something up that later would not be possible.

As I said, it has been the clear view of a number of ERD committees that that interim effect had a particular purpose. Anyone who read the debates when it first came in will know why it was put in. My amendment just tries to put that beyond any doubt.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I think the minister needs to reflect on the sorts of cases where she has used interim effect. It seems to me that interim effect has normally been used for a very clear purpose. We are not talking about an ordinary PAR. The minister would acknowledge that, when we brought in the PAR in relation to the hills face zone, she had a very clear purpose, which was to try to stop something from happening. There is no question about that, and I do not think anyone can go to court and argue that that was a shade of grey matter.

It was very clearly spelling out that, for instance, olive groves were not to be allowed: there was no shade of grey about that. Similarly, the Mount Lofty Ranges development plan to which I referred and which came in probably about eight or nine years ago- I am trying to remember-was very clear in its intent, and I do not think anyone can go to court and argue about that. I admit that there are some areas in development plans that might get into the grey areas, but I put to the minister that, when you set about stopping something-and that is what you are doing with interim effect-you are very clear about that and your development plan is written for that specific purpose. To suggest that you will find yourself in court on legal challenges in relation to that I do not think is the real world. Can the minister think of any development plan during her time to which she has given interim effect and where there would have been these shades of grey, because I do not believe they will be there?

I put to the minister that, when you are using interim effect, it is for a very clearly defined purpose. The minister said that this could mess things up in some way in relation to heritage buildings, but I must say that I did not follow that, and I would appreciate a clear, specific example of how she feels we could have a development plan which, without interim effect, would end up being deleterious to heritage.

I believe that it is more likely that one would bring in a development plan which says, `You shall not do certain things in relation to heritage buildings', which is an interim effect thing and, clearly, it seeks to prevent certain types of development. I cannot think of an example in relation to heritage where it would work in a negative sense.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: It is pretty disappointing when one meets with a minister, listens to the point of view, and acknowledges that perhaps the wording could have been better-with the best of intentions-and then gets accused of producing a bit of fluff.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: No, she just suggested that the change in the words was a bit of fluff. The minister is quite aware that she persuaded me not to proceed with a number of amendments because I was convinced by her argument. I actually thought-this is the only time I will do this in debate this year unless she aggravates me again-that her arguments about heritage were a giant piece of fluff, the sort of thing that would give more cats than are on this planet fur balls for life. There was no substance in this vague mention of heritage and no real construction to the argument to give a real-world example of a plan where interim effect has been necessary that would have been messed up by what I had done. At least I set about giving examples of where I thought things had gone astray in the past because of interim effect, seeking to fix that.

It is no good having this very reasonable minister at the moment who does not abuse interim effect. We just do not know when we will next get an unreasonable minister who will use it for reasons that this parliament never intended. That is the point I am trying to make. The parliament, when it passed the legislation, had a very clear intention in relation to interim effect. The minister acknowledges that and says, `As long I am minister, I will not misuse it.' I am seeking to try to guarantee that the legitimate uses of interim effect are allowed to continue but that some future minister will not be in a position to abuse it. It makes a farce of the whole PAR system if a minister comes in with a ministerial PAR in particular-and that is where they become the biggest danger-right out of left-field. If a minister puts in a ministerial PAR and puts in interim effect, the whole planning process becomes a farce. That is possible. It is an abuse that is sitting in the legislation waiting to happen.

I do not know how many times I have been in debates in this place over the years with a whole lot of ministers, particularly the current Attorney-General, who were always trying to close loopholes in legislation, trying to make sure the legislation did precisely what was intended and nothing else. This is what I am trying to do with this amendment. The minister is critical of the amendment, seems to acknowledge that there is a problem and certainly says that she would never-

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: The minister would have to acknowledge that it is capable of being abused. The present minister will not do such a thing, but it is possible; the law has a giant loophole waiting to be abused by a less reasonable person than herself. It is there, waiting to be used. I do not believe it is beyond the wit of humanity to come up with a form of words that ensures the interim effect does precisely what it intends and does not have potential abuse sitting and waiting. My amendments seek to address that. I listened to the minister's concerns when I met with her previously, took them on board and tried to change it to a better form of words. I was not offered an alternative but instead told, `I am a reasonable person; there is nothing to worry about; and we do not need an amendment.'

(5a) Notice of the appointment of a member of a regional development assessment panel must be given in accordance with the regulations.

Recognising that there appears to be broad support for this clause, I will not argue for it further.

(6) Sections 73, 74 and 90 of the Local Government Act 1999 extend to regional development assessment panels as if-

(b) a member of a regional development assessment panel were a member of a council.

(7) Non-compliance with section 74 of the Local Government Act 1999 (as applied by subsection (6) of this section) will constitute a ground for removing a member from the relevant regional development assessment panel.

The effect of this amendment is to ensure that regional assessment panels are open to the public in exactly the same way as we have expectations about council meetings themselves. The point has been made that this relates to planning matters, and the government is trying to argue that, because it is a planning matter, it wants the issue to go behind closed doors. The only people supporting the government's position- and they are not insignificant in this issue-are some local councils. I have been approached by several councils who support the approach that I am putting forward, that regional assessment panels should meet in public.

It comes down to whether or not there is an expectation that regional assessment panels are to be accountable and how one keeps them to account. In my view, if the debate behind a decision and if the votes are not put on the table, I cannot see how we will ever get accountability. It should be noted that a very large amount of planning decision making is already done by delegated authority, but the overwhelming bulk of that delegated authority work relates to fences or carports, matters that are not of major development significance. The sorts of matters that will go before regional development assessment panels will be matters of great significance, and to suggest that the decision making in relation to those developments should be undertaken behind closed doors I do not find acceptable, and I do not believe that the overwhelming majority of the community will either.

If the matter related to a complying development, there would be no issue but, in many cases where a significant development went off to an assessment panel, it would probably relate to a non-complying development. Some people are suggesting that they do not want politics to be involved in decisions but, with a non- complying development, in the first instance there should not be an expectation that it will automatically get up, so surely what the community thinks is relevant. If the fact that the community is aware of why the decision makers are doing what they are doing and how they are voting creates pressure, so be it. We in this place have to live with that all the time. How we vote on any individual bill or clause is on the record.

The debate involved in making the decision is also on the record. Some people simply cannot bear the heat. They do not like the idea that, currently, in council while they are sitting in the chamber making these decisions, members of the public are sitting behind listening to them debating it. They say that it puts unreasonable pressure on them. In relation to non-complying developments, I argue that that is not an unreasonable pressure. If you do not want that sort of pressure on you, then get out of politics, because that is what politics is all about: being lobbied from all sides and having to make up your mind on the merits of the case, and having the intestinal fortitude to stand by your beliefs, having taken into account what the community believes.

As I said, while the LGA (as a body representing all local government) is opposed to an amendment such as this, a number of councils have expressed a contrary view, and I know that at least one member of the opposition who has had recent local government experience opposes the LGA's view. The Local Government Association has said that, whilst it would prefer that this amendment not get up, if it did, rather than referring to the Local Government Act, it would like the clauses contained in the Local Government Act to be imported.

I have not given instructions to Parliamentary Counsel to do that at this stage, although I discussed it during the early drafting. I do not have any problems in doing that, but I was not going to put Parliamentary Counsel through a huge amount of work, knowing that it could suffer the same fate as many of the other amendments I am moving here tonight. However, if there is acceptance of that, I have no problems at all with the words currently contained in the Local Government Act being incorporated into this act, rather than referring back to that act.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: If the minister read section 90 of the Local Government Act, she would see that it entertains that there can be-

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: My amendment refers to section 90 of the Local Government Act and draws that across. It allows meetings to be closed under certain circumstances. Some of those are covered in the beginning of the minister's amendments. Paragraph (a) of the ministers amendment is not a problem, but in my view paragraph (b) is because it enables. I feel confident that some of these committees will be closed all the time and that, as a matter of practice, they will conduct all their proceedings ( apart from submissions) behind closed doors.

I refer the minister to subsection (8) of section 90 which notes that informal meetings can still be held. I do not have a problem with that. It provides that informal meetings can be held provided that a matter which would ordinarily form part of the agenda for a formal meeting of a council or council committee is not dealt with in such a way as to obtain or effectively obtain a decision. This provision does not prevent these committees from having some discussions, but what it does is provide that, in a public forum, they must have a substantive discussion and that substantive decisions have to be made in public.

It was never my intention that the committee under any circumstances could not meet behind closed doors. However, the minister's subclause (b) gives them carte blanche to disappear behind closed doors whenever they are not taking evidence. If the minister looks at section 90 of the Local Government Act she will see that it clearly entertains the possibility of discussions taking place either for reasons of commercial confidentiality or for more general discussion.

I am disappointed that the minister should entertain the prospect that transparency could be lost. The minister is quite right in saying that I have often and repeatedly stood up for the rights of local government. However, when they put up resistance to freedom of information, I support freedom of information going into local government because the issue of transparency is really important in the democratic process. It is a very important issue. I do not want us to lose transparency in the planning process.

We will have decisions and debate about non-complying developments behind closed doors not only by elected members of local government but also by non-elected members-people who have been appointed by the minister. We are heading towards arbitrary decision making because, if you do not know what the arguments are and who is voting what way, you could end up with two people with essentially the same submission-one getting up and one not getting up. You are setting up the possibility for corruption in this way because there is no real accountability for the decision making process.

The only thing you know at the end of the day is what submissions came in and what the decision was, and everything in between disappears. I am surprised and disappointed that the Labor Party seems to be acknowledging that there is a bit of a point here but, at the end of the day, accepts what the government is saying which is, `Let these committees go into camera any time they want, including the substantive debate and the vote.' That just makes for arbitrary decision making.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: And bureaucratic red tape. But it will happen and in fact the committees will comprise bureaucrats-unaccountable bureaucrats because you will not even know why they have done what they have done. So, I am disappointed. I am not sure that the minister is sufficiently familiar with section 90 of the Local Government Act. As I have seen her as a relatively liberal Liberal, I am surprised that she is prepared to tolerate a lack of transparency in local government.

It is no good arguing, `If they get their development plan right we've got nothing to worry about.' I would agree that many things have gone wrong because development plans have not been well thought through but, at the end of the day, there will still be non-complying developments which ultimately, on their merits, should be able to get up. But, if they are non-complying, for goodness sake at that point the development plan is not of any further assistance. What is important is to know how the decisions were made, because they provide guidance in terms of precedent, in terms of what it is that made a development acceptable or not.

I am disappointed with the way things have headed so far in this debate, but I suppose, considering that this parliament overall has not been particularly keen on transparency in the democratic process, I should not be surprised that it does not want to inflict it on local government.

(8a) A regional development assessment panel must ensure that accurate minutes are kept of its proceedings.

(8c) Minutes must be available under subsection (8b)(b) within five days after the relevant meeting.

Three matters are covered by this amendment: first, that the regional development assessment panel must keep accurate minutes; secondly, that members of the public are entitled to reasonable access to both the agendas and minutes of the meetings of the regional development assessment panels; and, finally, that the minutes must be available under subsection (8b)(b) within five days after the relevant meeting. I note that it is the same requirement that exists for local government in relation to the keeping of minutes. It may be that the minutes have not been ratified but local government has worked under those rules and, in fact, the government has had them in place for a considerable period of time, so I cannot see that there will be any problem with that requirement. Again, it is a matter of attempting to get as much transparency in this process as we can.

The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: I support in sentiment the matters raised by the honourable member but I do not support his amendment. I have a similar amendment on file but I have highlighted that the minutes must be available under subsection (8d)( b) within five days after their adoption by members of the panel rather than the provision that the honourable member has moved, which I think is far too relaxed, that is, the reference to five days. I believe there is an important distinction between the honourable member's amendment and what I provide in my amendment.

The Hon. T.G. ROBERTS: The Labor Party indicates that it will be supporting that amendment.

(11) A council may, by giving the minister at least two months notice in writing, withdraw from a regional development assessment panel.

(12) If a council withdraws from a regional development assessment panel under subsection (11)-

(a) the council remains liable for its share of the costs and liabilities of the regional development assessment panel incurred or accrued before the date of withdrawal; and

(b) the Governor may, after the minister has consulted with the remaining councils, by regulation, vary or revoke to a regulation previously made under subsection (3) or (4) on account of the withdrawal (and in this case subsection (10) does not apply).

It seems to me that at this stage many councils are saying they would like to go into regional development assessment panels. Over time, it may be that some councils will decide they no longer want to be in a particular development assessment panel. It might be that they will either want to withdraw from the process or indeed decide that they would like to go into a different panel with another set of councils.

While we have a mechanism in the bill to go into the development panels, there is no way of coming out and perhaps going into a different regional development assessment panel. It seems to me that that is an unreasonable restriction on local government and I hope that all members agree.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I would argue that the ministerial investigation of development assessment performance is unnecessary because, in fact, there is already power in the existing act for any person to seek enforcement or remedies for a breach under section 85. I do not think there is any justification for this new section 45(A), recognising that section 85 should provide the necessary power for any person to seek enforceable remedies.

(8a) The Minister must then ensure that copies of the proponent's response are available for public inspection and purchase (during normal office hours) for at least 20 business days at a place or places determined by the Minister and, by public advertisement, give notice of the availability of the response and invite interested persons to make written submissions to the Minister on the response within the time determined by the minister for the purposes of this subsection.;

(b) by striking out from subsection ( 9) `then' and substituting `, after the expiration of the time period that applies under subsection (8a),';

(8a) The Minister must then ensure that copies of the proponent's response are available for public inspection and purchase (during normal office hours) for at least 20 business days at a place or places determined by the Minister and, by public advertisement, give notice of the availability of the response and invite interested persons to make written submissions to the minister on the response within the time determined by the Minister for the purposes of this subsection.;

(b) by striking out from subsection ( 9) `then' and substituting `, after the expiration of the time period that applies under subsection (8a),';

(7a) The Minister must then ensure that copies of the proponent's response are available for public inspection and purchase (during normal office hours) for at least 15 business days at a place or places determined by the Minister and, by public advertisement, give notice of the availability of the response and invite interested persons to make written submissions to the Minister on the response within the time determined by the Minister for the purposes of this subsection.;

(b) by striking out from subsection ( 8) `then' and substituting `, after the expiration of the time period that applies under subsection (7a),';

Members who have been in this place for a number of years would know that the Democrats have been particularly critical of the EIS process, and more recently we have had the PER and DR processes added to the range of options available for assessment of some projects. The Democrats would like to see quite a significant overhaul of the EIS process but these amendments address one particular deficiency, that is, the involvement of the public in the EIS process. At present, the public really have only one opportunity to comment during the EIS process and the inadequate involvement of the public leads to a number of difficulties.

First, one needs to realise that the public collectively has a great deal of knowledge. I remember when I first became involved in debates about the Jubilee Point project that one of the people who came to speak to me about the issue was a CSIR0 scientist whose doctorate was a study of the Adelaide foreshore: he knew more about the Adelaide foreshore than probably anyone else in Adelaide. He predicted that any structures built on the beaches would invite disaster. That member of the public had very specialist knowledge. The way the EIS process worked, and works, is that he was able to put in a written submission-and he might or might not have been invited to make an oral submission-but that would then disappear into the process.

Subsequently, the people who prepare the EIS summarise what this person had to say, even though they might have completely misunderstood. There does not have to be any malice or any bias involved; those things would only make it worse. There is no way for any future involvement of that person in the process, with all the knowledge they have. I am seeking in these amendments to give a greater opportunity for genuine public involvement in the process.

New clause 17A, proposed new subsection (8a), provides for public input. There have been a couple of EISs where there has been some invitation for the public to give further input, even though the act does not allow for it. It makes sense to do that, because we have to make sure that issues that have been raised early in the public consultation process have been fully understood and fully addressed. At the end of the day, it does not change the basis of the EIS in so far as the minister will make a decision. It does not alter the power. I hope it will perhaps improve the quality of the assessment itself. There are a number of other changes I would like to see made to improve the quality of assessment, because I think we can point at several EISs where the assessment has not been up to scratch, and we all pay the price for that. It is not a matter of whether you think developments are a good or a bad thing, in terms of how they look or anything else: if it ends up costing the state a lot of money for ever more, as one development is proving to do, and if it is avoidable and perhaps can be avoided with better assessment, then we need to get the assessment process right.

This improved involvement of the public, which contains a great deal of expertise, is of value. It would also in part address a more general public jaundice towards a system that people see as rigged. It does not matter whether or not people agree that it is rigged; the fact is that the public view is that it is, and that the public feels that for the most part decisions have been made and that we are just going through a charade. The more one seeks to engage the public in this process-

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: There is a risk of that, but it does allow some genuine examination of issues in a little more depth. A charade can still be played, but we have to accept that honest mistakes are made at times, and perhaps this could address some of those.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I noted that the minister said that the public had already had one bite of the cherry, or something along those lines. I made the point before, and it is an important one, that as the process currently works there is opportunity for a public submission, but the public submission basically goes into the process. It is a one-off chance to make a written submission and sometimes people are asked for an oral submission. What is given is taken away and processed by somebody else. Later on we see the issues raised by a member of the public and what is thought of them.

As one example, I mention a fellow who had a PhD from studying beach sand along the Adelaide coast. He probably knew more about the issue than anybody else but somebody else decided what points he was making and probably missed most of them, and he had no chance to say that he was misunderstood and that the wrong emphasis was put on something. That is not unimportant. If we are trying to have a genuine scientific inquiry (and I would have thought that a genuine EIS process is in part about that), we must try to establish the facts. There are two stages to an EIS. Stage 1 is to establish the facts-what are the potential economic, social and environmental impacts? The next process is the political one. On the basis of that, the minister decides whether or not it will go ahead.

It is really important, regardless of what decision is made by the minister, that the facts are laid out and are given full scrutiny. I do not believe that the input of the public allows a genuine analysis of issues. A number of people have told me that they made a submission and presented me with someone else's version of what they said. What we see in the final EIS document is a summary of the submissions. It also contains the proponent's response. The person may know that the proponent got it wrong, but they have no input. By then the document is prepared, and that is what the minister makes up his or her mind on. That is not an acceptable process if we are trying to establish the facts. There are two parts to the EIS process: one is to establish the facts and the other is to make the decision.

With major projects, we have taken the project outside the normal planning process, recognising that there are matters of great significance and recognising that it is so important that, ultimately, the decision will need to be a political one. I do not have a problem with that but I do have a problem if decisions are made on bad information and if we do not have a process that ensures that we have good information. I have said previously that there are other changes that I would like to see to the EIS process. For instance, the major projects panel, which makes a decision about whether there is an EIS, PER or DR, should follow the process right through and oversee it. That panel has to determine the important issues that need to be addressed, and then it is pulled away and it disappears into a more bureaucratic process. Let us optimise and maximise the knowledge that the public has on matters related to environmental impact statements.

Sometimes the EISs get it right. It is still early days and I have not put it through full scrutiny, but the SAMAG EIS looks to be a fairly thorough document on my first reading, and I have been reasonably impressed that it has focused on the key issues, which were likely to be things like thermal warming of the gulf. It has gone into great depth in analysing that issue. By comparison, the EIS for Glenelg covered sand movement issues superficially, yet that was always going to be a major issue and has proven to be one of the major failings of the project. There was no real encouragement for that to be looked at in depth.

This is not a criticism of the minister. I do not expect the minister to supervise all the fine detail of the EIS process, but at this stage the process is hit and miss. What I have seen so far, for the SAMAG project the EIS process looks to have worked reasonably well. I reserve my judgment because I have not had a chance to go into finer detail but it appears to have gone into a great deal of depth on matters of importance, but other EISs, of which the Glenelg one is an example, have not come to grips with the important issues. That is a criticism not of the government or the minister but of the process.

All I am trying to do is improve the quality of the information that gets to the minister. I believe that giving the public two bites of the cherry, as the minister describes it, will improve the quality of the process. The minister says it could drag it out but, if the minister looks at the EIS process, she will see that some are incredibly long. If we get the public involvement right, it would not need to be a simple addition of saying that 20 days has been added to the process. I believe it is capable of fitting within the current time frames.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I have withdrawn the amendment I originally had to this clause.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: You will get a chance; the issue still comes up. I indicated during the second reading stage that I thought that the government's clauses in relation to car parking were-and I am not sure what word to use, but I might even use the word `brilliant'-a really excellent idea.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: That's right. I thought that the concept that was contained within it was worth taking further. I will briefly repeat what I said because it leads on to another set of amendments I am about to move. The car parking fund will obviously be important in inner city areas-areas which are being redeveloped where quite dense development is going in-where particular developments may not have sufficient car parking within them.

A council might decide that it wants to tackle car parking on the basis of a designated area. So, rather than saying each person has to supply a certain number of car parks, what it might do is to try to have some denser car parking stations or whatever else, and rather than requiring the car parking to be incorporated within the development they can levy a fund which can then be used to put some car parking within the designated area. That makes a great deal of sense.

I would argue that car parking is not the only issue we need to address in inner urban areas, and particularly those that are being redeveloped. For instance, one thing that is happening with redevelopment is that the percentage of hard surface is increasing, so the amount of stormwater is increasing quite dramatically. Some councils, if we do not do something about it fairly soon, could find that the stormwater capacity is only half what it needs to be to cope with development, and as a result councils will be up for major expenditure.

Another thing worth looking at is the issue of green space. There are some parts, particularly inner Adelaide and the western suburbs, where there is very little green space. There is a state green space fund, but very little inner city development is captured by it. Certainly on the urban fringes new developments are required to put in a certain percentage of green space, or sometimes they pay a little bit of money into the fund.

What I sought to do in the first instance was to change the car parking fund to a development fund, and the initial amendment I put on file did that. However, I am now seeking to leave the car parking fund as a discrete fund as first proposed, and my proposed amendment will allow a council to essentially approach the minister and say, `In this particular area of our council we have a major problem with stormwater, but it is also an area we want to re-zone perhaps for denser urban development. We would find it useful if we could have a stormwater fund', or, `In this particular area we would find it useful if there was a green space fund'. In other words, different councils might have different needs. So, instead of changing the car parking fund to a development fund, my proposed amendment will enable the council to approach the minister. The minister by regulation can then set up a designated fund for a designated purpose. In fact, that is something that can negotiate whatever else needs to be done to ensure that it does not become very arbitrary in its application.

What I am seeking to do is to replicate it but, rather than simply having a car parking fund for every council, individual councils might recognise particular needs and, if they can convince the minister that their need is justifiable, the minister by regulation could then bring these other funds into play. I hope that the minister will accept the acknowledgment of the good idea that she has had and perhaps also see that the idea does have further application. I think it needs to be recognised that, as we go into the urban consolidation phase we are now in, hopefully the urban sprawl is slowing down and that inner city councils have a major problem on their hands coping with infrastructure.

For new developments on the fringe, the stormwater gets put in by the developer, the roads get put in by the developer and even green space is put in by the developer. But what about the inner city, as we go through redevelopment? In fact, the redevelopers do not make a contribution to the necessary infrastructure. I think that there should be the same sort of expectation. In some cases they will make an increased demand on infrastructure, for instance, an increased demand on stormwater or, as the minister has here, an increased demand on parking. There must be a way of ensuring that the true costs of development to the community are picked up. By this sort of device, a device which is indeed the minister's suggestion, I think that we can address not just the car parking issue.

As I said, I have withdrawn the amendments I had on file to clause 19 in terms of establishing a development fund in place of a car parking fund, but I flag an amendment to insert a new clause to enable the establishment of development funds, and that will be new section 50B. I move:

50B. (1) The Governor may, by regulation, establish a development fund for a part of the area of a council designated by the regulation (a "designated area") for a purpose designated by the regulation (a "designated purpose").

(2) A regulation may only be made under subsection (1) on the application of the relevant council.

(3) A designated area must be defined by reference to an area established by the relevant Development Plan.

(a) a person is proposing to undertake development of a prescribed kind within a designated area; and

(b) application for provisional development plan consent is made under this Part; and

(i) after taking into account the provisions of the relevant Development Plan, that the development does not adequately provide for certain facilities or infrastructure; or

(ii) after taking into account the nature of the development, that it will be necessary or desirable to provide certain facilities or infrastructure in connection with the development; and

(d) the relevant authority and the applicant agree that the applicant will make a contribution to the relevant development fund under this section; and

(e) the applicant makes a contribution to the development fund of an amount calculated in accordance with a determination of the relevant council,

then the development may be approved and proceed despite the circumstances referred to in paragraph (c).

(6) A determination of a council for the purposes of calculating amounts to be paid into a development fund-

(b) may be varied by the council from time to time by further notice in the Gazette .

(7) Any money in a development fund that is not for the time being required for the purpose of the fund may be invested by the council and any resultant income must be paid into the fund.

(8) The money standing to the credit of a development fund may be applied by the council to provide facilities or infrastructure within the designated area for a designated purpose.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: This might be an appropriate moment, recognising that I am going to lose the clause, to burst into tears. No, it might be an appropriate moment to make an observation about some urban consolidation happening in Adelaide right now that causes me some concern. There are a couple of forms of urban consolidation. The ERD Committee has been having an unofficial look at urban consolidation. We did a tour around various suburbs looking at some things that are being done.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Yes, it was a major trip. I must say, as a general comment, I was pretty concerned by what I saw in terms of the quality of urban consolidation happening in Adelaide. I will not reflect on that right now, but I will describe one particular example.

We went to have a look at a site that has just had a PAR done by the Unley council in respect of some land adjacent to Unley Road immediately to the south of Glen Osmond creek. I did not know that Glen Osmond creek was there until the bus turned down the laneway to go into the site. The site was zoned commercial/industrial and has been rezoned residential. I must say-and it is meant to be a quite dense residential area; I am not sure whether it is two or three storeys- that it is an appropriate location in terms of being close to the main road, shops, public transport and quite a few facilities.

The concept of having nodes of dense development is one that, personally, I find attractive. However, having arrived at the site I became concerned when I saw Glen Osmond creek. Initially it is difficult to recognise it as a creek, because what you see is a dead straight concrete drain disappearing from Unley Road in a westerly direction for a couple of hundred metres. Noting that it was mooted for redevelopment and noting that we now have a government talking about cleaning up catchments and those sorts of things, I presumed we might have an opportunity for Glen Osmond creek to be reinstated, cleaned up and all of those sorts of things.

On making further inquiries, it now appears that the current plan for Glen Osmond creek by the Unley council is to put a concrete cap on top of it and use it for car parking. Here we are in the year 2000 and we have this area which will be totally redeveloped in the next decade. Currently Glen Osmond creek is just a concrete culvert, and the current plan for Glen Osmond creek is to put a concrete cap on top of it so that it can be used for car parking-

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: For a couple of hundred metres. I find that quite extraordinary. In reading the new PAR for the area, it acknowledges that there is a shortage of green space in the area. Logic indicates to me that, if there is a shortage of green space, why would you not try to reinstate this creek line as green space-probably put a few little bends in it, plant a few trees, have some grass around it, perhaps even a bikeway-

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: People friendly, yes. I must acknowledge that one of the problems that Unley council raised in all of this was that it did not see that it had the money to fix it. In moving my amendments, I think I am acknowledging that there are some problems if councils are strapped for cash. Although there is an opportunity, you can have an argument about whether they are able to grab that opportunity. Because this land is in multiple ownership, it will be a series of smaller developments. They will be substantial but not large enough to put money into green space funds or anything else.

This development might generate a need for a new car park, and I suppose the car parking fund might even pay for the concrete cap that is placed over Glen Osmond creek, which I find quite frightening, if that is what it does. However, with appropriate amendments-

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Well, they might be. However, I think if you have dead straight concrete drains with near vertical sides they are dangerous for kids. There are things you can do to make them far less dangerous. It worries me that we really are not getting close to having any sort of integrated planning at this stage in terms of addressing issues like this.

Here we are in the year 2000 and I am sure we can do better. My feeling is that the sort of amendment which I put forward and which some people are saying has some merit, but not yet, is one potential answer to address these sorts of issues. We really do have to move quite quickly. As we prevaricate, we are seeing block- splitting going on right through the Adelaide metropolitan area: one house block becomes two, sometimes three; there is lots of concrete, lots of hard roof, and loss of gardens but no compensating green space for people to stretch their legs; and there are massive increases in stormwater, which probably means that larger concrete drains should be used rather than alternative pathways being found.

There is major redevelopment about to happen. Either we just stand back and watch it happen, it will be bad development and the city of Adelaide will be a worse place to live in, or we try in some way to grab the opportunity while it is here and make Adelaide a better place to live in. That is what the amendment was seeking. There may be other ways but there is not a lot on the table at this stage in terms of creative suggestions as to how to do it.

(11a) Minutes must be available under subsection (11)(b) within five days after the relevant meeting.

As I have done previously, I seek to have the minutes made available within five days of the relevant meeting. I have a concern that regional assessment panels may meet on a monthly basis or even less frequently; it depends on how many issues are referred to them. So, while earlier in clause 11 we talk about people having reasonable access to the minutes, if the assessment panel does not meet frequently I would argue that you are not getting reasonable access if you have to wait until five days after they have adopted the minutes. That could well be five weeks or a good deal more after the original meeting. I would argue that the minister is not then guaranteeing reasonable access. So, I still believe it is reasonable that the minutes be made available, noting that they have not been formalised. That is exactly what happens with local government minutes now, and I have heard no complaints about the fact that local government minutes must be available within five days.

(b) by inserting after its present contents (as amended by paragraph (a) and now to be designated as subsection (1)) the following subsection:

It is one of the curiosities in South Australia that one rule applies to the private sector and another to the public sector and when talking about safety standards in buildings I point out that government buildings do not have to comply with the same standards as private buildings. Either something is safe or it is not; something is reasonably safe or it is not. How there can be a double standard in buildings just because of ownership is a mystery-

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Because a lot of government buildings do not comply now. Standards are expected of the general community but they do not have to apply to anything that is publicly owned. I find that quite extraordinary and I have tried to be extremely generous by suggesting that the government has until the year 2006 to try to reach the same standards that are expected of everybody else today.

My concern is that subsection (4b), under clause 2, can put an ordinary member of the public at a significant disadvantage in a court case, as is often the case. Subsection (4b)(b) potentially allows the costs to be determined between solicitor and client. You could have ordinary Joe Blow simply seeking to pursue a matter in the Environment, Resources and Development Court, and he is lined up against someone with very deep pockets and a team of QCs and potentially may face very high costs being awarded against him.

That causes me a great deal of concern. I think an increasing view is forming in the public that courts and justice do not have a great deal to do with each other but that the depth of your pockets bears a closer relationship to your ability to win in the law court than anything else. In relation to matters relevant to this bill and act, I think it is inappropriate and unnecessary that costs could awarded in this way. It is for that reason that I move these amendments.

(ab) in the case of a DR-the minister must ensure that a public meeting in relation to the matter is conducted in accordance with the requirements of the regulations (despite the fact that such a meeting is not required under the Development Act 1993); and

These amendments relate to new section 29(17) of the Native Vegetation Act 1991. My concern is that the inclusion of the words `or as may be prescribed' creates uncertainty and may allow the Native Vegetation Act to be overridden by the executive.