HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-09-23 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

30-YEAR PLAN FOR GREATER ADELAIDE

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

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

(Continued from 3 June 2009. Page 2489.)

The Hon. M. PARNELL (22:54): I have decided today to conclude my remarks on this motion as this will be the last chance to put a number of important things on the record before the close of public submissions on the 30-year plan at the end of this month. Since I originally moved this motion, there have been a large number of developments, some of which I will go through tonight. Probably the most important of these has been the growing chorus of calls from a range of professional people questioning the veracity of the 30-year plan and the assumptions that underpin it as well as calls questioning who, in fact, is really driving these changes in the 30-year plan.

I want to start by talking about population, because we have had a number of questions asked in this place recently about population. The importance of the issue is that it goes to the heart of the plan. The question for us is whether the government's population projections are, in fact, aspirational or whether they are real figures. To me, the critical issue is that the government's documents published on its departmental websites might contain misleading information about the population of Adelaide and this, in essence, gives credibility to population projections that might not be supported by the evidence. For example, page 33 of the 30-year plan states:

The population of Greater Adelaide is expected to increase by 1.85 million by 2036.

It also says that a target of 2 million by 2050 for the entire state is now to be reached 23 years ahead of target. Another statement is that the projected increase in the population means that the region will grow by 560,000 people in the next 30 years. These and other statements by the government are statements of inevitability. That is what the government is saying will happen, and it comes over as if there is no choice but to accept that that population increase will happen.

Every single strategy in the 30-year plan—and especially the strategy for the release of more land on the fringes of Adelaide for housing development—is based on the need to deal with an expected population increase of 560,000 people. These forecasts are being presented as fact, with massive implications for where the government chooses to spend money on infrastructure priorities and for businesses looking at this plan to work out where to invest.

Also, by loading up the population forecasts, the government is artificially creating a false argument for more housing estates on Adelaide's outskirts that are simply not required. This goes directly to the heart of my motion: who is driving these population forecasts and who will benefit from the overblown forecasts?

I have been reliably informed that the 30-year plan authored by KPMG, Connor Holmes and other members of the development industry at a cost to taxpayers of $1.4 million, with its 560,000 population target, was in fact prepared before the background technical document. In other words, the plan came first and the background technical document came second. The errors and inconsistencies in the technical document suggest that that document was hurriedly put together. I note that the Chief Executive of the Department of Planning and Local Government, Mr Ian Nightingale, told the Budget and Finance Committee last week that the two documents were written in parallel and that they informed each other.

I might also suggest that the minister's response to claims by the Greens that the population targets in the 30-year plan are a couple of hundred thousand more than the ABS targets also smacks of similar retrofitting of arguments to justify the outcomes outlined in the consultant-written 30-year plan.

The minister argued three things yesterday. First, he said that Greater Adelaide is larger than the ABS Adelaide Statistical Division by about 150,000 people. Secondly, he said that the ABS series 6 was similar to the 30-year plan population forecasts. Thirdly, he said that eminent demographers like Professor Hugo would be embarrassed by the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics release from yesterday.

Taking the first of those points, even accepting that Greater Adelaide is larger than the ABS Adelaide Statistical Division, and even if we accept the minister's figure—which I do not necessarily—that it is 150,000 people larger, the gap is still only about 12 per cent when compared with the Greater Adelaide region. So, assuming that it also makes up about 12 per cent of the growth—therefore, it might account for about 67,200 of the additional people who I say cannot be justifiably predicted to be part of our state—there is still a considerable unexplained gap of at least 120,000 people between the ABS high growth forecast and the forecast in the 30-year plan, with the gap between the ABS middle range forecast and the figure in the 30-year plan still adding up to about 180,000-odd additional people who will more than likely never eventuate.

Secondly, it is worth noting that the ABS Series 6 is the second highest projection in the entire 72 projection series, which suggested it was considered down one very extreme end of the continuum by the ABS. I note that No. 1 is the A series projection; B is series No. 29; and C is series 54. These are described in the ABS catalogue 3222.0 as follows:

Three main series of projections, Series A, B and C, have been selected from a possible 72 individual combinations of the various assumptions. Series B largely reflects current trends in fertility, life expectancy at birth, net overseas migration and net interstate migration, whereas Series A and Series C are based on high and low assumptions for each of these variables respectively.

Not all 72 projections are likely. The ABS has chosen the three which provide the likely range. The government choice, Series 6, is well and truly above even the high Series A assumptions. I might also add that the minister is accusing me of using the ABS Adelaide Statistical Division and then he uses data from exactly the same statistical division to justify his target.

In the ABS release from yesterday, members should note the following. First, South Australia had the second lowest population growth in the country. We do not know about Adelaide specifically, but it does tend to be lower than South Australia, and South Australia had the second lowest. Secondly, the ABS population projections in this latest update are exactly the same as the projections I used, which were from September 2008. Thirdly, for the past 12 months, net interstate migration in South Australia was minus 5,000 people. Fourthly, for the past 12 months, 88.9 per cent of our population growth was made up of net overseas migration, yet the background technical document acknowledges a recent cut by 14 per cent to the national 2008-09 permanent skilled migration program intake from 133,500 to 115,000. I could say much more on the government's population projections, but I will leave that for another day.

I now move to the Growth Investigation Areas Report. Frequently over the past few months I have called in this chamber and in the media for the release of this report (which was authored by consultants Connor Holmes). Members should know that the call I have been making has been backed by the Planning Institute of Australia, South Australian Division. The President of the Planning Institute wrote the following letter to The Advertiser of 10 August:

The SA Division of the Planning Institute of Australia urges the Minister for Urban Development and Planning Paul Holloway to release the Growth Areas Investigation Report undertaken to inform the development of the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide. For consultation on the plan to be genuinely robust and meaningful, the people of South Australia need to have access to the research that underpins the rationale for the urban growth directions proposed by the plan for Greater Adelaide.

As a professional organisation, PIA considers that the release of this background information will allow a transparent assessment of the impact of the proposed urban growth areas on the protection of primary production land and biodiversity habitat. It will also allow us to evaluate the ability of new residential areas to be adequately served by the infrastructure and community services essential to a sustainable quality of life.

Planners take our responsibility to involve people in decisions that affect their lives most seriously. We have a code of conduct which governs our actions in this regard. When governments act to deny citizens the right to access important information that would assist them to understand and contribute to the planning process, democracy is compromised. As planners we know that this can result in a cynical community that no longer trusts the planners that make the plans and the politicians that promote them. Is this the Adelaide we all want?

It is signed by Angela Hazebroek, President of the South Australian Division of the Planning Institute of Australia. In this place, minister Holloway has said:

I do not intend to release the growth areas investigation report. Obviously, the information about where Adelaide might grow is potentially highly commercially sensitive.

Yet the highly commercially sensitive nature of the information contained in the growth areas investigation report has not stopped the report's authors from working for property developers seeking to rezone and redevelop the same land that is identified in the report.

This is how it works. The government has paid a private planning consultancy firm some $250,000 to identify future land for housing development. Then months after the report has been completed the government refuses to release the report to the public. Meanwhile, the planning consultants, who do know which land has been identified, are out in the marketplace working for private developers who are keen to subdivide those same parcels of land. As a result, the firm of Connor Holmes is allowed to know where future land releases have been recommended to occur while everyone else has to rely on fuzzy maps and vague descriptions in the 30-year plan.

The firm of Connor Holmes has been working for private clients in relation to exactly the same areas of land before, during and after it has undertaken work for the government that, presumably, identified those parcels of land for future development. Now, I say that this is a completely unfair commercial advantage, and I think it is an outrageous conflict of interest.

Before I go on, I want to make it clear that I am not suggesting that Connor Holmes has misused its commercial advantage to benefit either itself or its commercial clients. I think it is clear that it has an advantage, but I am not saying that it has misused it.

I have had two conversations with one of the Connor Holmes directors, and he has assured me that his firm has not misused any information that they obtained through undertaking government consultancies. Connor Holmes has written to me and also written to the minister repeating this. The minister read part of one of those letters into Hansard during question time.

Some of the correspondence that I get from other professional planners and people in the community still gives me cause for alarm. For example, one letter I received posed the following questions:

Why is it that most of the land proposed to be part of the new urban boundary is either in ownership or has options over it by companies that employ Connor Holmes as their development advisers? If so, how can the work be impartial and unbiased, given that Connor Holmes is paid by those companies to facilitate the rezoning of their land.

One of the directors of Connor Holmes is the state president of the Urban Development Institute of Australia—the main lobby group for developers. How did that firm give fair, unbiased advice when his role in the UDIA is to lobby for rezoning on behalf of their members (including Hickinbotham and DayCorp). Given the planning strategy is a public document, why isn't the work undertaken by Connor Holmes publicly available? Is their substantial conflicts of interest with developers benefiting from the new urban boundaries the reason why it is not available?

To be fair, I mentioned earlier that Connor Holmes had contacted me and the minister about the statements that I have been making over conflict of interest. Connor Holmes also put its case, its version of events, to the planning profession in a letter that was published in the PIA newsletter, and I will read that letter. The letter, which is addressed to a Angela Hazebroek, President of the Planning Institute of South Australia, states:

Dear Angela, recent public comments by Mark Parnell MLC regarding alleged conflicts of interest and privileged access to information on the part of Connor Holmes raises two key issues for PIA. First, PIA members must be able to compete for and accept major regional policy planning commissions from government. If involvement on behalf of a private client in one or more parts of a potentially very large region is to disqualify PIA members from bidding for major planning studies, then the government will be deprived of the expertise it is seeking and PIA members will be deprived of the opportunity to contribute. PIA members cannot be expected to sever ties with private clients as this would jeopardise their livelihoods once the government commission is over. Disclosure of interests is the appropriate course to follow in these cases, as it allows the client to determine whether and how to commission the work. This was the course of action followed by Connor Holmes in relation to the recent Growth Investigations Study.

Secondly, it must be recognised and understood that PIA members are bound—legally and ethically—to abide by confidentiality requirements imposed by their clients. Where a consultancy contract—be it with government or any other party—specifies that information is confidential, PIA members are contractually bound not to disclose that information or to use it for the benefit of other clients. Connor Holmes—in common with any of the larger planning consultancies—has within the firm information that is confidential to one client and cannot be used to benefit another. There is nothing sinister or unusual about this.

It is my view that PIA members should be able to accept commissions from government subject to appropriate disclosure, and that having accepted such a commission, PIA members can be trusted to be responsible custodians of any confidential information related to that project.

Within that letter from Connor Holmes lies the heart of this problem: that is, when it comes to conflict of interest we are obliged to trust that the planning profession is honourable and will not use information. We are obliged to trust them because there is no other mechanism in place. I believe that is a major problem.

I also raised the issue of conflict of interest in the Budget and Finance Committee recently—that most worthwhile committee that I believe does this chamber proud. The following evidence was given to the committee by Mr Nightingale, the Chief Executive of the Department of Planning and Local Government. I asked him to explain the processes his agency goes through to make sure that real or potential conflicts of interest do not occur, and he replied:

With any private consultancy, we would be requiring to declare a conflict of interest.

I think it probably should read 'requiring them to declare a conflict of interest'. Mr Nightingale continued:

I should say that, as with all commercial providers of information, it is the information that the department is looking for to provide solid and sound advice to the minister, and nearly all of those planning consultants would have a commercial client, it isn't just this particular company that you are talking about. We have other contracts with other planning consultancy firms that are providing us with advice, that advice feeds into good policy-making, and once you can identify if there is any potential conflict of interest it is how the government and the department uses the advice.

I think there is still a major problem, because the department remains reluctant to release the documents that they say exist, including the disclosures of conflict of interest. I have requested those documents under the Freedom of Information Act; I have been knocked back once and we are currently in the appeal process.

In the Budget and Finance Committee Mr Nightingale was also asked about the actual mechanisms used to ensure that conflict of interest did not occur, other than the simple disclosure. He said, in relation to these private firms that hold contracts with the government:

If the contract has been completed and the information has been provided to the government, then, like any customer/client relationship, the information provided is the client's. More importantly, the point I want to make is how the government, or the department, uses information to create good policy advice.

The Chairperson then asked:

…what you are saying is that that is the end of the conflict of interest management from the department's viewpoint—that would appear to be what you are saying—but is there some secrecy provision or confidentiality provision that these private sector consultants are required to sign and abide by?

Mr Nightingale said:

I think the important part of the contract provisions is that they agree at the signing of the initial contract that they don't take on any more clients within the scope while the contract is under way.

The Chairperson asked:

While it is under way, but once they have completed it and handed it to you, that requirement doesn't exist any more.

Mr Nightingale replied:

That would be correct.

The Chairperson went on to ask:

What about the access to the information that they have gathered on completing the contract for the department? At the conclusion of that can they then go off to a client in that particular area, and are they completely free to use the intellectual knowledge that they have in that particular area?

Mr Nightingale started to say:

My personal view, without seeking legal advice, would be that the department is the owner of the property. So, the department—

He was then cut off and invited to go back and seek legal advice, no doubt so that he did not cause himself any difficulty. Connor Holmes, whose letter I read out earlier, state quite clearly what they believe the situation is. The head of the department is apparently unsure of the status of the information and whether it could be used by anyone else. In fact, the evidence from the Chief Executive to the Budget and Finance Committee is that he is unsure what the limitations are on consultants using the information they obtained during government contracts, and I do look forward to his further advice.

So far, the only limitation, according to the Chief Executive, seems to be the requirement that the consultant not add to their list of private clients where a conflict exists during the currency of the contract. When the contract expires, they can take on new clients with interests in the same land as the subject matter of the consultancy, and I find that to be a remarkable situation.

I next want to talk about Mount Barker. I should, at the outset, say that I am seeking, under freedom of information, details of the role of private developers and planning consultants who I believe are pushing for the release of land around Mount Barker for urban development. The concerns that have been raised in that local community have revolved around issues such as the alienation of prime agricultural land.

I held a public meeting in Mount Barker, and some 200 people attended. One of the biggest issues raised by members of the community was the question: who is behind the push for further housing on the fringes of Mount Barker? We know that land developers approached minister Holloway to open up Mount Barker to new broadacre development; the minister has said as much in this place. He has also told us that the developers who approached the minister included Urban Pacific, which is part of the Macquarie Group; Walker Corporation; the Fairmont Group; Land Services Pty Ltd; and Day Corporation Pty Ltd.

Members might be interested to note that those companies have together given $2 million to the Labor Party over the last 10 years, including $179,500 directly to SA Labor. So, since 2000, here are some of the figures: the Walker Corporation has given $25,000 to Labor in South Australia and over $1.1 million to federal and New South Wales Labor; the Macquarie Group (that is, Urban Pacific), $27,350 to Labor in South Australia and just under $1 million ($978,000) to Labor in New South Wales and federally; the Fairmont Group has given $119,450 to Labor in South Australia; and Day Corporation, $7,700. Those South Australian donations add up to $179,500. These are the companies the minister has told us were the consortium that approached him to open up land outside Mount Barker.

So, it seems that when the rich and powerful donors come knocking, it would be very hard to ignore them—and this is an extraordinary amount of money. The question I will continue to ask in this place is: why are property developers such generous donors to the big parties? So, serious questions are being asked about the government's haste to rezone around Mount Barker. In this case the consortium made up of property developers who have been extremely generous donators to Labor has resulted in the government acquiescing to their requests. I think that the people of Mount Barker are quite rightly concerned that their interests are being put behind the interests of developers who have a history of being generous donors.

The question still remains about who is developing the development plan amendment on behalf of the developers. When minister Holloway wrote to the Mount Barker council on 19 May this year, in a letter addressed to Mayor Ann Ferguson, he said the following about this consortium of property developers:

The consortia is also required to advise me in writing, for my consideration, of a suitably qualified person, under section 101 and/or regulation 86 of the Development Act 1993, who the consortium propose to engage to prepare background investigations, associated draft development plan policies and a formal structure plan for the whole of the affected area. I have instructed that your council also be advised once this part of the process is concluded.

I have tried a number of times to ascertain who it is that the developer has nominated to be this responsible person. For the benefit of members, section 101 of the Development Act requires a suitably qualified planner to effectively sign off on the validity of a rezoning exercise.

I posed some questions to the chief executive of the Department of Planning and Local Government in the Budget and Finance Committee. I asked him, 'Well, who have these developers put forward as the responsible person?' The response from Mr Nightingale was that there was no such person. In fact, the nominated person was the Director for Planning, Andrew Grear, and then his staff.

I pursued the issue by saying that the minister had stated in parliament that he was going to ask them who the nominated person was to effectively control the process. I asked whether the consortium of developers had nominated Andrew Grear or whether the government had changed its mind about how this process was to be conducted. I received no suitable answer to that question. So, again, we need to chase, under the Freedom of Information Act, who is behind that.

I want to mention briefly the Gawler East development plan amendment. I went to the development policy advisory committee meeting, along with other honourable members—the Hon. David Ridgway was there. It was a 5¼ hour marathon meeting and, again, there were very similar concerns raised in Gawler to those that were raised in Mount Barker. Communities were feeling under extreme pressure from circling developers, and residents were frustrated that the government was not listening to their concerns.

In that public meeting speaker after speaker slammed the government's plans and they slammed the process. The only people who spoke in favour of urban sprawl at Gawler East were the developers and land owners who are set to make a fortune from property sales. I think it is a very legitimate suspicion that these changes to our planning rules are being driven to suit property developers and not the people who will be left to pick up the pieces once the development industry moves on to greener pastures.

We know that the town of Gawler is facing a potential tripling in size over the next 10 years, with major new developments proposed for Gawler East, Concordia and Roseworthy. Development consultants Connor Holmes presented at that meeting on behalf of its client, Delfin Lend Lease, and that is the major Gawler East developer. Yet, despite this contractual arrangement, Connor Holmes was also asked by the Rann government to evaluate the potential for Gawler East for new housing as part of the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide.

In the Budget and Finance Committee I asked Mr Nightingale about the Gawler East development plan amendment. I asked the question, 'Are there any contracts let to private consultants in relation to', and I first asked about the Mount Barker DPA. The response was, 'Not from the department's point of view.' My next question was:

What about in relation to the Gawler East DPA? Did that involve private consultants?

Mr Nightingale answered:

No, the Gawler East DPA is the same as Mount Barker in the sense that it will, for example, draw upon the work that was included as part of the Plan for Greater Adelaide; it will draw on work from other agencies. But, again, the department is the one running with the DPA.'

I went on to ask:

I am trying to work out whether, in any of these rezoning exercises, the government, through your agency, is paying private consultants to do any of the work at all.

Mr Nightingale then affirmed that it was only the growth investigation area's report. The Hon. Russell Wortley kindly interjected with the following:

The answer to Mr Parnell's question is no; would that be right?'

Mr Nightingale answered, 'Yes; no.' So, I thank the honourable member for that.

Basically, here we have the head of the department saying that the writing of these development plan amendments was not something that was let out to private consultants. Imagine my surprise when I applied under the Freedom of Information Act to see who in fact had written these development plan amendments. Gawler East is the one I am talking about now. Of course, most of the documents were denied. That is the government's modus operandi when it comes to these things.

But three documents were released—three 'with compliments' slips. I will read the 'with compliments' slips. They are from Connor Holmes, and they are addressed to Caroline Chapman within the department. One dated 8 December 2008 states:

Please find enclosed the draft Gawler East DPA.

The next one dated 12 March 2009 states:

Gawler East draft enclosed.

The third one dated 3 April 2009 states:

Attention Susan Lewis—

again, I assume she is in the department, given that this is a freedom of information request of the department—

please find attached a hard copy and an electronic copy of the Gawler East DPA. Kind regards, Michael Osborne.

This is on a Connor Holmes 'with compliments' slip.

It is as clear as mud to me that Connor Holmes has written the development plan amendment for Gawler East, yet the head of the department in a committee of this parliament is basically saying that it did not. Is there any wonder that I am getting frustrated in relation to conflicts of interest when requests for information are repeatedly denied? When we do get an opportunity such as in a committee of this parliament, we get inconsistent information. So, in conclusion, I would make the point that local people—

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Just before the honourable member goes on, I draw attention to standing order 190, which provides:

No reference shall be made to any proceedings of a Committee of the whole Council or of a Select Committee, until such proceedings have been reported.

I know where the honourable member is heading, but I just had that drawn to my attention. You have made certain references to the evidence in a committee which is relatively public, but you have indicated you are about to conclude—

Members interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT: Order! When the chair is speaking, the council will come to order. That includes the Hon. Mr Wortley. I would appreciate it if the Hon. Mr Parnell did not refer to any further proceedings of that committee or any other committee.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Thank you, Mr Acting President. I have no further references to make but, as you said, these meetings were well attended by the media and were well recorded; much of the information is already well and truly in the public realm.

In conclusion, local people are not stupid. They see massive new housing estates being proposed for unsuitable locations with no public transport. Ordinary people can join the dots on issues such as climate change, peak oil and social inclusion, and that begs the question: why can't the government? The Greens do strongly support well-designed development hubs that are based around public transport infrastructure, but instead what we are seeing are more bog-standard commuter suburbs that extend urban sprawl.

I strongly urge all members to pay attention to the 30-year plan and to make submissions to it. It closes at the end of this month. The Greens' call will be for the government to go back to the drawing board. The plan is based on misleading information and that taints the whole the plan. Recently, well known economist Professor Dick Blandy at a public presentation slammed the 30-year plan and said that it was not based on reality. He talked about the appalling consultation and the lack of alternatives to the plan that were provided.

Despite all the rhetoric, the overblown population figures, the inclusion of areas such as Roseworthy, Outer Gawler, Mount Barker and Buckland Park without any public transport will guarantee that urban sprawl will get worse. The heat is clearly on the fringes of Adelaide and that is where the developers are keen to go. The role of government is different to the role of developers. The government must have at its heart the public interest, not the interest of private developers. When the influence of the development industry appears to have skewed a major government document, that is when the community, eminent commentators and other experts and this parliament have every right to raise concerns and call into question why it is so.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. D.W. Ridgway.

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