MOUNT BARKER DEVELOPMENT

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

That this council:

1. Notes—

(a) the report of the Ombudsman entitled Investigation into the Growth Investigation Areas Report Procurement laid on the table of this council on 5 March 2013;

(b) the findings of the report in relation to conflict of interest, lack of probity, the integrity of the procurement process and other maladministration;

(c) the additional reported comments of the Ombudsman to the media that he expected and hoped that the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption would investigate matters raised in his report; and

(d) that the main operative provisions of the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act 2012 are yet to be proclaimed.

2. Calls on the government to proclaim the commencement of the remainder of the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act 2012 as soon as possible.

3. On the commencement of the act, refers the Ombudsman's report to the Office for Public Integrity pursuant to section 17 of the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act 2012.

4. Calls on the government to immediately release the Growth Investigation Areas Report as recommended by the Ombudsman.

(Continued from 20 March 2013.)

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (17:05): I rise on behalf of the government to speak on the motion of the Hon. Mark Parnell. I will speak briefly about this motion because these matters have already been addressed by the minister in his ministerial statement of 19 March 2013. Regarding point 1 of the motion, the minister said, in his statement:

It is of great importance that public faith in the planning process is strengthened by the government's response to the Ombudsman's report. The selection of Mount Barker as a growth area was evidence-based and was not criticised by the Ombudsman. I note the Ombudsman's findings that conflicts of interest in relation to the Mount Barker investigation were not properly managed. It is incumbent on me as minister to address this.

Additionally, the minister said in his statement:

The Ombudsman has indicated to me that he has written to the Office of Public Integrity Establishment Team and provided a copy of his report, with a view to their consideration of what might be done about his expressed concerns regarding apparent maladministration.

In relation to point 2, I am advised that the commencement of the remainder of the Independent Commissioner against Corruption Act 2012 will occur as soon as possible. Justice Lander has made it clear in statements to the media that September is the earliest—the earliest, Mr President—he can commence work as the state's first Independent Commissioner against Corruption. The doors will open on 1 September. In relation to point 3, I reiterate that the minister said in his statement:

The Ombudsman has indicated to me that he has written to the Office of Public Integrity Establishment Team and provided a copy of his report, with a view to their consideration of what might be done about his expressed concerns regarding apparent maladministration.

Regarding point 4, I direct the honourable member to the internet, where the GIA (I think its full name is the Growth Investigation Areas report) and other technical reports are all readily available. Once again, the minister said in his statement:

Finally, having considered his report, I agree with the Ombudsman that the GIA report should be released. Accordingly, today I table the GIA report and all the technical working papers that were inputs into the development of the 30-year plan and the Mount Barker rezoning. These reports will confirm what the government has always maintained: that these were technical, analytical inputs into the 30-year plan and were not determinative of policy. Policy is determined by the government.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Well, we are the government—a surprise to you, I am sure. The government sees little point in this motion now, as all matters raised by the honourable member have been addressed. I recognise that at the time of moving this motion these points had not been addressed; however, I would have thought that the honourable member would have noticed by now that they have been and that this motion is now redundant. As such, the government opposes the motion.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (17:09): I rise on behalf of the opposition to speak to the Hon. Mark Parnell's motion, and I think it is appropriate to start with a little bit of background. Of course, it was a motion moved by myself that referred the procurement process and the probity arrangements around that to the Ombudsman. I would hope that the Hon. Mark Parnell gives me due credit in his summing up, because I think it is important to acknowledge, in this cutthroat game of politics, if it is your idea, you do like to actually get recognition for it. I would also like to again put on the record the actual work of the member for Kavel, Mark Goldsworthy, who—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: The Marvel from Kavel.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: As my colleague, the Hon. John Dawkins says, 'the Marvel from Kavel'. He is a very hardworking local member, and it was through his relentless pursuit of this issue in our party that we arrived at the position to refer it to the Ombudsman. I remind members that it was first the Hon. Mark Parnell's wish that we go to the ERD Committee, and then he amended his wish to have a select committee.

We know, as hardworking as the members of the Legislative Council are—we have some 13 or 14 select committees—that we would not be at this point of having a report completed and tabled if we had gone down the select committee path. I think that is important to remember.

I will just address the issues in relation to the motion. We have some similar sentiments, in one sense, to the government, because a lot of what has been requested in this motion has been delivered. Certainly, in relation to the motion to note the report of the Ombudsman which was laid on the table of this council on 5 March 2013—it has been noted. The Hon. Mark Parnell's motion also includes:

(b) The findings of the report in relation to conflict of interest, lack of probity, the integrity of the procurement process and other maladministration;

(c) The additional reported comments of the Ombudsman to the media that he expected and hoped that the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption would investigate matters raised in his report; and

(d) That the main operative provisions of the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act 2012 are yet to be proclaimed.

We know all those things; there is nothing new in those things. I was a little concerned with points 2 and 3. I am pleased to hear—and I had forgotten that—the Ombudsman had written to the minister to tell him that he had sent a copy to the Office of Public Integrity, awaiting the final appointment, or the opening of the doors. I am not sure of the technical term, because Justice Lander has been appointed, but has yet to take up his role.

Members would be aware that parliament cannot formally refer something to the Office of Public Integrity or the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption—

The Hon. M. Parnell: Not straight to the ICAC.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Well—and so, I would be concerned that we are starting to use the parliament before ICAC is even in place to be able to refer stuff. I am a little concerned that this could be seen as a formal parliamentary referral to the ICAC. So, I am very pleased that the Hon. Mrs Zollo has put on the record that the Ombudsman has advised the minister that he has sent a copy of his report to the Office of Public Integrity. I now refer to point No. 4, which states:

4. Calls on the government to immediately release the Growth Investigation Areas Report as recommended by the Ombudsman.

We have all been calling for that for some time. It has been released, and so it has just happened. The Hon. Mark Parnell said it happened the day before we debated this. It did not happen yesterday, when we were about to vote on it; it happened weeks and weeks ago.

The opposition is not going to oppose it, but we do think that largely what the Hon. Mark Parnell has called for in this motion has been covered in some shape or form. As I said, I reiterate our concerns. Within the Ombudsman's report, he does talk about the New South Wales ICAC, and a publication called 'Developing a statement of business ethics'. The Procurement Board responded to him by saying they would review their practices and procedures, and he certainly recommended that they do so. He is quoted as saying:

I commend the New South Wales ICAC publication 'Developing a Statement of Business Ethics' as a guide.

I think that part of it, in one sense, within the Procurement Board may well be somewhat addressed if they are genuine in reviewing their practices and policies in line with that particular publication. I have to say I have not read that publication.

With those few words I indicate that we will not be opposing it. As I said, it is a bit like the government in that most of what honourable members have been looking for has been delivered. We are somewhat concerned and do not wish to see this as a formal parliamentary referral, so we are not going to oppose it. Perhaps the honourable member in his summing-up, when he gives me credit for the Ombudsman's report, actually makes—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: —we might change our mind—makes some comment around it, given the statements made by the Hon. Mrs Zollo that the Ombudsman has sent a copy already to the Office of Public Integrity.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (17:15): To sum up, I thank the Hon. Carmel Zollo and the Hon. David Ridgway for their contributions, and I will refer briefly to both of them. I note that I made a lengthy contribution when introducing this motion and I have no intention of repeating the things that I said then. However, what I do need to draw to the attention of members is the fact that it was the very giving of notice of this motion that finally shamed the government into releasing the GIA report.

The order of service here was: the Greens introduce and give notice of a motion, and the government then some 2½ years after the Ombudsman first suggested that it should be releasing this GIA report finally releases it and puts it up on the website—and I acknowledged as much when I finally got to speak to my motion that Wednesday of sitting a few weeks ago.

Members might think that the final part of this motion, calling on the government to immediately release the Growth Investigation Areas report, is now redundant and I will not disagree. However, if someone wants to take up the time of the house by formally amending it they can do so, but I made the point the day that I first spoke to this that the government had been shamed into releasing that document and we now have it available.

However, where I cannot agree with the Hon. Carmel Zollo is that the basis of the Labor Party's position is that there is not much point in pursuing this any more because everything has now been done. Well, Mr President—no, it hasn't. As I said when I first spoke to this motion, the government is trying to do a Pontius Pilate here. It wants to wash its hands of it. The only argument that the government puts forward is that the Ombudsman told the government that he has in fact sent a copy already to the precursor to the ICAC and therefore there is no need for anyone else to do it.

Well, I will tell you what, the people of Mount Barker do not accept that and that is why their council unanimously sent it to the ICAC as well, and a number of individuals are sending it to the ICAC. This motion is effectively a referendum, if you like, for the upper house of this parliament to decide whether we think the allegations and the findings of the Ombudsman are important enough that we want to put on the record the fact that this chamber believes the ICAC should look at it as well.

In fact, the motion formally invites the council, and presumably the mechanics would be that the Clerk or the President would write to the Office of Public Integrity once the legislation has been fully proclaimed and that that is the precursor to the ICAC having a look at it. That is the appropriate process. I have followed section 17 of the act and I have also, for the Hon. Mr Ridgway's benefit, had a good look at the list of persons who can refer things to the Office of Public Integrity, and it does include either of the houses of parliament, so it is an appropriate thing for us to do.

However, what I do not think we should do is simply do what the government wants us to do and that is to wash our hands of it because we know the ICAC Commissioner will get to look at this because the council sent it to him, the Ombudsman sent it to him and now I think this house of parliament should send it to him as well. I think that this is still a very live motion and it does put on the record that this parliament takes this matter seriously.

However, there is one other practical reason why I think we should do it and that is that this council will be creating a relationship with the Office of Public Integrity and if we formally refer it to them, when they have dealt with it they will formally write back to us, just like they will formally write back to the Ombudsman because he sent it to them, and formally write back to the District Council of Mount Barker because they have sent it to him as well. If we are serious about pursuing this matter, and making sure the maladministration identified in the Ombudsman's report is properly investigated, we need to create that relationship ourselves.

So, I disagree with the Hon. Carmel Zollo: this is not a redundant motion and it is still worth our supporting it. For the benefit of the Hon. David Ridgway—he used the words 'not opposed'—if I am unsuccessful on the voices, it is my intention to divide, so the Hon. David Ridgway might want to take that into account and think about in which camp his party is. We have heard about the marvel from Kavel and the great work, allegedly, local members have been doing.

This motion will be looked at very carefully by the residents of Mount Barker, and they will want to see whether the party of their local representative in fact supports whether the ICAC, via the Office of Public Integrity, should look at this matter. I will insist that this motion goes to a vote if we do not get it on the voices, and I commend it to all honourable members.

The council divided on the motion:

Majority of 8 for the ayes.

Motion thus carried.