GROWTH INVESTIGATION AREAS REPORT

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. D.W. Ridgway:

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.

(Continued from 28 March 2012.)

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (16:55): It will be no surprise to this chamber that the government opposes this motion. This motion seeks to direct the Ombudsman under section 14 of the act to investigate and report on matters surrounding the Growth Investigation Areas report. First and foremost, the government has nothing to hide on this matter. The former minister for planning, the Hon. Paul Holloway, addressed this matter of the tender process for the Growth Investigation Area report in significant detail in 2009.

I direct all members to Hansard for full details of that debate. However, there is a particular aspect that I would like to draw members' attention to. Minister Paul Holloway quoted a letter received from Connor Holmes in response to a question from the Hon. Mr Parnell. Part of the letter stated:

As you are aware, the decision of your department to retain Connor Holmes to provide advice in relation to the Growth Investigation Areas and (via at KPMG) the 30 Year Plan projects was taken following a competitive tender process. The involvement of this 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. Mr Parnell appears to believe that our dual involvement in many development areas constitutes, prima facie, an insurmountable conflict of interest. The State Procurement Board clearly does not agree with this assertion. In any event, Mr Parnell's position would lead to one of two potential outcomes, neither of which are either logical or tenable.

The first option would be to preclude the Government from retaining any consultant or adviser with any previous or current involvement in any areas subject to growth consideration anywhere in the Greater Adelaide region. This would disqualify from selection all of the planning firms in this State with the capacity to undertake the work, and would prevent the government from obtaining the highest quality planning advice.

The second option would be to require that any consulting firm retained by the government terminate its relationship with any clients having an interest in any land being considered for growth anywhere in the Greater Adelaide region. This would undermine the financial success of the firm retained, and would be unacceptable to any large and successful planning consultancy. In this context, the course of action taken by your department, that is, requiring disclosure of any potential conflicts of interest so they can be taken into account in the selection process and in the management of any subsequent contract, is clearly the only tenable course of action.

This matter was long ago addressed in considerable detail, and it is unnecessary to go over this ground once more. Nevertheless, the government expects that there has been some kind of deal done between the Liberals and the Greens to spend more public money going over the matter that has had considerable attention already.

Before I finish, I would like to add some context to this motion and remind the house what has happened recently. The Hon. Mr Ridgway, on behalf of the Liberal Party, has recently opposed motions of the Hon. Mr Parnell to suspend the Mount Barker growth DPA and has opposed the motion to refer matters relating directly to Mount Barker to the Environment, Resources and Development Committee. Even when the Hon. Mr Parnell's motion was amended to be referred to a select committee instead of a standing committee, the Hon. Mr Ridgeway, on behalf of the Liberal Party, opposed the motion.

Now we are asking why this is relevant. The answer is, in opposing the motion, the Hon. Mr Ridgway stated that the best way to deal with this matter was to refer it to the Ombudsman. However, this motion does not refer the Mount Barker issue to the Ombudsman. It is clear that this motion does not directly address Mount Barker.

I understand that in his summing up of the debate on the previous motion the Hon. Mr Parnell stated that he would support this motion before us today. He then questioned whether the Liberal Party actually cared about Mount Barker. The group of Liberal Party members that went to visit the Ombudsman included the member for Kavel but, other than that, the Liberal Party is delivering no more than a disingenuous outrage over the matter of Mount Barker.

What this motion, and its voting on other motions, shows is that the Liberal Party does not want to undo anything the government has done at Mount Barker and, should it form a government in the future, it will not change the development plan at Mount Barker.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (17:01): I was all ready to disagree with absolutely everything the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars said, but he recovered it somewhat at the end when he pointed out the duplicity of the Liberal Party in not actually giving a toss about the people of Mount Barker.

The Hon. Gerry Kandelaars seemed surprised that the Greens would be supporting this motion to refer certain matters to the Ombudsman, given that it does not achieve what we set out to do. The answer is that there is so much that is wrong with what the government has done—not just at Mount Barker but also with the precursor documents to Mount Barker, the growth investigation areas report, the 30-year plan—that, even though it is with a great deal of disappointment that I am supporting the Liberal motion, it is in that category of 'a little bit is better than absolutely nothing'.

I have spoken at some length on two occasions about why we need a proper inquiry into Mount Barker and, as tempting as it might be to re-agitate all those arguments, I am not going to today; however, I refer people to the motion I put forward on 14 March, and the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars referred to it. It would have been a comprehensive inquiry into a range of matters dealing with Mount Barker, dealing with conflict of interest and, as the honourable member said, the original plan was to send it to the committee that has statutory responsibility for this area.

The Liberals did not like that so it was amended by my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks to be a reference to a select committee, but they did not like that because they do not really want to uncover anything wrong at Mount Barker because then they would then be in the hot seat and would be expected by their constituents, the honourable member for Kavel's constituents, to do something about it. They do not intend to do anything about it, so what they have done is put the smallest range of matters possible together in very soft terms of reference to a secret inquiry by the Ombudsman, where people will not be able to address the big picture issue.

I will name it. The big picture issue is, I think, the appropriateness of the government outsourcing to conflicted private sector operators fundamental questions about the future of our towns, our cities and our suburbs. That is the thing we have to get to the bottom of, that is the conflict of interest. It has not gone away. The protagonists will say that they declared their conflict of interest; well, that becomes a declared conflict of interest, it does not make it go away.

I am very disappointed that this parliament did not choose to accept the genuine inquiry the Greens were proposing, one that would have been under the scrutiny of the public. Members of the public could have come along, they could have seen the questions being asked, and they could have seen the answers. Instead, we have this Ombudsman's inquiry into a very narrow range of matters. I made a further contribution in this place on 4 April this year where I set out in some detail why it was that the Ombudsman inquiry is not an adequate replacement for the detailed parliamentary inquiry that the Greens were proposing.

It is with some sadness that we support it. It is an inquiry; it is better than nothing. We will see whether it comes up with any mismanagement or other behaviour that warrants further action in this place. I do not hide my disappointment that the people of Mount Barker are not going to get what they deserve, but let us have this Ombudsman inquiry and let us see what comes out of it. The Greens will therefore be supporting the motion.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (17:05): I rise to indicate my support for the Hon. David Ridgway's motion to refer to the Ombudsman an inquiry into the engagement of Connor Holmes to conduct the Growth Investigation Areas Report. In doing so, I commend the Hon. Mark Parnell for bringing to light this and many other issues concerning the rezoning and development at Mount Barker.

Whilst the Hon. Mark Parnell has raised issues well beyond that before us today—and as an aside, I put on the record that I would have much preferred that those were pursued—the Liberal Party has instead chosen to focus on Connor Holmes' seeming conflict of interest in preparing for the government the Growth Investigation Areas Report while simultaneously lobbying on behalf of major developers to have significant areas of land rezoned and, more specifically, in the government's procurement process which, at least, overlooked this conflict and, at worst, enabled it.

Given that the Growth Investigation Areas Report informed the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide, which has been characterised as the plan for growth, such a conflict, at least to my mind, is inappropriate. Addressing this perceived conflict of interest about the authors of the Growth Investigation Areas Report is clearly necessary to the integrity of any planning and zoning decisions flowing from the 30-year plan and more generally to the accountability of our planning system. For this reason, this motion has my support. I am aware that the District Council of Mount Barker supports referring the matter to the Ombudsman as well.

However, I do note that, in supporting references to the Ombudsman, we should be aware of the budgetary impact this has on the Ombudsman's office and, in turn, on access to an ombudsman investigation by our constituents. As the Ombudsman detailed in the 2010-11 annual report, the investigation into the City of Charles Sturt, following the referral by the former Independent MLC David Winderlich, cost just over $425,000, which was met entirely from within the Ombudsman's budget.

Whilst I do not expect the investigation proposed by the Hon. David Ridgway to be as complex and lengthy as that, we should nonetheless bear this in mind when considering any such proposal. In doing so, my office spoke to the Ombudsman and it is my understanding that, while he awaits this year's budget before being able to accurately assess any impact such a referral may have, he believes that, given the relatively confined terms of reference, he will be able to conduct the investigation without impacting upon his statutory obligations.

If, however, this is not the case, I would certainly support any application he makes to the government for additional funding to meet the cost of this investigation, as I hope all other members of this council would. With that said, I support the motion, probably in the same heart as the Hon. Mark Parnell—that is, that it is better to do something than nothing—and look forward to the Ombudsman's report when it is handed down.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (17:09): I thank members for their contributions and I am pleased that it appears that we will have the numbers to have this investigation referred to the Ombudsman. It appears that we will; we will see how you call it, Mr President. In summing up, I respond to the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars' and the Hon. Mark Parnell's comments in relation to why we have chosen this path and not referred it to the ERD Committee or, indeed, a select committee.

Members will be well aware that the ERD Committee is controlled by the government. The Hon. Mark Parnell himself, I think, laments the fact that the government controls that committee. My colleagues, the Hon. Michelle Lensink and—it was Ivan Venning—now Tim Whetstone, the member for Chaffey, are on that committee. They often lament the fact that the chair shuts it down, does not call witnesses and the government basically controls it. Really, there was no likelihood of an outcome.

The Hon. Carmel Zollo: What a load of rubbish!

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: It is not a—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Absolutely true.

The Hon. Carmel Zollo interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Hon. Carmel Zollo says we can have all the witnesses we want. They would want to make sure the Liberal members of that committee table that statement.

The Hon. Carmel Zollo: The Hon. Mark Parnell will confirm that.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: And that will be good. I am pleased to hear that you can have all the witnesses you want. However, what happens is, at the end of the day, the government sanitises the report and, of course, we know the minister does not ever bother to respond to those reports.

The Hon. J.M. Gazzola: Better than the rubbish you concoct on your select committees.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Yes, we could set up a select committee of the Legislative Council which does not have a majority of government members. However, in the 10 years I have been in this place, I am yet to see any recommendation of any select committee acted on by any minister. Even when we gave them the courtesy of having the minister chair them, and having the government with sufficient numbers, they still do not act on the findings.

What we wanted to do was to refer it to an independent person (the Ombudsman) and an independent body (his office). It will publish a report and I hope there will be some findings that the government will respond to; whereas, when we go through this parliamentary process with this arrogant government that just sweeps things under the carpet, we do not get any actual outcomes—and what we want is an outcome.

I accept that it is relatively narrow, but we went to the Ombudsman with all the information and said, 'We would like to have a meeting.' The Hon. Stephen Wade, the member for Kavel (Mark Goldsworthy) and I went to the Ombudsman and said, 'We want to look at instigating an inquiry. What sort of wording do you need?' The wording that we have is the wording that the Ombudsman's office gave us, so that he has the scope to inquire into the probity process. He gave us advice—that is why you go to the Ombudsman. There is not much point referring something to the Ombudsman that does not give him the scope to do what he needs to do.

We have done that. We got advice from the Ombudsman's office on the sort of wording he would need. Although the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars and the Hon. Mark Parnell criticised us, the wording is based on the information that his office said he required to do the investigation into the probity checks that were done in awarding that contract. The Hon. Mark Parnell has referred to a 'conga line' of people coming to his office from the development industry raising issues about this particular potential conflict of interest. I have not had a conga line, but I have had a number of people from the development industry—

The Hon. M. Parnell: They go to the ones they trust, David.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Yes. Well, you have always had a longer conga than most people anyway, Mark. At the end of the day, there are people in the industry who have been concerned about how this was allowed to happen. In Western Australia, the planning officials said it would never happen. A government official said that you cannot have somebody serving two masters, if you like, a consultant. It raised all these issues, so that is why we have chosen the Ombudsman's inquiry. It is interesting, when Mark Parnell talks about us—

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mark Parnell.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: —and says the people of Mount Barker do not deserve what they get. I was contacted by some people in Mount Barker who were outraged we were not supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell's motion. They said, 'We have been through all the letters, we have been through the information and it is littered with Liberal Party people.' I said, 'Well, thank you.' I will not name the person who I spoke to, but I said, 'Could you provide me with the names, please, because I would like to see who they are?' The only name they could provide me with was Nick Bolkus. Now, we are a broad church in the Liberal Party, but I can assure you he ain't part of it. So, it is interesting.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: That is why they thought he was a Liberal, because he was tied up with them. This is where the story gets misconstrued. Mark Parnell talks about Mount Barker people getting what they deserve. I will put on the record again that it was the Greens who preferenced Grace Portolesi, Chloe Fox and all of the people in marginal seats, with the deliberate intention of electing a Labor government. So, sadly, the people of Mount Barker and South Australia got a Labor government because the Greens wanted a Labor government ahead of a Liberal government, when we had a clear policy of a different approach to Mount Barker anyway.

We did not win the election. The Greens made their choice, and the rest is history. This poor excuse for a government is back in office. So I am pleased to hear that we are likely to get the support to refer this to the Ombudsman. I hope the Ombudsman has the budget and the financial resources—he is not starved of resources from this hopeless government—so that we will be able to conduct an inquiry and come up with some recommendations about how this certainly does not happen in the future. Really, this is about trying to make sure that it does not happen again, unlike what minister Rau was saying, that things in Mount Barker will never happen again. With those few words I urge members to support the motion.

The council divided on the motion:

Majority of 6 for the ayes.

Motion thus carried.