MOUNT BARKER DEVELOPMENT

The Hon. M. PARNELL (15:59): I move:

That this council, pursuant to section 16(1)(a) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, refers the following matters to the Environment, Resources and Development Committee for inquiry and report—

1. The processes followed by the Department of Planning and Local Government and the Minister for Urban Development and Planning in relation to development at Mount Barker and surrounding areas including—

(a) the Planning Strategy for the Outer Metropolitan Adelaide Region published in August 2006;

(b) the 2010 Planning Strategy (incorporating the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide); and

(c) the ministerial Mount Barker Urban Growth Development Plan amendment approved by the minister on 16 December 2010.

2. Whether any issues of conflict of interest involving the minister, the department, landowners, property developers, planning consultants or any other parties were identified in relation to future urban development at Mount Barker and surrounding areas and, if so, how such conflicts were avoided minimised or managed;

3. The adequacy of infrastructure planning and funding to support urban expansion at Mount Barker and surrounding areas; and

4. Any other matters the committee considers relevant.

This is a motion to refer certain aspects of the rezoning of farmland around Mount Barker for urban development to the Environment, Resources and Development Committee for inquiry and report. These matters include the process that the government went through prior to the rezoning, issues around conflict of interest and also the planning and provision of infrastructure for an expanded Mount Barker.

On 29 February this year, I spoke at some length about the ongoing travesty that is the Mount Barker Urban Growth Development Plan Amendment. On that occasion I went through, in some detail, the documents that I had obtained under the Freedom of Information Act after a lengthy legal challenge. It is those documents, the new information that we now have, that has resulted in this current motion.

Back in February, the Mount Barker motion I had on the books was calling on the minister to immediately suspend the operation of the Mount Barker Urban Growth Development Plan and to reinstate the zoning that existed prior to 16 December 2010 when the DPA was approved, and also calling on the minister to prepare a new plan for development of Mount Barker and Nairne that represents the wishes of the people of the district and the District Council of Mount Barker. That is a motion that is on the books of this council and that will be going to a vote shortly.

Just to remind members about the Mount Barker Urban Growth Development Plan Amendment, I point out that it is one of the most contentious and controversial rezoning exercises that we have ever seen in this state. There were 539 public submissions, the vast bulk of which were individualised, thoughtful letters and emails to the Development Policy Advisory Committee rather than the form letters that we often see. I will quote briefly from the Development Policy Advisory Committee's report to the minister on the Mount Barker Urban Growth Development Plan Amendment. Under the heading of Public Meeting they say the following:

One hundred and thirty...representors requested to be heard in support of their submission. Due to this comparably high number—

I think what they meant was record number—

the public meeting held comprised five sessions. These sessions occurred on 31 August 2010, 1, 8 and 14 September 2010 and 13 October 2010. As mentioned previously, a depth of feeling was expressed at each of the five public sessions. It should be noted that none of the representations made at the public meeting expressed support for the draft development plan amendment.

None, not a sausage, not one submission made at that record five-night hearing was supportive of the draft development plan amendment. That is what we faced as a parliament and it is what the community of Mount Barker faced, that is, overwhelming opposition, yet the minister went ahead and approved that development plan amendment.

The current motion is for an inquiry by the Environment, Resources and Development Committee and this inquiry goes to the process of rezoning rather than the merits of the rezoning. My other motion refers to the merits of the rezoning. In my view, the Mount Barker urban expansion DPA has very little merit and, according to the terms of that motion, it should be scrapped. However, the process that the government went through in, effectively, handing over Mount Barker to big property developers is just as diabolical and I believe should be thoroughly investigated.

Shortly, I will go through some of the reasons this inquiry is needed but let me first address the choice of forum. I could have called for a select committee, and I am sure members would have appreciated another select committee. Members of the government, I know, are always keen to get to the bottom of decisions that have been made, but I felt in this particular case that it was more appropriate to refer the matter to the standing committee of this parliament that already has responsibility for Development Act issues, including zoning decisions that are made by local councils or the minister, and that is the Environment, Resources and Development Committee. I also think that it is appropriate because the committee has already looked at the Mount Barker urban sprawl rezoning as part of its statutory function following the minister's approval and gazettal of the Mount Barker Urban Growth DPA back in 2010.

When the ERD Committee first looked at this, we did not have the advantage of all the information that we now have before us. Nevertheless, there was still a great deal of opposition on the part of the community and also the local council. The office of the Mayor of the District Council of Mount Barker put in a submission to the ERD Committee which, amongst other things, states:

Notwithstanding council's opposition, the council acknowledges the minister's power to pursue the proposed expansion and the role of the DPA in achieving the minister's objectives.

What that means is that the council acknowledges that the minister had the power to do what the minister did. Nevertheless, the council went on to state:

The council remains concerned about serious shortcomings of the DPA in terms of how the proposed expansion is to be delivered and its implications for the council and the local community in terms of the provision of essential infrastructure and services.

I have made sure that this inquiry will also look at that key issue—the issue of infrastructure—as well as the issue of conflict of interest.

When the ERD Committee looked at this on 27 January 2011, we did not have all the information that we now have; in particular, in relation to the conflict of interest and some of the other problems with infrastructure and planning to which I have referred.

To remind members briefly, there are three things in particular to which I want to draw attention. These are three things that we now know more clearly than we did back in 2011. First, it is now absolutely clear that the Mount Barker rezoning was driven by, and written by, property developers and that it was counter to both the pre-existing planning strategy and also the department's own advice as to the proper planning processes that should be followed. That is clear from the documents that I got under the Freedom of Information Act.

Secondly, we also now know that the blatant conflict of interest that arises from having the same planning consultants advising the government about urban growth options and also advising and leading a consortium of property developers who own much of the land under consideration was, in fact, well known to the government, and that the government sought to put in place strategies to reduce the perception of conflict without actually dealing with the conflict of interest itself.

Thirdly, we now know for certain that the provision of infrastructure was known to be a critical factor in the future expansion of Mount Barker. We know that the payment for that infrastructure was used by the consortium of property developers as a threat to ensure the fast tracking of the rezoning. Those are things that we may have suspected back in 2011 but we now know them with more clarity. They are now even more deserving of a thorough investigation.

I have raised the issue of conflict of interest on many occasions in this place. Taking just a quick look back through the archives, I raised the issue of Connor Holmes representing the consortium as well as the government. I raised it at least twice in June 2009, three times in July 2009 and probably a half a dozen or more times since then.

The other thing I want to say is that I have already done what I believe is the right thing. I invited the Environment, Resources and Development Committee to look at this matter of its own volition, and I am disappointed to say that the committee has declined to do so. Having reached that disappointing result, I now find myself in the position where I need to obtain the authority of this council to require the Environment, Resources and Development Committee look into this.

Just for the record, at the ERD Committee meeting on 29 February, I moved that the committee invite the Minister for Planning and the Department of Planning to appear as witnesses on 28 March 2012 to brief the committee and to take questions on the Mount Barker Development Plan Amendment. That is a very simple motion. It was simply inviting the committee to get the minister and department in to answer some questions.

I appreciate the support that I received on that occasion from the Hon. Michelle Lensink and also Mr Tim Whetstone of another place who supported the motion. But as members know, the structure of these standing committees (and this one in particular) is that the government always has the numbers. They exercised those numbers to decline to look into this; therefore, the Legislative Council can fix the situation by insisting that the ERD Committee have another look at Mount Barker.

With those brief words, I urge all honourable members to refresh their memory if they need to in relation to the recent revelations about Mount Barker obtained through the freedom of information documents, and I look forward to all members supporting this when it comes to a vote shortly.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. G.A. Kandelaars.