HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-07-15 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MOUNT BARKER

The Hon. M. PARNELL (16:53): I move:

That this council notes the resolutions passed at a public meeting held at Mount Barker on Tuesday 7 July 2009 calling on the state government to:

1. Ensure that the wishes of the people of Mount Barker are central to any decisions made that affect their community; and

2. Put in place opportunities for public debate and genuine consultation about future directions for the development of Mount Barker.

This motion gives effect to a resolution that was passed at a meeting in Mount Barker on 7 July. This was a meeting that I called to give the people of Mount Barker an opportunity to have their say about development proposals for their local area. The meeting was a great success in that 200 people braved one of the coldest nights Mount Barker had seen for some time (the temperature was about 1 degree), and they came because they are passionate about their community and passionate about having a say about the future direction of their community.

At the outset, I acknowledge the support that my public meeting had from a number of quarters, including the Hon. David Ridgway, who attended and spoke on behalf of the Liberal Party. I was pleased that Mr Ian Nightingale, the CEO of the Department of Planning and Local Government, was there, basically to speak on behalf of the government. Ann Ferguson, the Mayor of the District Council of Mount Barker, spoke; and the meeting was chaired by Carol Vincent, the Chief Executive Officer of the South Australian Farmers' Federation.

As I have said, it was an important meeting because, despite government processes, there are still very sparse opportunities for people to have genuine input into future town planning decisions. The planning minister, the Hon. Mr Holloway, said in parliament today, and has said at other times, that Mount Barker is not the main focus of the government's urban expansion policies. Certainly, it is true that there are more houses proposed for a greater population in other parts of Greater Adelaide, such as in the Roseworthy area or east of Gawler, for example.

However, for the people who turned up at the public meeting at Mount Barker this is their home. Some people who spoke were farmers—at least one of whom has had family farming in the area for 150 years. Other people there were more recent arrivals. However, they all shared the desire to have their say about the future of Mount Baker.

When it comes to having your say, there are two current government processes in train. The first process is the one we have spoken about in this place on a number of occasions, and it is the proposed amendment to the planning strategy for outer metropolitan Adelaide, which is entitled 'Planning the Adelaide We All Want: The 30-year Plan for Greater Adelaide'. That document, as fate would have it, was released the day before the public meeting in Mount Barker. So, there was a concrete document we could point people to, and we could refer them to maps and show them the areas that were being investigated for future urban expansion.

When it comes to public consultation on this document, the government makes a great deal of the fact that it is out for public display and public comment until the end of September 2009. The document states:

The plan is being exhibited for community, councils, business and industry consultation, under section 22 of the Development Act 1993, and public submissions are welcome. Submissions can be made...[on the government website] until 30 September 2009.

That is pretty much the extent of public consultation. I think that, on any interpretation of the phrase 'public consultation', this process is inadequate. For example, it provides no opportunity whatsoever for people to ask questions of government officers. There is no ability to ask, 'Why was this certain area identified as suitable for urban expansion but this other area down the road was not identified as suitable?'

According to this plan, the government is not proposing to hold any public meetings of its own but, in fact, has passed the buck to local councils. The document states:

Councils will be encouraged to invite interest groups to regional briefings with expert presenters from the Department of Planning and Local Government, who will outline the intent of the draft plan and explain how people can comment on the document and the deadlines for contributions.

Even though this is the government's own document—it will form part of the statutory document, the planning strategy for outer metropolitan Adelaide—the government itself is not undertaking any consultation but is leaving it all up to councils. The document also states:

Focus groups will be held in each of the seven regions that make up the Greater Adelaide area during the consultation period. The feedback from participants will be incorporated into the final document.

However, there is no indication anywhere in this document or on the government's website as to the composition of these focus groups; how you would get onto one of these focus groups; exactly how the focus group process will be run; and how input will be incorporated into the document. So, all in all, it is a most inadequate process. That is why I need to call public meetings to make sure that people have a genuine chance to have their say, and I would urge other members to do the same.

The other document that will come out of this process, not yet on public display but will be eventually, is the development plan amendment for Mount Barker. As recently as today, the minister said in parliament:

…a draft development plan will be circulated for public consultation, and the residents of Mount Barker and all South Australians will have an opportunity to have their say on this proposed rezoning.

The arrangements for public consultation on development plan amendments are in many ways even worse than those for changes to the planning strategy. The process undertaken is that people are invited to make written submissions, and that is fine. They are invited to make verbal submissions to the Development Policy Advisory Committee, but at that point the process becomes secretive and farcical.

I have attended many Development Policy Advisory Committee hearings into development plan amendments, and they follow a simple format: residents turn up with an interest in a rezoning proposal, an interest in their local neighbourhood, and they want someone of whom they can ask questions. Some people are happy just to have their say, but most people want more of a genuine dialogue.

However, if they try to ask any members of the Development Policy Advisory Committee any questions about the process, they are told that it is not its role to answer questions and that they are here to have their say, sit down and move on. Members of the public ask the chair of the Development Policy Advisory Committee, 'Mr Chair, what will happen to the submissions we have made? What will you do with all the information you are hearing from us?' The response is, 'Our report to the minister is secret.'

On a number of occasions in this place I have asked for the minister to disclose the reports and advice he has received from the Development Policy Advisory Committee, and the answer is always the same: the minister does not disclose that advice. It is an insulting process to those people who are involved—people who make an effort to write a submission and make an effort to turn up on a hot or cold night to have their say, yet they cannot be given even the courtesy of finding out the advice the Development Policy Advisory Committee gives to the state government.

So, it is in that light that people are concerned about the public consultation processes, and that is why this motion calls for the government to put in place opportunities for public debate—in other words, not just public submissions but public debate—and genuine consultation about future directions since, because of the way the system is currently structured, there is not that opportunity.

The second important question raised by the people at the Mount Barker meeting, both in the meeting and with me afterwards, was in relation to their very real concern about who is driving the process, who is holding the reins and who is controlling the process for the potential rezoning of Mount Barker, and the farmland that surrounds it in particular, for possible future urban development. We know at one level who is driving the process because, in response to questions I asked in parliament, the minister advised that there is a consortium of developers on whose behalf the rezoning is, effectively, being undertaken.

The minister has named the consortium as comprising five 'organisations', as he describes them: Urban Pacific, the Fairmont Group, the Walker Corporation, Land Services Proprietary Limited and DayCorp Proprietary Limited. In his response to a question I asked, the minister further advised that Connor Holmes was not a member of the consortium, and I might come back to that firm in a moment.

We know that these firms, these property developers with interests in the area, are driving the process. In fact, for a considerable period of time—for at least a year and very likely much longer—representatives of some of these five organisations have been active in the farming community, approaching farmers and offering to buy their land.

Now that we have the release of the 30-year plan for Adelaide, and now that we know the names of those in the consortium who are driving the rezoning of Mount Barker, it is very clear why these developers were approaching farmers. They want first option on the land, and they stand to make a killing if the land is rezoned.

On a number of occasions, I have asked in this place about the involvement of Connor Holmes in Mount Barker. It is a private consulting firm which the minister has accepted undertakes work on behalf of government as well as on behalf of private property developers. I have a copy of a letter from Connor Holmes to the Chief Executive Officer of the District Council of Mount Barker, which commences, 'We act on behalf of the owners of a number of properties located in and about the township of Mount Barker.'

So, there is no hiding from the fact that they represent property owners. When the minister wrote to Ann Ferguson, the Mayor of the District Council of Mount Barker, on 19 May this year, he set out that there was a consortium of property developers who had asked him to commence a development plan amendment process. In the letter to the council, the minister said:

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 proposes 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.

Most members would not be aware of the meaning or the importance of this so-called 'suitably qualified person' under section 101 or regulation 86. However, it is an incredibly important role because these statutory provisions are designed to maintain the planning integrity of any exercise such as a rezoning. The regulations set out the types of qualifications that a person needs to have, which for example include corporate membership of the Urban and Regional Planning Chapter of the Planning Institute of Australia. So, the law provides that there has to be an expert qualified person effectively leading the process, leading it in the sense of undertaking the investigations and drafting the structure plans.

These provisions also include, importantly, conflict of interest provisions. Whether it is section 101 or whether it is regulation 86, the words are similar. Basically, it precludes anyone doing this work who has been involved for remuneration in any aspect of the planning or design of a proposed redevelopment or anyone who has a direct or indirect interest in any aspect of the proposed development or any body associated with any aspect of the proposed development. So, in every aspect the person who is envisaged by state law to be driving the DPA process needs to be a cleanskin.

That is why I am finding it remarkable that, each time I ask the minister whether it is the firm of Connor Holmes, the firm that has admitted that it represents the interests of property owners in the area, or persons associated with it who are responsible for driving this development plan amendment process, I am yet to get a straight answer. I think the straightest answer we have had so far was minister Holloway's comments on the Abraham and Bevan program on Monday morning, where David Bevan and the minister had the following exchange:

Bevan:...is Connor Holmes now working on a development plan amendment on behalf of land owners and developers for land in the Greater Adelaide area?

The minister's response includes the following:

They're being engaged by the land owners and I think that's developers have got options on that land, they're being engaged to do some input work to it...that is what regularly happens...

So, is the minister saying that someone associated with Connor Holmes is the person envisaged by the act and by the regulations as the person who is driving the process? If that is the case, the people of Mount Barker have absolutely every right to be concerned that important long-term decisions—30-year decisions—about future land use in the Mount Barker area are being driven by property developers and their representatives, and the supplementary question they would all be asking is: who then is looking after the public interest?

I think that the more we look at this whole exercise, whether it be in Mount Barker or other fringe areas in the Greater Adelaide area, we are finding that serious questions are arising. With those comments, I give the council an assurance that I will continue to pursue opportunities for genuine public input as far as the people of Mount Barker go, and I will be extending my work to residents of the northern areas as well, where there are even greater proposals for urban sprawl. Those people have in many ways the same concerns about valuable farming land going under asphalt, bricks and mortar. I commend the motion to the council.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.

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