GROWTH INVESTIGATION AREAS REPORT

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (16:31): I move:

That the Legislative Council, pursuant to section 14 of the Ombudsman Act 1972—

1. Refers to the Ombudsman, for investigation and report, compliance of the following processes in relation to administrative acts, relevant laws and policies—

(a) the tender process for the preparation of the Growth Investigation Areas Report.

(b) the probity investigation undertaken by the State Procurement Board in relation to the decision awarding a contract to Connor Holmes for the preparation of the Growth Investigation Areas Report, including the findings and advice arising from that probity investigation.

2. Resolves that the administrative acts warrant investigation by the Ombudsman, despite any availability of a right of appeal, reference, review or remedy, or the passage of time referred to under section 14(3) of the Ombudsman Act.

I move this motion in part as a response to the Hon. Mark Parnell's motion to have certain matters considered by a parliamentary committee. They are, in summary, the process employed by the state Labor government to prepare its statewide planning policy and matters specific to the development at Mount Barker. Incidentally, he has also called on the minister to reverse the decision to rezone parts of Mount Barker—the rezoning that has been the centre of controversy for the best part of three years.

I believe we have some serious problems in our state planning system, and they begin with the process by which statewide policy has come about under this government. Of course, if you have serious problems at the pinnacle of the system, they infiltrate to every development plan amendment, rezoning and appeal. I am not alone in my concern. The South Australian public are generally not happy with the current planning system. There is a perception—and arguably evidence to support it—that the state Labor government is too close to developers and lobbyists. People may have a perception that votes can be bought, influence can be bought, development approvals can be bought and positions can be bought.

The lack of integrity and accountability in our planning system is evident at all levels, from our overarching planning strategy to individual rezonings and development applications. Furthermore, the current system, which is at the whim of political interests, does not encourage good long-term planning, so it will ultimately prevent, or at least make it very difficult for us to be a progressive state.

At this point I will say that I do not believe that the Hon. Mark Parnell's motions will be effectual in bringing about change either to the overall process or the focused issues of Mount Barker. I will explain that in further detail when I speak to his motions later today. The nub of the problem we have is political interests. Therefore, I do not think you can bring about real change by confining the scrutiny to within parliament. I want a proper, well-resourced, non-political probe into some of the issues that the Hon. Mark Parnell has raised in his earlier motions.

I will take this opportunity to say that I commend the Hon. Mark Parnell for his work in bringing further documentation to light with regard to how the Mount Barker DPA came into being. That work may be effectual in bringing the government to further account on this matter. However, it will not compel this government or future governments to fix the system in the same way that an independent investigation will. Politics aside, this Labor government needs an outside authority to tell it that the process is flawed.

The parliament, the public and the media have spent the last three years lecturing this government over the decision on Mount Barker to the point where the current minister has actually admitted they got it wrong and they mucked it up, but it did not bring about a real change. I believe that it will have no bearing on the nexus between government and developers. By way of background, I will just remind the house of some of the issues which have created negative sentiments around Mount Barker.

The parliament is aware that the former minister commissioned the Growth Investigation Areas report to inform the 30-year plan. Connor Holmes was the author and was simultaneously working for property developers seeking to rezone and develop the same land. The document identified broadacre land outside the urban growth boundary supposedly ripe for development. The opposition argued that to allow proper scrutiny for the 30-year plan the government needed to identify alternative parcels of land which had been considered and then subsequently rejected. We were never given that information. The public was expected to simply accept the plan for growth.

The overarching policy reached through that document will now dictate major future rezonings and population targets and dispersal for areas like Mount Barker and, because Labor never genuinely consulted on the plan, it questions the authenticity of public consultation on any of the rezonings which ensue. Indeed, that was the situation we saw in Mount Barker. The public was expected to be spoon-fed a plan for growth in their community. From the outset, any changes that the department would have taken on board following the public meetings would have been negligible because, ultimately, the government had decided that this is where the growth was to happen.

The 1,310-hectare rezoning was, in fact, factored into the state government's HELSP (Housing and Employment Land Supply Program) document prior to the completion of the public consultation and the majority of the 540 public submissions were seemingly ignored. The Mount Barker DPA has been the most resonant example of problems with developer-driven planning policy. The DPA was instigated by a consortium, the companies which have collectively donated $2 million to state Labor over the past 10 years.

The plan to double the population of Mount Barker and surrounding townships to almost 50,000 in 15 years has not been supported by a basic infrastructure plan. Most notably, there is an inadequacy of traffic planning to support the doubled freight task and a lack of any published information on provision of basic community facilities. I note that, at the point of public consultation on the Mount Barker DPA, the Hon. Mark Parnell was quick to use the matter for political leverage, with initiatives that were not designed to truly create a better outcome for the people of Mount Barker.

First, I was disappointed to attend one of the extensive public meetings only to see the Hon. Mark Parnell speak at length and in greater priority to members of the local community; secondly, when the redundancy of the Development Plan Advisory Committee in the consultation process became apparent, again the Hon. Mark Parnell jumped at the opportunity to score some political points. For members who have forgotten—

The Hon. M. Parnell: Excuse me; I was invited to speak.

The PRESIDENT: Order! You haven't been invited this time.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: —DPAC listens to speakers at public hearings and evaluates submissions and the DPA and advises the minister on what should occur. Throughout the Mount Barker saga, this unfortunately created a public perception that DPAC was independent to the degree that it would highlight issues to the minister, divided from political or developer interests. The public believed that this provided a vital chance to make meaningful representations.

The Hon. Mark Parnell capitalised on this perception by demanding that the minister release the advice. In fact, the act states that the minister's obligation to seek advice from DPAC is subject to his opinion on whether the proposal is in accordance with the planning strategy; in other words, the minister arguably does not have to seek the advice at all. In the case of Mount Barker, which is aligned with the 30-year plan, the advice would be unlikely to be of major consequence. The so-called consultation program wound up in 2010, and the DPA was approved and gazetted in December 2010.

In deliberating over the Hon. Mark Parnell's motions and what the Liberal Party's response would be, I was considering the answers by the minister to parliamentary questions that date back to 2009. In responding to questions on Mount Barker, the minister quoted from a letter that he had received from Mr Stephen Holmes of Connor Holmes. Of particular interest to me was the following paragraph:

...the decision of your department to retain Connor Holmes to provide advice in relation to the Growth Investigation Areas and (via KPMG) the 30 Year Plan projects was taken following a competitive process. The involvement of the firm in a large number of major urban development areas and projects on behalf of a range of clients (including the government itself via the LMC) was clearly disclosed and understood throughout this tender process. Indeed, at the time it was seen as a major strength of this firm. The final decision was authorised by the State Procurement Board, providing an independent high-level probity check.

From my perspective, this letter suggests that the firm was, to the best of its knowledge and ability, operating legitimately within the parameters of the designated process set up by this Labor government. The firm accorded with the required checks and balances and, in the context of this parliamentary debate that this letter appeared in, it would seem that the minister was confident that process was adhered to also.

For the record, the focus I have had, not only in this motion but also at the centre of my policy work over the last two years, is not an attack on developers. I believe that, generally, developers act legitimately within the parameters applied by government. My concern, though, is that, under this Labor government, those parameters have been lax to the point where they are now compromising the entire planning and development system and undermining generally good and sustainable development.

Therefore, this letter from Connor Holmes to the minister caused me to question the nature of the probity investigation that was supposedly undertaken prior to Connor Holmes being awarded contracts associated with the growth investigations area report and the 30-year plan. Given the scrutiny over Connor Holmes' involvement, I would like some more clarification on the role the government took in this process. What were the checks and balances, the rationale behind it being deemed as appropriate that Connor Holmes engaged in such work? Do we have the right process in place for awarding these contracts?

These are the kinds of questions that need to be addressed in order to fix a broken system. Developers and lobbyists will continue to use this system to their greatest capacity. They are business people with a product to sell and will take any legitimate opportunity to do so. But when the rules become blurred or compromised by political interests and where the system is open to failure, we must identify those issues and deal with them.

Last week, I took a group, consisting of the local member for Mount Barker, Mark Goldsworthy (the member for Kavel) and my colleague the Hon. Stephen Wade (the shadow attorney-general) to meet with the Ombudsman. We discussed some terms of reference and asked for his input and guidance.

We arrived at the terms of reference which I have outlined today, and we believe that they are appropriate and within the capacity of his investigation. This motion challenges the political motives of every member in this place who had their say on Mount Barker. It is now time to remove politics from this debate and appeal for an independent investigation. I commend the motion to the chamber.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.