MOUNT BARKER DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT

The Hon. M. PARNELL (15:16): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the Leader of Government Business, representing the Minister for Planning, about the fast-tracking of housing development in Mount Barker.

Leave granted.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: In July 2009, I applied under the Freedom of Information Act for correspondence between the developers and landowners behind the Mount Barker consortium, the planning minister at the time (minister Holloway) and the relevant department in relation to the proposed rezoning of land around Mount Barker for urban development. I was keen to discover, on behalf of the people of Mount Barker, what had convinced the then minister to fast-track these controversial plans at Mount Barker and Nairne, ahead of the broader planning process that was underway through the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide.

After a very frustrating and lengthy journey via the department, the Ombudsman's office and, finally, the District Court, I finally received the documents that I sought, and what they show is quite extraordinary. Apart from some ludicrous claims by the developers, such as the development being 'carbon neutral', the documents also show that the planning firm of Connor Holmes, on behalf of members of the consortium, used as its main argument for the government to fast-track these plans the fact that the consortium might fall apart if it did not happen at a rapid pace.

The documents also show that the department's original advice to the minister was to not fast-track this development ahead of broader investigations of suitable land. A letter that was released to me, drafted by the department for the minister to sign—but was presumably never signed and never sent—says that the minister was not willing to 'prejudice the outcomes' of the growth investigations consultancy and the preparation of the 30-Year Plan by forging ahead with the premature Mount Barker rezoning.

The documents also show the contempt held by the developers for the local council and the community, and they argued that only a ministerial process would be 'free of any parochial, conservative and/or emotional attitudes'. The documents also contain further evidence of the conflict of interest between Connor Holmes in its capacity working for both the government and the Mount Barker consortium at the same time.

Members should note that the firm of Connor Holmes had aggressively lobbied the minister and the planning department for many months on behalf of the Mount Barker consortium. The minister then appointed Connor Holmes to undertake work on behalf of the government to identify possible future areas across Adelaide for residential development and then—surprise, surprise—Connor Holmes recommended to the minister that the same land owned by the developers that they represented would be perfect for fast-track rezoning and development. Having given that advice to the government, the firm then continued to work for the developers to prepare the necessary rezoning documents. My questions to the minister are:

1. Why did the minister allow Connor Holmes to work on behalf of the consortium in preparing the rezoning documents, despite the department's and Connor Holmes' own acknowledgement that there was, at the very least, a perceived conflict of interest?

2. Is it correct that heads of agreement over infrastructure are yet to be signed and, if that is correct, does the government now accept that it can suspend the DPA and go back to the drawing board?

3. As the government has intervened previously to throw out bad planning decisions, such as Port Adelaide in relation to Newport Quays, why can it not do the same at Mount Barker?

4. As the current planning minister has admitted that mistakes were made at Mount Barker, will the government now fix up this mess and, if not, why not?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women) (15:20): I thank the honourable member for his questions. I will refer them to the Minister for Planning in another place and bring back a response.