POLITICAL DONATIONS

The Hon. M. PARNELL (14:59): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Urban Development and Planning a question about political donations by property developers.

Leave granted.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Last week, the New South Wales Premier, Morris Iemma, outlined changes to the rules governing political donations by property developers. He did this in response to the rising tide of outrage in that state over the perceived influence that donations to political parties by property developers have on government decision making. One of the reforms outlined by the Premier in New South Wales in parliament last Thursday is a new requirement for all applicants for development approvals to detail at the time they lodge a development application any donations made to political parties by the applicant. Premier Iemma said, 'The government agrees that disclosure should be publicly available as part of the development application.'

In today's Australian newspaper there is a report that says:

Inspection of AEC records show a significant increase in donations from land and property developers to the ALP in South Australia in the election year of 2005-06. Donations from property developers were $330,000 in 2005-06, more than double the donations from the year before of $142,000.'

The article goes on to say:

ALP state secretary Michael Brown denied that developers paid for access to ministers in South Australia, as has been suggested in New South Wales. However he said businessmen and women regularly paid to meet ministers under the auspices of the ALP's South Australia Progressive Business group.'

My questions to the minister are:

1. Will South Australia follow New South Wales' lead and require all applicants for development approval to detail their donations to political parties at the time they lodge their development applications? If not, why not?

2. Have any property developers paid to meet with you under the auspices of the ALP's South Australia Progressive Business Group? If so, which ones, and how much did they pay?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Police, Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning) (15:01): The Hon. Mark Parnell has been trying to peddle this issue for some time, and he got it horribly wrong earlier this week. It has been quite a disgrace, but rather typical of the Greens which is, of course, a party that really is dedicated to the destruction of the economy of our state and of Australia as a whole. No political force is a greater threat to economic progress than the Greens.

Given that they are so opposed to development in any form within our state it is not surprising that they would try to raise these sorts of issues, because they see it as a way that they can get a level playing field in politics. If they are able to do anything which can damage economic progress within the state then they will do it. We should be mindful of their motivation.

We should also be mindful that the Hon. Mark Parnell got it horribly wrong the other day, and I will say more about that later. Frankly, I am getting sick of his sleazy allegations, his wrongly-based allegations. If he wants to make allegations that this government is acting improperly let him go outside; he is a lawyer and knows what you would get. The fact is that he knows he is wrong. Within the cosy confines of this council he has been making allegations and casting slurs—

The Hon. J.M. Gazzola interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Under privilege, and making innuendoes that are totally wrong. Will South Australia follow New South Wales' lead? No. As far as I am concerned we will not be following New South Wales' lead in development matters because, with the Development Act, which this government passed, we introduced independently-run development assessment panels. What measure could give greater protection against influence in development decisions than having independent panels rather than local government? So we have that big difference from New South Wales.

Now, New South Wales might have problems with Wollongong council and elsewhere, but in this state we have an independent majority on development assessment panels to give us a cleaner development—

The Hon. R.D. Lawson interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Fancy someone from the Liberal Party interjecting on donations. Which party wrecked the declaration of donations legislation in this country? It was members opposite. It was their party which tore up the declaration; they used their majority in the Senate to remove it. I think any Liberal at all—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: I rise on a point of order. The minister well knows that pointing is out of order, and he has been doing it all day.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister will refrain from pointing at those he is accusing.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Thank you, Mr President; I will take your advice. Fancy members opposite from the Liberal Party trying to interject and score points in relation to donations, when they were the ones who scuttled the legislation we had in this country to have proper disclosure of donations.

As I said, there are significant differences between New South Wales and here, but I am not the minister responsible for the legislation in relation to electoral matters. But, certainly, to the extent that I am involved in planning decisions, I can assure the honourable member that we will not be following New South Wales' lead in terms of anything that they might do in relation to planning.

Incidentally, I also understand that he has been sniffing around on a whole lot of other issues, trying to discover some dirt. The honourable member referred to this morning's newspaper article, which relates to the sale of land to the Fairmont Homes Group, and this was the issue that was published in TheAustralian this morning, and it came out of a question asked by the Hon. Mark Parnell earlier this week. It suggests that the rezoning of land at Blakeview was in some way related to the purchase of land by Land SA or Fairmont Homes, or the group that is related to Mr Pickard.

I have just received some information from the Land Management Corporation, which states:

The following information is provided in regard to the attached article that appeared in today's Australian newspaper.

In November 2006, the LMC Board approved a land release strategy to increase residential land supply in response to significant demand, and to enable the requirements of Defence Housing Australia (DHA) to be met (who require residential allotments to house the new Battalion members and their families being relocated to Edinburgh Parks) and to mitigate against the delay experienced in rezoning land at Evanston South that had been programmed for release in 2006.

The first parcel to be released under this revised strategy was one of 28 hectares fronting Craigmore and Bentley Roads at Blakeview. The land had been included in the Residential Zone in the City of Playford Development Plan for many years.

In other words, it was not in the land for the extended urban growth boundary. The statement goes on:

In order to meet the agreed timeline for the delivery of finished allotments to DHA, LMC lodged a plan of subdivision of the Blakeview site so that the sale could be subject to Provisional Planning Consent by the City of Playford and enabling DHA to commit to purchase the allotments it selected from that plan. The plan created 359 allotments. The terms and conditions of tender placed a number of obligations on the successful tenderer, including an undertaking to meet the commitment to meet the timeframe for the sale of allotments housing to DHA, provision of affordable housing in accordance with the State Housing Plan, a range of sustainable development outcomes including the provision of a system for the reticulation of reclaimed water to each allotment and open reserves within the estate.

LMC engaged Savills to market the property for sale by public tender with advertising commencing 23 June 2007 at both a local and national level. A strong level of interest was displayed from a variety of primarily local developers of varying size.

Tenders closed on 29 August 2007. The evaluation of tenders was completed in accordance with LMC's tender evaluation protocols and under the observation of an independent Probity Auditor. The evaluation was based on the criteria of tender price, experience in similar projects, proven track record and financial capacity. The tender submitted by Fairmont Homes Group Pty Ltd was for the highest price of all tenders received.

The probity auditor provided a report confirming that all processes were conducted in accordance with the probity plan.

The acceptance of the tender was endorsed by the LMC Board and approved by the Minister for Infrastructure on the 8^th September 2007. Settlement of the purchase occurred on the 29^th November 2007.

This land parcel was already zoned residential, and did not form part of the lands subsequently included in the revised urban growth boundary.

In other words, the basis of the story in The Australian, the basis of the question asked by the Hon. Mark Parnell, was totally false.