MOUNT BARKER DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT

The Hon. M. PARNELL (15:25): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the Minister for Regional Development, representing the Deputy Premier, on the Mount Barker DPA.

Leave granted.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I have recently received documents under freedom of information that provide a disturbing insight into the preparation of the highly controversial Mount Barker DPA. These documents show the intimacy of the relationship between property developers, their planning consultants and the state government.

Many times over the last few years I have asked questions and I have spoken in this place about the dual role that planning consultants Connor Holmes play in working for the government and advising the government on where to open new areas for housing, at the same time as advising the developers and at the same time as acting as consultants who prepare the rezoning plans. In response to me raising these questions, the former minister, the Hon. Paul Holloway, described an apparent firewall within the firm that somehow would enable them to act for both parties at the same time without any conflict of interest.

Three documents in particular show that no such firewall existed. Firstly, in a letter from November 2008, Connor Holmes director Stephen Holmes wrote to Ian Nightingale, the head of DPLG, saying that they would be:

...pleased to assist the Minister by accelerating GIA (Growth Investigation Areas) investigations in Mount Barker. In particular we would be pleased to provide investigations on the opportunities and constraints for the future development of Mount Barker as well as background analysis to assist in potentially initiating a Ministerial DPA for the township.

Secondly, in June of the following year, Mr Dean Day, on behalf of the group of developers who initially approached the former minister to initiate the Mount Barker DPA—the Mount Barker Consortium—wrote to minister Holloway to confirm that they would:

...engage Connor Holmes P/L to prepare background investigations, associated draft Development Plan policies and a formal structure plan for the whole of the affected area, to be submitted to the Minister for consideration.

The letter goes on:

...as you are aware, the firm of Connor Holmes...have for some time been providing advice to the Consortium regarding the possible future rezoning of much of the land in question.

Thirdly, in March 2010 we have formal minutes that were prepared by Connor Holmes. They are labelled in bold 'Commercial in Confidence' and they relate to a meeting attended by two officers from DPLG, Dean Day from the developer consortium, and two employees of Connor Holmes, including the director Stephen Holmes. These minutes describe in detail a carve-up of essential responsibilities between DPLG and Connor Holmes to finalise the preparation of the Mount Barker DPA. My questions are:

1. At the meeting on 5 March 2010 to finalise the preparation of the Mount Barker DPA, who exactly were Connor Holmes representing? Was it the consortium of developers who had been employing them for a number of years to champion their interests and who were their nominated representatives to write the DPA on their behalf, or was it the state government who had also contracted Connor Holmes to prepare background analysis for the Mount Barker DPA?

2. How did the so-called firewall operate that apparently managed to allow Connor Holmes to work for two employers at the same time?

3. How isn't this a clear case of irreconcilable conflict of interest?

4. Will the new minister for planning follow through on his previous mea culpa about how the Mount Barker DPA progressed and commit to reviewing ways to reverse this appalling decision?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Public Sector Management, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister for Gambling) (15:28): I thank the honourable member for his most important questions and will refer them to the Minister for Planning and Development in another place and bring back a response.