HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-06-03 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

30-YEAR PLAN FOR GREATER ADELAIDE

The Hon. M. PARNELL (16:01): I move:

That this council notes with concern the potential for conflict of interest in the development of the 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide.

We have had some discussion already today in question time and yesterday about planning issues on the periphery of Adelaide and, in particular, the 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide. For the benefit of members, this 30 Year Plan is described by the government as follows:

The plan for Greater Adelaide will detail where and how Adelaide and its surrounds will develop over the next three decades, providing certainty whilst also recognising regional differences, strengths, opportunities and constraints. It is expected a draft of the plan for Greater Adelaide will be released for community consultation in mid 2009.

Greater Adelaide includes metropolitan Adelaide and the surrounding near country arc, down to Victor Harbor and Goolwa in the south, up to the Barossa and Mallala in the north and east across to Mount Barker and through the Adelaide Hills. Murray Bridge is also included for investigation. This area covers 28 councils and seven state government planning regions. This is clearly a most important issue for the whole of South Australia. It is not just an issue that should concern planners and it is not just an issue for even the affected communities: it is an issue for us all in South Australia.

It brings to the fore the important role of the planning system in shaping the future of our state. One of the most critical documents influencing the 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide is a document entitled the 'Growth Investigation Areas' project. I refer briefly to minister Holloway's media release of 6 November 2008 in which he describes the consortium of groups that have put together that document. The media release states:

Connor Holmes and consortium partners comprising KPMG, Fyfe Engineers and Surveyors, Environmental and Biodiversity Services, Kath Moore and Associates and Scholefield Robinson Horticultural Services are to undertake the investigative work to identify and evaluate broad-acre land.

The media release further states:

Mr Holloway says the Connor Holmes-led consortium will work in collaboration with the Department of Planning and Local Government, the government's key planning and development agency, which is currently working to implement the recommendations of the Planning Review.

Connor Holmes has had a bit of an airing in parliament in the last couple of days. For members who are not familiar with Connor Holmes, it describes itself on its own website as follows:

Connor Holmes is a specialist firm of development advisers based in Adelaide, South Australia, and operating in the local, national and international markets. The firm's directors have been responsible for the delivery of numerous large and complex projects, including residential, retail and commercial, industrial, educational, institutional and tourism/leisure developments. It has also been responsible for the management of large consultant teams and the resolution of major strategic consulting studies.

My motion before the council refers to the potential for conflict of interest, and the word 'potential', I think, is important. This motion has arisen from a number of communications I have received from people across the state who are concerned about the dual role that development advisers—particularly Connor Holmes—are playing, representing developers at the same time as being engaged by the Department of Planning and Local Government, and the potential for conflict of interest that arises from that.

To provide the first of a number of examples, I look to the recent section 30 review under the Development Act conducted by the Light Regional Council. As members would know, section 30 of the Development Act provides for a periodic overhaul of a council's planning scheme. On 18 February at the public meeting for that section 30 review at Light council, consultants from Connor Holmes made representations on behalf of no fewer than four separate development companies. The notes that were subsequently made by Light Regional Council in relation to that meeting include the following. In relation to Mr Stuart Moseley, who is associated with Connor Holmes, the notes read:

Mr Moseley outlined that Connor Holmes has a dual role, one to advise state government with respect to its 30-year growth strategies and a separate role to represent commercial clients. Connor Holmes is conscious of its dual role as an adviser to government and noted that any decisions on growth are ultimately left to the government to make.

I said there were four separate presentations by Connor Holmes on behalf of private developers. Mr Stuart Moseley represented the Hickinbotham Group and Mr Stephen Holmes represented the Platinum Property Group, and the notes of Mr Holmes' contribution include the following:

The South Australian Strategic Plan targets growth levels that cannot be wholly catered for within metropolitan Adelaide. Strategic initiatives are directing growth towards the Roseworthy locality, including the Barossa Regional Spatial Framework...the state government's 30 year plan (currently being prepared) and the council's strategic plan.

At the same meeting, Mr Stephen Holmes made representations on behalf of Regional Land Pty Ltd, and also Mr John Stimson from Connor Holmes made representations on behalf of KW Hahesy. In the notes in relation to Mr Stimson's contribution it reads:

Mr Stimson spoke to an extract from the Plan for Greater Adelaide provided as a handout to council and its staff...A residential and employment growth focus for Roseworthy is noted in that strategic document.

As I understand it, that document is not publicly available but was provided to the people at that meeting.

So, the firm itself acknowledges its dual role and, whenever there is a dual role, whenever everyone's loyalties or obligations lie in more than one quarter, there is clearly a conflict of interest. I will come later to some remarks on the role of disclosures in relation to conflict of interest, but my point is that disclosing a conflict of interest or a potential conflict of interest does not make it go away: it just discloses it.

I now want to refer to the Buckland Park development—another development which has had a reasonable airing in this place over the last little while. Again, the minister's media release of 6 November last year includes the following:

Mr Holloway says to achieve this aim—

and that is the aim that the minister referred to in question time today of providing a 25-year rolling supply of land—

the government has initiated a 'growth investigation areas' (GIA) project. Setting a target of 25 years rolling supply of broadacre land was one of the key recommendations of the wide-ranging Planning and Development Review published in June, he says.

This initiative will evaluate the full range of broadacre development options for the Greater Adelaide area and will encompass the review of township boundaries initiated by the government earlier this year. It will complement other investigations into development within transit corridors, including the location of potential sites for transit-oriented developments (TODs) and other possible redevelopment sites within existing areas of Adelaide.

The GIA initiative will feed into the development of the new 30-year Plan for Greater Adelaide, which is to be developed in collaboration with councils over the next nine months.

The GIA evaluation will assess land brought into the urban growth boundary in December 2007, as well as land in the vicinity of the proposed Buckland Park country township, Concordia, Gawler, Goolwa-Middleton-Port Elliott, Mount Barker-Littlehampton-Nairne, Murray Bridge, Nuriootpa, Dry Creek, Roseworthy, Strathalbyn, Two Wells and Victor Harbor.

The conflict that arises from that is that Connor Holmes is clearly involved with the Walker Corporation in proposing the Buckland Park development and, in fact, Connor Holmes is responsible for the environmental impact statement that is currently out on public exhibition.

It is worth noting that the government's preliminary document entitled 'Directions for creating a new plan for Greater Adelaide' sets out a vision for the future growth of our Greater Adelaide area, and it focuses on creating a number of things. I will just go through some of the things in that list and members can reflect on the extent to which the Buckland Park development meets these objectives. First it states:

A city which will undergo urban regeneration and revitalisation in many existing areas (while sensibly protecting valued heritage and character), with vibrant new higher-density neighbourhoods created in and near the CBD and along designated transit corridors to the west, north and south.

That is shorthand, if you like, for transit-oriented development and infill. It is certainly not in any sense relevant to urban development outside the growth boundary away from all existing services. The directions document also describes the need to focus on creating the following:

A city that embraces well-planned fringe growth with new population centres closely connected to transport infrastructure and employment opportunities.

Buckland Park could not be further from that objective. It is miles from the nearest services and there is no employment within any reasonable reach. The directions document also says that we should focus on creating the following:

A city that encourages the sustainable growth of near country towns and townships, while protecting our most valuable environmental, agricultural and tourism assets.

That is not Buckland Park. It also says:

A city that will see the provision of high speed mass transport linked to the growth in residential housing and jobs. The government will spend nearly $2 billion over the next 10 years to modernise our public transport system.

None of it will be anywhere within cooee of Buckland Park. Even at completion, the proponents acknowledge that only 5 per cent of trips will be by public transport, which is below even the government's very modest target for public transport growth. I will not go through the rest of that list, but I think that members get the idea.

Gawler was the subject of a question I asked today, and the minister provided a comprehensive answer which, as ministerial answers go, raised as many questions as it answered. I will come back to that later, but the point to make here is that we have the involvement of a firm representing private development interests and that firm is also either directly or indirectly assisting government in determining the appropriate future direction for planning in those areas. That, most people would accept, leads to a conflict of interest.

The planning system is designed to come up with rules and plans that guide our future urban development in the public interest. We should be developing our cities, towns and countryside in a manner that maximises public benefit, that protects the environment, and not in a way that overwhelmingly advantages private developers. So, where you have the same firm beholden to both the private developers and working with government to write the rules, that is clearly a conflict of interest.

I will focus now on Mount Barker, as clearly that is at the coal face in relation to future urban development. Again, the minister's press release of 6 November 2008 referred to Mount Barker. The release reads:

Mr Holloway says the initiative will begin this comprehensive study by evaluating land in the Adelaide Hills in the vicinity of Mount Barker, Littlehampton and Nairne. 'Mount Barker is one of the most rapidly growing areas in Australia', Mr Holloway says. Not surprisingly, there has been strong interest in further developing Mount Barker to the south and east, which requires a thorough evaluation of the township boundaries to enable appropriate rezoning and planning, such as the requirement for additional access to the South-East Freeway. The review of the township boundaries in this fast-growing part of the Adelaide Hills will include input from the District Council of Mount Barker as well as from relevant government agencies.

The involvement of Connor Holmes in that exercise has had a number of people writing to me concerned about conflict of interest and the propriety of the process. One email I received from a Mount Barker resident stated:

I am trying to get answers from the state government (Paul Holloway) in relation to their proposed residential expansion for the Mount Barker area. To put it simply, they are not answering my concerns other than, 'Thank you for your email', and, 'We'll pass it on to the minister', and so on. I have tried to get answers to my main concerns since November last year. I have emailed the minister's office twice and phoned the Office of Planning and Local Government and received nothing.

My main concern is that the planning consultants engaged by the state government (Connor Holmes) to investigate what areas are going from rural to residential last year put in a submission to the District Council of Mount Barker strategic plan. The consultants stated they were representing property developers in the Mount Barker area. Developers also own property in or near Mount Barker. The Connor Holmes submission supported and wanted more residential development in the district. My problem is: how can these consultants independently look at the issue of residential expansion with their strong connections to property developers who own land locally, and no doubt some of it vacant and rural?

There is a strong conflict of interest and I have so many unanswered questions in my mind to why these consultants, Connor Holmes, were even selected in the first place. I am pulling my hair out here trying to get some sort of basic response from the ALP.

Those types of concerns are widespread in the community, and I have had more communications than just that one. Certainly I have seen correspondence directly from Connor Holmes in relation to rezoning of land and strategic planning in the Mount Barker area, and it is clearly public knowledge that they have a great interest there on behalf of commercial clients.

Part of the community's angst is the apparent contradiction with the minister's previous comments about development at Mount Barker. I read into the record a recent comment, but if we go back to 2007, according to the Mount Barker Courier newspaper, this is what the newspaper reported in relation to the minister:

But it is unclear whether the government wants Mount Barker, the region's fastest growing centre, to continue its rapid growth into the future. Mr Holloway said that once newly rezoned land in Mount Barker and surrounding townships was developed, 'Mount Barker would probably be getting close to its growth boundary. We certainly wouldn't be contemplating increasing that growth boundary without at least discussing it with the council and undertaking a significant review', he said. 'Obviously there is an optimum size to Mount Barker and, if it goes beyond that, it is going to put added pressure on major infrastructure like the freeway. To go beyond that is something we are not contemplating.'

I think the community's concern is understandable when only two years ago the minister was talking about limits to growth yet attention is now focused on additional growth, especially in places such as Mount Barker and the urban fringe. I do not need to remind members of the importance of hanging onto our food production areas that are in close proximity to Adelaide.

The reason I have put all this on the record today is that I believe the community needs to have confidence in the planning system. I question whether it is appropriate for the chief consultants employed by the state government to prepare a major strategic report identifying and prioritising areas for commercial and residential development in metropolitan Adelaide for the next 30 years to, at the same time, be actively lobbying on behalf of commercial clients for greater development of those same areas of land. We need to ask ourselves the question: if Connor Holmes is representing commercial interests, who is representing the public's interest in the preparation of the 30 year plan for Greater Adelaide?

I do not accept the usual response from ministers, where they say that the buck stops with them and that they will make the final decision. I think we all know the incredible power that lies with consultants who prepare key documents and key reports. Even as Connor Holmes admits publicly that it is playing a dual role, I think that we as a parliament need to be told what mechanisms are in place to prevent a conflict of interest. Earlier today, in his answer to a question I asked in relation to development at Gawler, the minister outlined some of the mechanisms that he says are in place. He said, for example:

In its project proposal Connor Holmes disclosed in writing areas and projects where it had an interest either with private clients or in providing advice to the state government. I am advised that the contract for consulting services entered into between Connor Holmes and the government contains provisions that adequately protect the parties from any conflicts of interest and preserve confidentiality.

The minister went on to say:

To ensure transparency, Connor Holmes has also provided DPLG with a letter identifying areas that are part of the investigations where the firm has advised clients.

Two things flow from that. The first is that, if the objective is to ensure transparency, I believe the minister should show us the list; I think we should see which commercial clients Connor Holmes, or any other consultant to government, has identified as commercial interests that deal with the same areas of land that government rezoning exercises are dealing with.

I think probably the most important point to come out of that is that disclosing a list of commercial clients and then continuing to do government work, as well as working for the commercial clients, does not remove a conflict of interest. All it does is declare internally, on some document in a government file, that the declaration has been made so that when someone—like me, perhaps—talks about conflict of interest someone else can pull out this document and say that there is no conflict of interest because they declared it.

They are very different things. Declaring an actual or potential conflict of interest does not make it go away. I think the community needs to be satisfied that major planning exercises such as this, an exercise that will effectively direct the form and shape of the city of Adelaide and the greater metropolitan area for the next 30 years, are being driven by a process where the public interest is paramount. I do not believe that the public interest is necessarily seen to be paramount when key players are also lobbyists for vested interests who stand to make money out of decisions made through the planning process.

I am not suggesting illegality or anything like that, but it is clear from the correspondence that I am receiving that the potential for conflict of interest, the apparent conflict of interest, has clearly reached out into the community; it is not just the invention of a member of parliament with a planning degree. The community is clearly frustrated because members of the public do not know where to go with these sorts of concerns. We do not have an independent commission against corruption, an ICAC, or any similar body to which people can raise concerns; they need to do things such as come to members of parliament.

I think the minister needs to reassure the community, to a much greater extent than he has in his statement and in response to my question today, that the public interest in these matters is paramount. With those comments, I seek leave to conclude my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT