MOUNT BARKER DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. M.C. Parnell:

That this council:

1. Notes the admission from the Minister for Planning that the government erred in fast-tracking Ministerial Mount Barker Urban Growth Development Plan Amendment ahead of appropriate community and infrastructure provision; and

2. Calls on the Minister to—

(a) Immediately suspend the operation of the Mount Barker Urban Growth Development Plan Amendment and reinstate the zoning that existed prior to 16 December 2010 when the DPA was approved; and

(b) Prepare a new plan for development of Mount Barker and Nairne that respects the wishes of the people of the District and the District Council of Mount Barker.

(Continued from 29 February 2012.)

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (17:18): I rise to speak on the motion of the Hon. Mr Parnell, primarily calling for suspension of the Mount Barker Urban Growth Development Plan Amendment. I am sure that it will come as little surprise to members that the government opposes this motion. I will speak briefly about this motion because I do not wish to hold the council for too long but I believe that there are a handful of points that should be placed on the record.

First, the changes to the Mount Barker Development Plan Amendment cannot be suspended because the process is already complete. Imposing changes to the zoning at this stage would result in massive uncertainty, expose the government and the taxpayer to potential legal action and deprive the Mount Barker community of a massive proposed infrastructure investment.

I understand that the Minister for Planning has met with representatives of the Mount Barker council, and council has expressed its desire to progress a structure planning exercise for an area covering Mount Barker, Littlehampton and Nairne. I am informed that such structure planning work could assist in the delivery of a cohesive urban settlement and provide a basis for the timely provision of local services and infrastructure.

With council itself currently working on a structure plan to provide a long-term vision for all of Mount Barker, Littlehampton and Nairne, not just the new growth areas, it seems excessive to duplicate this process. Finally, what I understand the minister said regarding Mount Barker was not that the government erred in fast-tracking the DPA. What I understand was said is as follows:

I am not in favour of decoupling rezoning from infrastructure planning. With the benefit of hindsight, this was a problem in the Mount Barker rezoning.

This is not an admission or error. It is an acknowledgement that things can be done better in the future. There is a significant difference. It is for these reasons that the government opposes this motion and, indeed, calls on all other members to do the same.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (17:22): I rise on behalf of the opposition to speak to the Hon. Mark Parnell's motion, in which he calls on the minister to overturn the Mount Barker DPA, and also to note the minister's admission over Mount Barker, and to prepare a new plan for the development of Mount Barker and Nairne. I will quickly highlight to the Hon. Carmel Zollo that I was at the luncheon where the minister spoke and addressed the development industry, and he did say that they had got it wrong and that it would not happen again on his watch. I am not sure that—

The Hon. Carmel Zollo: I quoted his words.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Well, I suspect that he may have ad libbed a little bit at the lunch, so maybe the words you were given might have been his prepared speech but not the words I heard spoken. However, I welcome this opportunity—

The PRESIDENT: What time of the day was that?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Mr President, it was lunchtime. It was probably during the luncheon break here. I often go to those very important meetings during the luncheon break. In fact, I was at one today—

The PRESIDENT: The hoteliers?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: —with some members of the development industry and a representative of the government as well. The planning minister was at that same luncheon. However, I welcome this opportunity to continue to speak on the issue of Mount Barker. In this instance, I would like to pay particular attention to the Hon. Mark Parnell's interesting approach to this matter over the past three years. It is fair to say that, over that time, Mount Barker has been Mr Parnell's favourite political tool. I believe that he has attempted to capitalise on the public's naivety around the planning process, and he has instilled a lot of false hope in that local community. I gave one example of this in my previous speech, and I will have an opportunity to speak on another when we debate Mr Parnell's other motion.

Many will say that a non-government member should at least be vocal on matters such as Mount Barker, even if they are not in a position to effect practical change. I agree with that assertion, but I do not agree with political stunts wholly designed to appear as though they will bring about beneficial outcomes. I do not believe in instilling false hope in what is a very aggrieved community. What I feel even more strongly about—and this will be the centre of my debate on both of Mr Parnell's motions—is that he ignored the one opportunity he actually had to prevent the government's DPA going ahead, and I will discuss that later.

First, this Labor government, the former planning minister and the current minister have been taken to the cleaners over Mount Barker. I also point out that the current Premier, the Hon. Jay Weatherill, sat in cabinet through that whole period. So, they are all guilty of this particular wrong. Arguably, this ministerial DPA has singlehandedly opened up a huge public debate over our entire planning process. The parliament, media and public have scrutinised every issue, from political donations to the role of the DPC and the Government Planning and Coordination Committee, to the need for government leadership in infrastructure, planning and coordination.

In an extraordinary move last year, the new minister got up in front of over 200 representatives from the urban development industry and attempted to distance himself from all decisions relating to Mount Barker. What he basically said was: 'I realise the government has mucked it up on Mount Barker but I am not prepared to do anything to fix it.' As far as he is concerned, that is a decision of a past cabinet and the minister is washing his hands clean and moving on. I reiterate that the minister and the current Premier—incidentally, the Deputy Premier and the Premier were in cabinet when those decisions were made. The minister is not going to overturn his decision on Mount Barker. He has been questioned by parliament, the media and the public and he is steadfast in his decision.

The other issue I raise is the dangerous precedent that reversing this decision would set for people looking to invest in South Australia. It could have a serious negative impact on our economy and on government coffers. On the back of the Mount Barker DPA, a number of deeds have been entered into, land sold and some development applications lodged. The state government has received a commitment for a vast bulk of the rezoned area to draw developer contributions of around $55 million for augmentation and upgrade of existing infrastructure and the provision of some new infrastructure; however, no formal agreements have been reached. Those funds are mainly committed to roadway and freeway upgrades.

I have sought legal advice on what the compensation implications may be in the unlikely event the DPA was reversed. The Hon. Mr Parnell, in a briefing provided to me, correctly asserts that in cases where development applications have been lodged and approved under new zoning those approvals would remain, despite a reversal. However, I have sought advice and there are several grey areas overlaying the rezoned land. The uplift in land values alone, from a starting point of a damages claim, conservatively could be in the range of $500 million. For those intending to develop the land further the figure would increase.

For those developers that have borrowed funds to purchase land, with the security of development potential in that land but have not yet lodged applications, or had them approved, the reversal of land zoning could cause major financial issues. There are also grey areas around the loss of new and upgraded infrastructure benefitting not only those within the rezoned area but within the existing township. These could include the aforementioned road and freeway upgrades and expanded sewer system, parks and community facilities.

There is no historic example for a zoning backflip of this magnitude. Zonings change over time as circumstances do, but not when a government and a large group of developers have been working towards such a major objective. The reversal of the Mount Barker DPA would set a very dangerous precedent for South Australia and would be an extremely negative message to anyone investing in property. It would be expected that banks would become shy about backing any greenfield developments subject to rezoning, it may cause property prices to drop and see further deterioration in business confidence, already at an all-time low with our state now in a technical recession.

For anyone who mistakenly takes my comments out of context, believing them to be a show of support for the planning situation in Mount Barker, I would like you to give particular attention to the next matter at hand: the Liberals' policies and the Greens' preferences at the last state election.

The Hon. M. Parnell: Give it a rest.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Hon. Mark Parnell interjects, 'Give it a rest'. I might after I have concluded the contribution. To refresh everybody's memory, particularly the Hon. Mark Parnell, I will give you a brief chronology.

The PRESIDENT: Interjections are out of order. You should not respond to interjections.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I know it is out of order to respond to interjections, Mr President, but I think it is important—this has been lost in the debate. In June 2009, the minister announced that he had initiated a DPA for that area. In the same month, the Hon. Mark Parnell began scrutiny over the 30-year plan process and the Mount Barker rezoning process. In the following months, he issued a number of media releases criticising the Labor government's approach and condemning them for covering areas around Mount Barker with asphalt. Simultaneously, the opposition was running its policy on Mount Barker, and the policy was very clear:

That no further expansion of the Mount Barker town boundaries should occur until services and infrastructure were provided to meet current demand. Once that had been achieved then consideration should be given to the expansion in full consultation with the council and the community.

This message was reiterated at public meetings in the local press and in parliament. The local member, Mark Goldsworthy, campaigned hard on the issue.

One would expect the Hon. Mark Parnell's ear would have been firmly to the ground on the issue. The messages from the Labor government were that they were going ahead with the rezoning and not listening to anybody, and those from the Liberal opposition were that they were going to have a modest development, then consult with the community and not have any development but infrastructure. You would have assumed that the stark contrast would have run clear.

Next in the course of events was the March 2010 election. More importantly, it was the Hon. Mark Parnell's and the Greens' first opportunity to genuinely effect change at Mount Barker. Instead, they preferenced Labor in 16 electorates and in the Legislative Council. Some were seats that we happened to win, but incidentally the 16 seats (ahead of the Liberals) were Adelaide, Bright, Chaffey, Finniss, Flinders, Frome, Hartley, Mawson, Mitchell, Morialta, Morphett, Mount Gambier, Newland, Norwood, Sturt and Unley—and, of course, the Legislative Council ticket which was led by the minister for planning (the Hon. Paul Holloway) who the Hon. Mark Parnell was the most critical about. In 10 of those seats I mentioned Labor was preferenced second.

So you can see that the Greens and the Hon. Mark Parnell had an opportunity to make a real difference with Mount Barker and support a party that was only going to listen to the community and was going to have a modest development in line with what the community wanted. In March 2010, with considerable support from the Greens, Labor claimed victory at the polls and to no great surprise then approved the Mount Barker DPA in 2010.

The Hon. Mark Parnell and his party, the Greens, were faced with a clear option. They were able to support Labor and the government's policy on Mount Barker or take a real opportunity to prevent it from happening, but he chose to support the Labor Party and allow it to happen. This seems to have flown under the radar of many of Mark's Mount Barker supporters. Perhaps they have been caught up in his political stunts and propaganda. Either way, they have been taken along for a ride that will arrive at no outcome.

At worst this motion is just another instalment on this ride. At best it is a bid to shut the gate after the horse has already bolted. The Hon. Mark Parnell has chosen politics over genuine change for Mount Barker, so members will not be surprised to learn that the opposition will not be supporting his motion for those reasons. I appeal to him to cease using this emotive issue as a political tool and show his disdain for the Labor government's decision where it counts—at the ballot box.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (17:33): I am delighted to wrap up. Whilst it is tempting for me to follow immediately on from the Hon. David Ridgway's call to the people of Mount Barker to lay back and think of England while the government does what it is doing in there, I do need to acknowledge that the first contribution to this debate came from the Hon. Carmel Zollo, and I thank her for that contribution. I wish to make a few observations on that before I move to the Hon. David Ridgway's contribution, and I thank him for that as well.

The Hon. Carmel Zollo basically started off by looking at a technicality, as you might call it, but I think basically she has fudged it. She said, 'You cannot suspend a DPA, therefore the motion is invalid.' If the member looked at the motion carefully, she would see that basically the motion calls for the reinstatement of the earlier DPA pending the government going back to the drawing board. I call that a suspension. Maybe when the government goes back to the drawing board, some parts of it might survive; I hope most of it does not survive. But to simply say that this is no good because I use the word 'suspension' and that word does not appear in the Development Act, I think is absolutely fudging the issue.

The honourable member raised the bogy of legal action and, of course, had no example and no cause of action, could quote no common law or statutory remedy that might be available. The Hon. David Ridgway did the same. I will explore that in a little bit more detail when I get to his contribution. The Hon. Carmel Zollo concluded by talking about all the infrastructure that was allegedly at risk. My understanding is that despite all the promises in the world that we are still a long way from negotiating infrastructure arrangements with developers, the council, the government or with anyone else. So I think that is a furphy as well.

As to the Hon. David Ridgway, where do you start? The first thing he says is that the Greens are somehow to be condemned for using Mount Barker, that it is some favourite political tool, apparently, and that we do not really care about it. That is code for a high degree of embarrassment on the part of the Liberal Party that, whilst it is their members who have the lower house seats, it is the Greens who have been there in Mount Barker batting for a better outcome for the people of that community.

The Liberal Party is embarrassed by what the Greens have done, and it is now wriggling and squirming and using double-think language to try to get people convinced that it is actually the true saviour of Mount Barker: if only we had listened to the Liberal Party, then all would be well. I notice that it is not just the Hon. David Ridgway's contribution today, but his leader, Isobel Redmond, has been writing to people in Mount Barker and has tried to have a bet both ways. I will read a couple of extracts from what she has been sending to people who write to her. The people who write to her send me copies of what she writes back. It starts off:

The Liberal Party remains strongly opposed to many aspects of the Mount Barker development plan. It is a strategy that has been badly planned, poorly executed by the Labor government and demonstrates a profound inability to listen to the overwhelming concerns of the community.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Pretty good letter.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: It's a pretty good start—I agree with the Hon. Rob Lucas. What a great start! The rest of the letter says: we're not going to do a damn thing about it. As the Hon. David Ridgway said earlier in a contribution today, he does not even believe in the parliamentary process. He says you cannot achieve change through using parliamentary processes alone.

I have never said that parliamentary processes alone will change the world, but if the honourable member does not believe in parliamentary processes maybe he should vacate that seat and find someone who is prepared to commit to the parliamentary process and try to make things happen through this place. It will not be the Greens' fault that the Liberal Party has absolutely shirked its responsibilities on this issue. Isobel Redmond, the Leader of the Opposition, goes on in the letter to say:

However, the unfortunate reality is the Labor government has signed binding contractual agreements with developers that quite simply can't be broken.

Let me say that again: she is asserting that the government has signed binding contractual agreements with developers that cannot be broken. Show me those contracts. Prove to me that those contracts exist. What the Liberals are doing here is something that worked for them over Hindmarsh Island Bridge, and they said, 'Oh, we'd love to overturn this really bad decision, but binding contracts have been signed.' If it was good enough 15 years ago, maybe its good enough now.

Show me these binding contracts! What is the government doing signing binding contracts with developers? What is that about? Where are those contracts? According to the people I have spoken to at council or in the local community, there are no binding contracts that have been signed. If the opposition is aware of them, show them to us. I think this is an absolute furphy. The member goes on to say:

The Liberal opposition is now following with interest the current campaign by the Greens to refer the matter to the Environment, Resources and Development Committee for inquiry and report.

That is not being voted on today; we are going to vote on that next time. The most important word there is 'following', 'The Liberal opposition is now following.' They are following the Greens. The Greens are trying to get some good outcomes for the people of Mount Barker. The Liberals are following, they are desperately trying to catch up, and they can see that people are feeling let down in Mount Barker by the Liberals' inaction.

Isobel Redmond then goes on to talk about preferences in elections and by-elections. How could we have preferenced the Liberals in the Port Adelaide by-election? How could we have done that? They did not even have the guts or the courage to contest a candidate, yet they complain that we did not preference them in Port Adelaide. It is called an own goal, guys—you did not even run in Port Adelaide. How could we preference you?

Members interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order! The Hon. Mr Parnell has the call.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Isobel Redmond goes on, and maybe I should just drop to my knees in humiliation before the logic of this argument. Basically, apparently the Greens are responsible for everything bad that has ever happened in Mount Barker or anywhere else in the world. I think we are probably responsible for the common cold, possibly measles and I do not know what other diseases. I guess family breakdown is the Greens' fault as well. The logic of this argument is outrageous:

If the Greens had acted differently a Liberal government would have been elected and the results for the people of Mount Barker would have been far more favourable. Indeed, the region could have been saved.

It is an absolutely remarkable claim. The Liberals' response—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Members on my left should be quiet.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Having had a sook and said that it is all the Greens' fault for Mount Barker, when opportunities are put in front of the Liberal Party to do something about it, to fix it up, they have gone missing.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Hon. David Ridgway interjects and talks about two years ago. The point is that the Greens have been working on this for a considerable period of time, and the best that the Hon. David Ridgway can do is get up in this place and have a spray that I had the temerity to try to work through processes to get a good result for people.

I went to the effort of putting in a comprehensive submission to the Development Policy Advisory Committee; as result I had a statutory right to appear before that committee and tell it what I thought about the rezoning. The Liberal Party was silent. The Liberal Party is sitting there in the audience and sooking that it did not have the initiative to put in a submission itself. It is not just Mount Barker; it is a whole range of other DPAs.

The Greens are trying to work through the system. We will take whatever opportunity we can. It is sometimes difficult to get good results, but I can tell you that I reckon we are going to get some good results with some of these DPAs, because through the power of argument you can sometimes convince groups like the Policy Advisory Committee to make recommendations which can then be acted on.

The Liberals prefer to sit back, pretend that the parliamentary process is not worth anything and not even engage in the statutory process, not even bother with the process set out in the Development Act to try to counter the arguments the government puts forward for its rezoning. It is an absolutely lazy approach. They do not engage, they do nothing, and they reserve their criticism for those of us who are trying to get a good outcome.

The honourable member also says that by raising these issues we are offering false hope to the people of Mount Barker, that somehow what we are doing—because we are saying that we are trying to get this overturned, we are trying to get an inquiry happening; we fought for years to get documents out of agencies that were reluctant to let go of them—by trying to get a good outcome, is offering false hope.

The honourable member knows as well as I do that the legal system works in such a way that there cannot be a return to an absolutely identical situation that existed earlier. The honourable member acknowledged before—because I told him this information; my role as a teacher in environmental law comes in handy in this place and I have told the member and he understands that now—that if development applications for subdivisions have been lodged they will be judged against the existing development plan.

That does not mean that, if that plan is then effectively taken away and the old plan put back in place, new developers can come along and rely on the old plan. They cannot. They rely on the plan that exists at the date they lodge their application. If the government were to suspend this DPA, basically remove it from the books and replace it with what existed before December 2010, then that certainly would be the case.

However, the member goes on to make up some other stuff. He makes up some stuff about compensation: $500 million. The best legal analysis he has is that some lawyer has told him that there are 'grey areas'. I would ask the member, I would ask the members of the Liberal Party and the Labor Party, to show me a case where someone has successfully sued the state because rezoning has changed the value of land. Show me a case.

Members should know that property values are not regarded as a planning consideration when it comes to the zoning of land, when it comes to the administration of the Development Act. But property values clearly are important to the Liberal Party because its position, as outlined by the Hon. David Ridgway, is that the Liberal Party will guarantee that land will never be rezoned for a lower value than it is currently.

They are always happy for farmland to be rezoned for housing because that increases the value and people make a profit out of it, but they are never going to consider rezoning housing land back to farming, regardless of the requirements of the climate, regardless of the requirements of the community. I bet that the people who follow us, the generations to come, would be very grateful if we have managed to hang on to some high-value farmland within reach of the city of Adelaide for growing food. They will appreciate that that is what we do. So, we have this notion that will be hundreds of millions of dollars of compensation that will follow, and—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins ): Order!

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Hon. David Ridgway is now trying to do a, 'Who went to more public meetings on development than I did?' Well, I can tell you, the Hon. David Ridgway: Mount Barker, Wallis Cinemas, 15 hours—I was there for the vast bulk of that. I was there for four of the five nights. I missed the last hour, I think, because I had another commitment.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): The Hon. Mr Ridgway has made his contribution, and you have yours now.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I think the Hon. David Ridgway will lose a competition for who is paying more attention to planning and who is batting more for local residents in South Australia on planning. The response of the Liberal Party is absolutely pathetic. It will be seen by the people of Mount Barker as pathetic. They will not say, 'Thank goodness there are some realists in state parliament who realise that nothing can ever be done to fix a bad situation.'

The position of the Liberal Party is that the people of Mount Barker should just get over it. The best that the honourable member can do—and we will discuss it when we get to his motion later on—is that he wants a different sort of inquiry, based on the documents that the Greens fought tooth and nail to get into the public realm. He wants to have a different form of inquiry, but that is the best they can do. He is not prepared to tell the people of Mount Barker that this bad process can be fixed, if only—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS): Order!

The Hon. M. PARNELL: —politicians had the courage to stand up, name things as they are, and support motions like this. As the member knows, this is not a motion to reverse the rezoning; we do not have that power under the Development Act. The best we can do is call on the government, keep putting pressure on the government, keep embarrassing the government, and not making apologies for the government and telling the people of Mount Barker that there is nothing they can do about it.

I am very disappointed with the Liberal position on this. I think they will hear about it loud and long from the people of Mount Barker, who are no doubt following this with great interest. At one level, it does not surprise me, but the Liberal Party has to get over the idea that it did not win the last election. The suggestion that somehow you are not allowed to criticise any party or candidate you put lower than yourself on your how-to-vote card—what does that say to the Liberals in Victoria who preferenced the Labor Party ahead of the Greens in every single seat in the state?

The honourable member started reading out lists of seats in South Australia. Does he want me to get out the Victorian parliamentary list of lower house seats? It is a bit longer than ours, but I can read through them all. I can read through all the seats where the Liberal Party preferenced Labor. Does that mean that the Greens come out saying, 'Gee, now the Liberals aren't allowed to criticise Labor for anything'? Of course not.

The honourable member has to get real; he has to get over the fact that they did not win the last election, he has to get over the fact that we did not preference his party in Port Adelaide—where they did not even run a candidate, for goodness sake—and he should get on to looking after the people who did vote for them in the lower house, in places like Mount Barker. He has to get over himself, and he has to start acting for the constituents the Liberal Party is pretending to represent. I commend the motion to the house.

Motion negatived.