DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS

The Hon. M. PARNELL (15:44): I draw members' attention to serious questions of integrity surrounding recent development approvals and the role of Labor Party donors and supporters in those projects. One of the last decisions this government made before it went into caretaker mode before the last election was to rezone an area of land for a large shopping centre development on the site of the Gawler Racecourse. This development was approved, against the wishes of the local council.

The lesson to be drawn from this approval is that, I believe, developers have now come across the winning formula to make sure that controversial developments, particularly those against the wishes of local councils, will be approved. To help achieve the approval, the proponents, the Gawler and Barossa Jockey Club and Thoroughbred Racing SA, employed lobbyist Nick Bolkus and used the planning firm Connor Holmes to prepare all the paperwork, including the drafting of the formal zoning changes, or ministerial development plan amendment.

As members would be aware, Nick Bolkus is a former Labor senator and current chair of SA Progressive Business, the Labor Party's fundraising arm. Connor Holmes were also the consultants used by the government to determine areas for urban expansion as part of the government's 30-year plan. This same combination (Nick Bolkus and Connor Holmes) was used just two weeks before that decision to successfully achieve development approval for the equally controversial Buckland Park development. The decision to approve Buckland Park was roundly criticised by planning experts, including the Planning Institute of Australia.

To come back to the Gawler Racecourse development, the Gawler council strongly opposed that proposal because it was in direct contravention of the Gawler development plan and it would inappropriately skew the retail focus away from the traditional Gawler main street.

We note also that the state government committed $6 million to the Gawler Racecourse redevelopment, with the rest of the redevelopment funds coming from the sale and redevelopment of that land. So, that is the winning formula, but there is more, if you add to the mix one of the Labor Party's own major donors. Let us take, for example, Lang Walker, whose Walker Corporation is behind the Buckland Park development I referred to.

Just days before the government approved the Buckland Park development, Lang Walker (billionaire property developer) attended a $1,500 a head Labor Party fundraiser. He was joined by Nick Bolkus, health minister John Hill, transport minister Patrick Conlon and various other business identities. That was a meeting at the Lion Hotel. Members will recall that the Sunday Mail produced a photo of various business leaders attending.

If I take Lang Walker as an example: he is a major donor to the Labor Party, described as Australia's 13^th richest citizen, someone who managed to get himself a yacht built for $50 million and he did not need to sell his $30 million yacht to do it, and various ministers have admitted that they have accepted his hospitality in Sydney, enjoying trips on his yacht.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Name them.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: 'Name them,' says the Hon. Rob Lucas. Certainly, I think minister Conlon, and minister Foley as well; but I digress. What is the public to make of these developments, or this feature of development approval in this state—this winning formula for controversial developments to be approved? The first thing we have to ask ourselves is whether our democracy is, in fact, for sale. As members are no doubt aware, the Greens have established a website called Democracy for Sale, where you can track donors to all parties and the nature of their business. Are they property developers? Are they armaments manufacturers, cigarette makers or whatever?

The second question we have to ask ourselves is whether the public interest is being sacrificed for private interests. Certainly, these arrangements have a smell about them; they certainly have a bad look. The Greens would say that this is one, but not the only, reason why we need an independent commission against corruption in this state.