Planning and Development Process

Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (14:44): My question is to the Minister for Planning. Did Rod Hook raise concerns with the minister regarding the integrity of South Australia's planning and development process prior to raising concerns in The Advertiser on Saturday?

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (14:44): I was wondering when I was going to get that question, but I expected it to come from here. The question about the matter in the paper I found rather fascinating. The first point is that it has never been raised with me by Mr Hook, okay?

Mr Marshall: Never?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Not that I can recall. Certainly, I do not agree with the sentiments contained in the article in the paper. I don't agree with it for a number of reasons: first of all, there is still a separation between Planning and the activities of Renewal SA. They operate independently; all that is happening is they are reporting up through me.

Secondly, I make this point: if things are done properly, you do planning first, then you do development. Planning comes first, then development. It is kind of basic, but some people haven't got that in the past, and one of them occasionally has been the person on whose behalf you are asking these questions.

So, planning comes first, then development. If the planning is already done, there is absolutely no question of there being any conflict whatsoever with the same individual minister having a role in relation to the development, because the two are separated in time; they are completely separate.

In the event of them not being separated in time, which is an undesirable outcome, the Premier foresaw that possibility—he foresaw that possibility—and therefore made the honourable Minister for Infrastructure the minister assisting me in respect of these matters, so that in the event of there being such an event (which I do not think is likely—not on my watch, anyway) then there is already a separation embedded into the system of reporting.

Can I make another point as well: the article to which the honourable member has referred apparently makes the suggestion that 'Mates of the unnamed minister'—and unfortunately, you don't have to be Einstein to work out who that is: that's me—'who are developers are going to get an unfair free kick.' Well, can I say, Mr Speaker, that nobody in this parliament or anywhere else can accuse me of being Sir Lunchalot, out with developers all the time; I can tell you that for starters.

The other thing I can tell you is this: as far as I know, up until the day I read that in the paper, I was left with the impression that some of them had a fatwa out for me. So, the idea that they are all my good mates is ludicrous. I honestly do think that the fact is that this government has always treated those people completely transparently on a level playing field. It may be a new experience for some, but it is a good experience, and they are going to enjoy it after a while because everyone will get a go.

The SPEAKER: Supplementary.