MOUNT BARKER DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT

The Hon. M. PARNELL (15:18): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the Minister for Urban Development and Planning about the Mount Barker Development Plan Amendment.

Leave granted.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Tonight's is the last of an unprecedented four public meetings as part of the Development Policy Advisory Committee process for the Mount Barker Urban Growth Development Plan Amendment (DPA). There has been extraordinary public response to the government's draft DPA, with over 520 of the 539 submissions vehemently opposed to the government's rezoning plans.

I have attended all three public meetings so far, and the anger, emotion and frustration from the Mount Barker and Nairne communities are palpable. Many speakers have questioned why the planning minister has not come to hear first-hand what the community is saying. Many have also expressed a deal of concern at the process whereby the Development Policy Advisory Committee does not take minutes or some other record of these public meetings but then attempts to paraphrase the community's views and send a report in secret to the minister, with the community never knowing if what it said had any impact.

One of the strongest themes to emerge from the meetings is the sheer size of the potential population growth proposed for Mount Barker. According to the local council, the government's planned increase of 47,500 people in the DPA, plus the current population of around 18,000, and a latent development capacity of land to house another 10,000 within the current boundaries adds up to a whopping 75,000 people in Mount Barker, a phenomenal, near fourfold increase.

The overwhelming sense from the council and the community is not that they oppose any or all growth: they simply cannot understand how their area will effectively have to accommodate the total population of Mount Gambier, Port Augusta and Port Lincoln on top of the current already expanding population, with no commitment to jobs, infrastructure, public transport or other essential services. On top of that, there are consistent reports of landowners located beyond the expanded boundaries included in the current DPA already being approached for options to sell their land to developers as part of a mooted stage 2 further expansion of Mount Barker. My questions are:

1. Why are some of the same people who approached landowners a few years ago prior to this current rezoning exercise now approaching landowners beyond the boundaries of the Mount Barker urban growth development plan amendment for options to sell?

2. Will the minister release the DPAC advice on the Mount Barker urban growth DPA as requested by the community?

3. If parliament rises in time tonight, will the minister go to the DPAC meeting in Mount Barker to hear first-hand what the residents are saying and, if not, how can the community have any confidence that their extraordinary opposition to the government's plans will be listened to?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister Assisting the Premier in Public Sector Management) (15:21): The Hon. Mr Parnell should have pointed out that he was a member of DPAC for a number of years, so he knows full well how it operates. He knows full well the history of it.

The Hon. M. Parnell: Five months.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Well, why only be on it for five months? That in itself might be an interesting question. It would be interesting to know what sort of conflicts of interest there were there. The Hon. Mr Parnell, having been a member of DPAC, knows full well that DPAC, under the act, is to consider the submissions made on ministerial development plans and to advise the minister. He would well know the history and that DPAC and its predecessors have been in operation for decades, and he would know that it has always been the tradition that those reports are not made public.

Of course, if you haven't got an argument—if you are out there opposing growth for the sake of opposing it and you haven't got an argument—what better thing to do than set up a straw issue? That is exactly what this is by the Democrats—well, there's probably not a lot of difference between them and the Greens; perhaps they'll go the same way—but it is a side issue; it is not really the core of the issue. At the end of the day I will have to make the decision on the final form of the development plan, and I will be fully accountable, as I should be, for the final form of the development plan amendment. It is DPAC's role to consider the submissions that are made, but it has to consider them, of course, in the context of the planning strategy for the state, which now incorporates the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide.

The honourable member, I think, has been trying to stir up confusion within the community of Mount Barker about what the role of DPAC really is and how it performs its function. The very fact that in his preamble the honourable member could talk about a fourfold increase in population when he says he was at the meeting—well, if he had been at the meetings he would know full well that, when the information was put out in relation to that, and if he had read the proposals in the development plan amendment itself, what we are talking about is about 7,000 dwellings in the 1,300 hectares.

He should know full well—I think he describes himself on his website as the only MP with planning qualifications—that, if you are looking at land to rezone, at least 40 per cent of that land will not be built on. What the council of Mount Barker and those who are opposed to this proposal appear to be doing to work out their greatly inflated figure for potential population at Mount Barker is to take the 1,300 hectares and multiply it by the highest density they can get away with and come to this sort of fourfold increase that the honourable member is talking about. In fact, that will not be the reality and is never likely to be.

Mind you, in the council discussions with me earlier, we were talking about how they would like to see some slightly higher density in the town centre of Mount Barker, which is now full of vacant allotments. I agree with them on that. One of the things we agree to in the development plan is to incorporate those changes that the council wants to allow some higher density around the township. As we are approaching local government elections and so on, I guess we are not going to get much sanity in the debate until that is out of the road.

The other thing that Mr Parnell has been talking about has been judicial reviews, involving one of the reasons why he asked whether I would I go along and listen. Let me point out that I did attend a public meeting at Mount Barker when we were discussing the overall growth as part of the 30-year plan, so I have attended a meeting in Mount Barker and I will certainly be happy to explain the final decision when the process is completed. However, if I were to attend a public meeting—if the final arbiters were to do that—then no doubt the Hon. Mr Parnell would be the first one trying to get a judicial review, because it would be alleged that I would be interfering in the process; that is, if I had said anything.

You know what would happen: you would go along to the meeting and then you would be challenged: 'Look, the minister is here. Let him get up and answer the questions.' If you tried to do so, you would immediately compromise the whole process. What I am going to do is what I have done with every other development plan amendment that I have handled since I have been minister in the last six years, and deal with it properly. I will deal with it appropriately and with precedent.

I have already had a look at many of the recommendations relating to the Mount Barker development plan amendment. The honourable member also referred to anger, emotion, frustration and the like. I can say that what will impress me in relation to my final view is logic. That is what I will be looking for: good logic in relation to that, not anger, emotion and frustration in determining the final outcome of this development plan amendment.

That is why I will not be attending: as I said, it could potentially compromise the proposal. The honourable member himself is reported in the local paper up there as advocating judicial review. No doubt he will be looking at anything he can to try and challenge this process through some judicial review. I will be making sure that I behave appropriately during the entire process, but I will be happy to be fully accountable for, and explain fully, whatever decision I come up with. It will then go to the committee of the parliament.

Finally, the honourable member asked about, I think, allegations that the developers appear to be trying to get options on land outside the current development plan. I have no idea, or interest for that matter, in what developers might be doing with land outside the proposed development plan. All I am interested in is ensuring that the current process to consider the development plan—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Sorry, what was that?

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Well, that is the other allegation that has been made during this whole thing, and it keeps getting repeated ad nauseam that, somehow or other, this is a developer-driven process. Of course, if you are going to redevelop land, you will talk to developers. Who else is going to develop land? You do not get individuals going out and buying a block of land in the middle of nowhere, subdividing it themselves and doing it. That is not how the system works. If you try to develop a plan for how you might house a population for the next 30 years, then of course you will talk to those whose interest it is, as a group, to develop land. The important thing is that, whereas you will get input from those people, the final decision is and has always been that of the government, and it will remain so. We will make our decision on good planning grounds. In relation to that final question, I have no idea whatsoever whether, if or why any developer might be talking to people in Mount Barker.