HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-10-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

DEVELOPMENT (ADVISORY COMMITTEE ADVICE) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 29 September 2010.)

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister Assisting the Premier in Public Sector Management) (20:34): The Hon. Mr Parnell introduced the Development (Advisory Committee Advice) Amendment Bill, and this matter was raised in this place back on 14 September this year. The provision of advice to me on a development plan amendment comes from a wide range of sources, including local government, state government agencies, and the community through the call for submissions regarding the proposed planning policy changes.

The Independent Development Policy Advisory Committee provides advice, where appropriate, and this advice is only one piece of information that I use as part of my decision-making process. The purpose of this advice (and it is clearly set out in the act) is to assist me in my consideration of changes to development plans in accordance with the provisions of part 3 of the Development Act in addressing the planning strategy of the day.

The integrity of the process is very important; the process reflects the very foundation of good governance. DPAC members provide a wealth of knowledge and experience, which they are required to do under the act. They have expertise in urban and regional planning, local government, building design and construction, environmental conservation, commerce and industry, agricultural development, housing and urban development, planning or providing community services and experience in utilities and services that form the infrastructure of urban development. The members of this independent committee are appointed by me.

If the advice of the Development Policy Advisory Committee is subject to public scrutiny before a decision is made by me as part of this process, it would essentially mean that an independent source of advice would no longer be available to me, and I think that is very important. This chamber, unfortunately, in recent days has shown a habit of trying to be a second parallel government before decisions are even taken by government to try to have select committees and other processes to double guess and have this sort of parallel decision-making process.

If the advice of a group such as the Development Policy Advisory Committee is subject to public scrutiny before the decision is made by government (in this particular case, it is the minister), it would essentially mean that independent source of advice would no longer be available to me.

The independence of this committee is an important element in our planning system. It has been in there for a long period of time, and it ensures that a broad ranging level of advice is available to me. Having the committee's advice to me published prior to any decision does not assist the proper functioning of the committee, which is not part of the political process associated with changes to development plans.

Committee members are in place for their impartial, expert opinion. As minister, I take very seriously the advice of DPAC and the submissions from members of the public. However, as minister I must consider the entire picture, including such things as the planning strategy and the broader implications of the DPA, whether or not it proceeds, and the considerations of the government as a whole. So, the correct accountability is with me as the responsible minister; it is the way it should be. I am accountable, accordingly, to the parliament. It is not DPAC that needs to be accountable; it is just the one source of advice.

As well as being accountable to the people of this state, I am also accountable, in this role, to the Environment, Resources and Development Committee of parliament. The committee receives a copy of every development plan amendment approved, with a report that outlines the process and the decision. A complete copy of the development plan amendment is also provided to the Environment, Resources and Development Committee members. The ERD committee can question any decision made and even table the DPA before both houses of parliament if it disagrees with my decision.

I agree that people need to be better informed about the planning process. People do need to have a better understanding of decisions made. While I am required under the act to gazette decisions, I appreciate that the Government Gazette may not be a widely read document. To that end, my office will publish press releases regarding my decisions on ministerial DPAs, which may include an outline of the reasons for a particular decision. With respect to council development plan amendments that are sent to me for approval, I also encourage councils to do the same thing for their communities and ensure open and transparent decision-making.

Therefore, the government cannot support the bill for the following reasons. Publishing advice before a formal decision will undermine the integrity of the process. The Development Policy Advisory Committee (or DPAC, as it is known) is not a decision-making body and people cannot rely only on DPAC's recommendation as the complete basis of a decision I might make.

DPAC's role pursuant to section 25 (this is regarding council DPAs) is where the development plan amendment is not in accordance with the planning strategy or where the minister requests the advice. This advice is not sought regularly for council DPAs and it is sought only in circumstances where a council has departed from an agreed statement of intent.

DPAC's role in section 26 for ministerial DPAs is to 'consider any representations made and to provide advice in respect to those submissions'. I hasten to say that it does so in the context of compliance with the planning strategy, and I have made some comments in this parliament in relation to DPAC's role in relation to the Mount Barker development plan amendment.

In summing up, the difficulty with placing greater emphasis on only one part of the process is that it can become misleading and will often not accurately or fully reflect all of the factors in the decision-making process. In relation to DPAC advice, it certainly has not been the tradition in the past that this advice would be made available. The Freedom of Information Act applies in relation to such advice as it does in relation to any other government documents.

We have just seen a case this week, and the Hon. Mark Parnell is revelling in the situation, in relation to an incomplete development process at Port Adelaide and, in the process, he is doing enormous damage to companies that is not justified. In fact, the Hon. Mr. Parnell's behaviour reminds me of the person who goes into a crowded picture theatre and yells, 'Fire!' I think his behaviour has been quite scurrilous in relation to that, and I will address some of the matters in relation to that when we resume the debate on the earlier motion in relation to that area.

You can see in relation to that previous situation that, when you start having a government process that is not complete—it is still going through the process—and when you start having members such as the Hon. Mark Parnell throwing stuff around in the public domain, it is designed to create political scaremongering, not to get a good outcome to a planning decision. A good planning outcome to a decision is one that will sensibly address the issues, not sensationalise them.

As to the Hon. Mr Parnell's behaviour in relation to Port Adelaide, the purpose is quite clear. There is a local government election; he wants to help a couple of Green candidates in it, and he is not in any way concerned about any damage that he might do or scaremongering he might create among individuals in relation to that area. I just use that example about how, if you release information prematurely before the process is complete, it can totally distort government decision-making.

There has been a tradition in this parliament—in government generally throughout this country and most of the Western world—that, yes, you should have close government scrutiny of government decision-making. But if you are going to run a parallel process before decisions are even complete, then it really does call into question why we have government at all. It will make it completely impossible if we have situations where every step of the way there is a process running parallel to government. As I said, what is the need for government decision-making in the first place?

Of course, the political attractiveness is far too tempting, unfortunately, for some. I would hope that at least there would be some people in this parliament who might actually be concerned with such issues as public interest and good governance. By all means, of course, governments should be held accountable. Ministers should be held accountable for decisions, but let's at least get to the stage where we make the decision first before we start having a parallel decision-making process that, in many cases, is just designed to politicise the whole event and to create unnecessary scares among the community.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (20:44): I thank the minister for jumping in and speaking ahead of me while I was racing upstairs to get my notes. I rise on behalf of the opposition to speak to this bill. The state Liberals have constantly been critical of this government and its failure to consult. I think we have seen a number of examples, and the future leader of the Labor Party, Jay Weatherill, has made comments that their current strategy is to announce and defend, and maybe even decide and defend. I think the issue raised by this amendment bill strikes at the heart of some of the government's failures when it comes to consultation and fully taking the community with them on a number of decisions.

Because of the legislated DPA process, the government may appear to be engaging with the community, but I think all the evidence suggests that the decisions are treated with a decide and defend approach. This bill, I think, probably provides an opportunity to take a step in a direction that is making sure that this government's decisions are possibly more evenly weighted in the community and so more evenly balanced. It is an opportunity to create a more substantive community consultation process rather than having a situation of public meetings and submissions that are perhaps merely a facade of public engagement.

I have been to a number of the DPAC hearings. As the shadow minister, I have been to some in Mount Barker and Gawler East. I have not been to the Gawler racecourse, but I went to some of the hearings at Cheltenham. It is interesting to note that some of them were quite extensive. Even at Mount Barker, which is one of the most recent—and on which, of course, the minister is yet to make a decision—I think there were some 500-odd submissions. The advice is still being prepared by the Development Policy Advisory Committee for the minister.

I think, at the time of this bill being introduced, to put it into context, there had been meetings at Mount Barker that collectively had been running for some 15 hours, so there is significant community or public interest in the process. It has certainly demonstrated a great desire by the community to be involved in that process.

All four ministerial DPAs really have been embroiled in what appear to be criticisms about the effects of rezoning on the local economy and the demand on existing infrastructure. It is interesting to note that the Gawler East DPA was going before the ERD Committee, and I do thank the minister for allowing the chief executive for the department for local government and planning at the time to brief both the Hon. Michelle Lensink and myself on the arrangements put in place to provide road infrastructure and on the trigger points for infrastructure.

During the state election, and in that whole process, the opposition was always critical of the lack of infrastructure and, sadly, at that time critical of the lack of a clear direction from the government about how they would deliver that infrastructure and what mechanism would be put in place to do so. I appreciate the opportunity provided to me, as shadow minister, and the Hon. Michelle Lensink, as a member of the ERD Committee, to have that discussion to get a better understanding of what the government is trying to achieve.

I think it is a bit sad that you almost have to reach the eleventh hour. Certainly, the opposition did not necessarily oppose the Gawler East development, but we would have opposed it unless the government was prepared to demonstrate that it was able to provide a mechanism to deliver the appropriate infrastructure, because the residents of Gawler, I am sure, will benefit from having a bigger collective mass. They will probably get better services, but at the end of the day, if the Gawler township as it exists today is severely impacted and the main street becomes severely congested, then in the end it is probably not a good outcome.

Of course, we saw some of the other announcements that the government has made, such as the one involving Buckland Park, which is outside the urban growth boundary. There are questionable issues about the delivery of infrastructure, and there is nothing in the budget or the forward estimates to deliver any infrastructure to that area. I know the minister will say to the developer that there will be shuttle buses to railway stations and the like, but at the end of the day, unless there is significant infrastructure, it will be—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: It's a long way from the closest railway station.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Exactly. In the end, I suspect that it will not be the Labor government that we see today, it will be a future Liberal government that deals with trying to provide the infrastructure to that area.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I expect that after 2014 we will be in government for 25 years, and I look forward to that. Infrastructure and the delivery of public transport to Mount Barker is an issue—

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The minister is saying that it is not part of development plans but, clearly, it has to be a consideration because there is plenty of space and plenty of opportunity in Mount Barker. The minister said earlier today in answer to a question that it was the good land, the agricultural land, that was cleared. The hilly stuff that is still national park was not suitable for agriculture, so the clear land was cleared for agriculture, and, of course, the clear land is the stuff that is easy to develop. If the minister and the government were wanting to rezone the national park then I am sure that the Hon. Mark Parnell would be even more agitated than he is.

I understand what the government is doing and, when you look at the 30-year plan, public transport is about a lower carbon footprint, it is about being more connected, it is having a society that does not have to use the motor car as much. When you speak to Mark Goldsworthy, Isobel Redmond and Iain Evans, the members who are up there, there is no easy way to provide public transport to that area.

The minister spoke the other day about a dedicated bus lane on the freeway. That is a great idea but unless you spend probably $1 billion widening the freeway from where it is three lanes all the way up to Mount Barker, and provide another interchange or two, you do not have the capacity. As I think I mentioned in a question recently, we all know the freight task is going to double.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I think I just heard the minister interject with 'the railway line'. There is a rail corridor but we all know—

The Hon. P. Holloway: No, I said that adding a lane to the freeway would be a lot cheaper than a railway line.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The minister just said that adding an extra lane on the freeway would be a lot cheaper than fixing the railway line, and it probably would, but it is still $1 billion—well, who knows, it would be a lot of money to make an extra lane on the freeway for buses. We only have two tunnels, so it is one up and one down.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: They've had the NExy open for weeks and they can't open both lanes at the bottom end of the NExy.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: My colleague, the Hon. John Dawkins says that they cannot even open both lanes on the NExy. I know that I should ignore interjections because they are out of order, Mr President. Mount Barker will present future governments with significant problems. I expect that the minister will sign off on the DPA at some point in the future, but it will produce significant problems for a future government and, sadly, it will probably not be the honourable minister because he will be retired, but there will be a number of members on the other side—

The Hon. P. Holloway: It will have infrastructure.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The minister is interjecting that it will have infrastructure. The public transport component is extremely difficult to deliver. It will have an interchange, I am sure, and there will be easier access. The Mount Barker township will access the freeway, Callington might access the freeway, but in the end it all has to come down the freeway, through the tunnels and the tollgate. So, I can see some significant problems into the future.

Public engagement, I think, should serve a much more important purpose in this DPA process. The minister should be taking the representations from the community into account at the point of making decisions and I think be a little more accountable. The process we have at the moment is not particularly transparent.

It is fair to say, and I probably speak on behalf of the Hon. Mark Parnell, that the government's 30-year plan—I think all of us broadly support a 30-year plan. Whether we support the 30-year plan that the government has proposed, I think that, generally, all of us in this parliament, and probably in the state, would say, 'Yes, a 30-year plan is a very good thing to have.' It still disappoints me, and I raised it again today in question time—

The Hon. Carmel Zollo: The maps.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The maps, and the Hon. Carmel Zollo laughs, the Hon. John Gazzola groans and the Hon. Russell Wortley does not pay any attention at all because he is not interested. At the end of the day, everybody laughs but, when you have a document with something as simple and as fundamental as a map that is not accurate and not drawn to scale, it brings into question everything else that is of a much more technical nature.

My 11 year old can measure the maps (in fact, he is probably smarter than me so I probably should not say that) and they are not accurate. Where else in that document is just a 'rough enough is near enough' approach? The thing that frightens me with the 30-year plan is not the principle—yes, we all agree.

The detail is something that you can measure and quantify on a page with a ruler and say, 'Hang on, actually this isn't what it says it is,' then in all the text in that plan, what is smoke and mirrors? What is, 'This will be rough enough, it will look good, we will be able to get the spin doctors to make a particular press release and we will be able to roll the whole plan out. It will look good, it will look like we are doing something'?

I will continue to raise that until the minister gives me an answer as to why the maps were not accurate. What they could have done, but chose not to, was to put on the bottom of the maps two little words, 'not to scale'. I raised this when it was in its draft form before the last election; the minister laughed at me, the rest of the government ridiculed me and they continue to do so.

It was not until after the election when I actually went to the newspaper and said 'This is not to scale,' and put a story in the paper. As the minister would know, because I am sure he is in contact with the industry—

The Hon. P. Holloway: They probably print yours; they don't print mine.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Well, probably because they trust me a little more. As the minister would know, the development industry contacted me. They were outraged because I had criticised the 30-year plan, saying things like, 'Don't you support the 30-year plan? You said during the election you did.'

I had a meeting with a number of them, and I took along the maps, drawn to scale, that I had done and my staff had done. A couple of the senior people who were involved in the planning review and in consultation with the government over the 30-year plan said, 'Oh, we have a problem here, haven't we? I see what you mean.' Even the people involved in the planning review and in the development of the 30-year plan admitted that. The point I am making is the maps are inaccurate and that, if they are inaccurate—

The Hon. P. Holloway: What about the HELSP plans? Are you happy with those?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have not actually measured the HELSP plans ones yet, but I will do and be warned: if they are inaccurate, I will be back to you about them. This whole process of rezoning has a minister and a Premier who stand up and sign and say, 'This is our great vision for 30 years, and the rezoning is a part of that 30-year plan,' but when the maps are not accurate, I get a bit concerned that the rest of the plan is a 'rough enough is near enough' approach.

I know that the minister and the Minister for Infrastructure took a trip overseas last year to look at TODs, and they are a key part of the 30-year plan and will be a key part of what the minister was talking about in the last couple of days about growth corridors.

The Hon. P. Holloway: You should go next year.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I would love to go next year. I have expressed my interest in going next year, but these trips are expensive, and we only get a small travel allowance and I like to spend it on a range of things, not just on one trip overseas with the minister.

The PRESIDENT: Do you want to move that it be larger?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Well, I would love a larger travel allowance, thank you, Mr President. I thought you would agree with me.

The PRESIDENT: I am glad you got that on the record.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: It is interesting, though, in the information I have been able to pick up, that you really have to take the community with you on all of these changes. I think the St Clair land swap was a classic example; I think probably what the government will end up trying to do will probably be a good outcome from the little bits I have heard from councillors and other people. In the end, it may be a reasonable outcome, but it was never argued properly in the first place.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: No, it has nothing to do with racing. It is about the St Clair land swap. It is about the way the government made the decision with the City of Charles Sturt—a council the Hon. Michael Atkinson has significant influence over—with almost an arrogant approach towards the community. If the government had taken some time to explain it to the community, I expect that it may have had a better community reception. Of course, we have local government elections happening in the City of Charles Sturt. Clearly, some St Clair candidates are running, and I wish them every success for the simple reason that the council and the government deserve a good spanking for not taking the time to explain it. TODs are very important. The Liberal Party supports them and I know the Hon. Mark Parnell supports world-class TODs.

The Hon. P. Holloway: You should probably call them something else.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Perhaps TODs is the wrong name. The Bowden one on the old Clipsal site is a classic example. It should be a demonstration site and one where world's best practice exists so that when people get out of a train—and it has to be an underground train line so that the development goes across the top. I think there are serious concerns as to whether this government has the money. Whether the federal government has the money to fund it for them, I do not know, but unless that happens—

The Hon. P. Holloway: They funded Subiaco—the feds.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The minister says that the feds funded Subiaco, and I do hope the feds stump up the money for this. At the end of the day, unless it is a world-class TOD—that is, people catch the train from the city, get out and walk around and say, 'Wow, I wish I could live in a place like this; this is great; it has everything I want'—it will fail and every other TOD will fail.

It is important to take the community with you. It is a journey. We all broadly support the 30-year plan and I think we all broadly support a smaller carbon footprint and more density in the city. All of the things that the government is trying to achieve in its bulldozer type of approach, we all broadly support. Getting back to the bill, because I have been a little—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: No, I think generally—and I cannot speak for the Hon. Mark Parnell; he is probably saying, 'No, don't you dare speak for me any more'—at the end of the day, the principles in the 30-year plan are things that we all support. I will get back to the amendment bill because I have been a little bit distracted.

The minister can instigate a DPA and it is the statutory authority of DPAC to provide that advice accordingly. In the case of a council DPA, the minister's obligation to seek advice from DPAC is subject to his or her opinion on whether the proposal is in accordance with the planning strategy. In other words, the minister arguably does not have to seek that advice at all.

In the case of a ministerial DPA, the advice from DPAC must occur after the consultation phase and again when the minister is deciding on any subsequent amendments to the draft DPA. This bill proposes that the advice provided by DPAC be published on a website and made publicly available for inspection, and that anyone who has made representations be notified in writing of the availability of that advice. This has to be done within two days of receiving the advice.

The Hon. Mark Parnell has stated that there should be opportunities for DPAC to provide confidential advice to the minister, his justification being that DPAC has the power to advise the minister of its own volition and not subject to any statutory duties outlined above. For that reason, he says he has confined his amendments to the advice relating exclusively to the statutory process where DPAC assesses public representations.

Recently, I took the opportunity to ring a well-respected former minister for urban development and planning (Hon. Diana Laidlaw) to obtain her view. She absolutely supports transparency. She thinks some of the decisions that have been made by this government and some of its relationships with some developers leave her sick in the stomach, especially considering some of the things she sees and hears. However, she is not certain that publishing this advice is the right approach. She wants more transparency and she thinks that is something that we should have.

I have taken the opportunity to speak to a couple of expert planning lawyers and ask for their advice. I am not a lawyer and the only one we have here is the Hon. Mark Parnell. While I am sure that, 95 per cent of the time, he would give us frank, fearless and unbiased advice, he is probably not the right person to speak to about this issue, and so I have asked a couple of planning lawyers for advice. In particular, if the minister receives advice that is published and he makes a decision contrary to that advice, what is the legal standing of the decision the minister has made? Is that challengeable legally? I have raised that question. I do not know, I am not a lawyer, and so I have asked for some legal advice.

Isobel Redmond has publicly stated her support for changes to the system. She absolutely wants more transparency. She wants a better process, and I think people in her office—

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The minister interjects to say, 'This may not do it.' I think that is a matter for the parliament to decide rather than for the minister to decide. I think people from Isobel's office have provided information to the public that indicates that she supports the Hon. Mark Parnell's bill. I am not entirely convinced that that was the message that Isobel portrayed to her staff but, nonetheless, at the end of the day there are some emails circulating that say Isobel supports this bill.

What she does support is a better process and a new process. That is something that the opposition is looking around the world for: a structure that provides us with a much more transparent approach to rezoning. As I said earlier, it is about taking the community with you. We have seen a range of the decide and defend approach to the decisions of this government through the budget and a whole lot of other things, over the last four years in particular.

The Treasurer summed it up last night in relation to the ambulance officers. When Iain Evans asked him a question about the lack of payment of salaries over a period of time to the ambulance officers, I think it was, the Treasurer said that in big organisations 'shit happens'. I do not think in planning shit should happen; we should actually try and get it right.

The crux of this bill is transparency, and I think it is a positive move. However, there are a few amendments that I am contemplating under the scope of transparency, and I think we should actually look to deal with them as a package. I note the Hon. Mr Parnell's important comment. In fact, we had a briefing with the LMC earlier this week. Again, I appreciate the opportunity—

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: No; but I appreciate the opportunity. It was interesting to look at some of the things that are happening at Port Adelaide and, in particular, Newport Quays. At that meeting the Hon. Mr Parnell said he was a great supporter of 'taking the community to the umpire'. I think they were the words he used, and he has used that in this—

The Hon. M. Parnell: Occasionally.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: He says 'occasionally'. He is a great supporter of making sure the community and the umpire interact, and I certainly agree with that. I would like to see locals at the public meetings being given something of a priority. The Hon. Mark Parnell knows of my disgust at the Gawler DPA meeting prior to the last election. The meeting started at 7.30, and I wanted to go and listen to the locals. I wanted to hear from people who were directly affected, but the Hon. Mark Parnell was the first person who spoke, and I was a bit surprised. I have been to a number of other meetings and he has spoken during the process, but he was not the first speaker.

The next day, I think, parliament was sitting and I said, 'Mark, how come you spoke first?' He said, 'Well, it's easy; if you put in a submission, the general rule of thumb is that politicians speak first.' I contemplated that, and I think I may have said to him in the corridor, 'Well, if we're fortunate enough to win the next election and I am the minister, that won't happen again.'

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Exactly.

The Hon. P. Holloway: And I will support your amendment!

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I thought you might be attracted to it. That meeting went till 12.30 at night. I have no problem with the Hon. Mark Parnell speaking, or anybody else who goes to the meetings but, at the end of the day, if it is about community consultation or bringing the community to the umpire, surely it should be about the community speaking first. So, I have actually had some discussions with parliamentary counsel and I have asked them to try and draft some amendments so that the chair of DPAC is instructed to actually allow the people—and they have not come back to me, so I am speaking from the thoughts I have had with parliamentary counsel.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The minister said, 'We don't need an act of parliament', but I went there to listen to the locals. It started at 7.30 and at quarter to 10 I heard the first local speak. I beg your pardon, a couple of the councillors spoke; I guess they are the elected local representatives. We had the Hon. Mark Parnell, a number of interest groups—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: And the developers and the proponents. Yes, the developers spoke. If you are going to have genuine community consultation that goes to 12.30 at night, why not let the locals speak first, followed by the Hon. Mark Parnell and the developers? At the end of the day, what you need is an outline of what the rezoning means, whether that is done by the council or the developers, but probably the local council because that is the organisation intimately involved with it; put up a picture to the community of what it is and then hear from the locals.

I think that a lot of these public meetings get a little hijacked by people who are not directly affected. They are not locals, they do not live in the council area and they do not live in the local community. They are, if you like, a bit of a 'rent-a-crowd' who are very well skilled at speaking publicly and who are a forum for—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: And it's creating a very loose chairmanship.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Chair of the Development Policy Advisory Committee, Mr Mario Barone, is, I think, very tolerant and very lenient, and I think that also means that things drag on because he does not want to cut people off. I suspect you will find that the locals will not be long-winded. They will have an issue they want to raise, and they will sit down, because they are not well skilled in public advocacy and not well skilled at going to public meetings.

I have asked parliamentary counsel to try to draw up perhaps some sort of speaking order. Richard Dennis is the person we all respect. He is the boss of parliamentary counsel. He wrote the Development Act, I suspect, when it was revisited in the last two parliaments. He is someone who well understands what I am trying to achieve, so I am looking forward to getting some feedback from him.

Further to that, on Monday I wrote to the minister requesting a meeting with the Chairman of DPAC in an official capacity. I know that I could pick up the phone and say, 'Mario, what do you think?' But I said, 'No, I'd rather do it in an official way.' I might even say to Mr Mario Barone, 'If it's possible, how many members of DPAC are available?'

I know that there are quite a number of them and that not all of them attend the meetings. I would like to sit down with them in a bit of a forum and say, 'Well, what do you want, because you are the people who are at the coalface of the interaction with that community?' They are an important group of people to speak to, and it is important that I have that opportunity to consult with them.

The opposition has always supported more transparency. As I indicated earlier, we are looking at some policy options to come up with a better, more transparent process. Given the form of this government in taking ideas from the opposition, we will not be releasing that policy for some time. I remind members that, when Martin Hamilton-Smith was leader, we spoke about a city oval. I have copies of letters that the Premier wrote to people in electorates saying, 'We will never build or put any money into football ovals. Our priorities are schools, hospitals, health and education. We will never waste money on a football oval.'

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: He was dead against Hindmarsh until Adelaide United started getting 15,000 people there.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Exactly. The Hon. John Dawkins reminds me, Mr President—

The PRESIDENT: Interjections are out of order.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I know that he is out of order, but he does jolt my memory that the Premier was absolutely opposed to Hindmarsh Stadium until, of course, Adelaide United started playing well. I am reminded of the first soccer match I went to with some 15,000 people. The Premier was also there, and I think that all the 15,000 who attended provided him with a Bronx cheer when he walked out onto the ground.

Nonetheless, in the interests of transparency, I indicate that the opposition is prepared to support the second reading of this bill. I hope that the Hon. Mark Parnell is gracious enough to give me the opportunity to consult further with the planning lawyers I have spoken with and DPAC, as well as an opportunity to sit down and talk with parliamentary counsel about putting together a structure that allows the community to speak first rather than the politicians.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (21:14): I will sum up briefly, Mr President. Thank you. First, I thank the minister for his contribution and I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his wide-ranging contribution on a number of topics, which included the bill. I must say that I am at a bit of a loss at the reluctance of the opposition to grasp the nettle, bite the bullet and support this bill outright.

We are seeing some procrastinating happening here, but, in the interests of seeing this bill progress successfully (even though I did advise all members that I would be bringing this to a final vote tonight), I am prepared to accept a second reading vote. We will come back in a fortnight and we will deal with the committee stage then.

To jog the Leader of the Opposition's memory, and to urge him to keep the faith with the people of Mount Barker, for example, I remind him of some of the headlines that the Liberal Party has managed to obtain in the pages of the Mount Barker Courier. This is one from a couple of weeks ago: 'Libs would back report's release', with a lovely photo of Isobel Redmond, Leader of the Opposition. The quote from Isobel is, 'It just beggars belief that they say we are not going to make this public (Opposition leader and Heysen MP, Isobel Redmond)'. The article by Lisa Pahl commences:

The leader of the state opposition would back legislative changes to force the independent body investigating a growth plan for Mount Barker and Nairne to release its final report and recommendations. Isobel Redmond, whose seat of Heysen adjoins the Mount Barker region, said she would 'absolutely support changes to the system' that currently keep the Development Policy Advisory Committee's (DPAC) advice under wraps.

It does not get a whole lot clearer than that. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition sees the wisdom of this method and has come up with a few other ideas that he thinks might make the system even better. I would love to see a Liberal private member's bill with some of these other amendments in them, and I would look forward to supporting that. As I say, I am happy to hold off another two weeks, but I would urge the Leader of the Opposition not to mess too much with this bill and certainly not to water down its prime purpose. So that is the leader of the Liberal Party's position.

I would also like to put on the record my thanks to some of the federal MPs who have weighed into this. Our former colleague the Hon. Nick Xenophon has weighed in, and I thank him. Jamie Briggs, another member of the Liberal Party, has taken it one step further. He has actually written to minister Holloway, and again there is a very favourable headline in the Mount Barker Courier: 'MP joins push to release advice'. That article reads:

A federal MP has added his voice to calls for the state government to release the independent advice it will receive on its plans to double the size of Mount Barker. Member for Mayo, Jamie Briggs, has written to urban development and planning minister Paul Holloway, urging him to make public the advice he will receive from the Development Policy Advisory Committee.

The quote from Mr Briggs reads:

Given the overwhelming chorus of disapproval within the community regarding the DPA, I strongly urge you to publicly release the Development Policy Advisory Committee's report.

As members would appreciate, the minister has made it very clear that he does not intend to do it. If it is to happen, we need to legislate for it to happen. My bill is the one that does that.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The other thing I will say is that I am also appreciative of Isobel Redmond for another reason. As the Hon. Ridgway said, she has been writing to constituents. One email that was forwarded to me from last Friday is written by one of her staff, her researcher and assistant, and it says, 'Yes, the Liberal Party will support Mark Parnell's bill next week.' It does not get much clearer than that, but again, I am happy to give the opposition a little bit longer.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: So we will hear some other positive suggestions the Hon. David Ridgway has when we see this bill back in two weeks' time, but I cannot let the minister's comments go without a brief response. The first thing the minister said was that, if this bill gets up, the independent source of advice will no longer be available to him. That is wrong, wrong, wrong. Just because someone else gets to see it does not stop it being independent, it does not stop it being advice, and it does not stop it being available to the minister. The only thing it stops—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The only thing it stops is its being secret advice. It is still independent advice. The minister said that he takes a lot of advice from a lot of different sources. There is nothing in this bill that prevents the minister from taking whatever advice he wants from whoever he wants. My bill says that if we want to keep faith with the people of this state who, in many cases, go to the trouble to lodge comprehensive submissions with the Development Policy Advisory Committee, they take the trouble—as the Hon. David Ridgway did, as I did in the case of Gawler East, and as I did on four out of the five meetings at Mount Barker—to participate in the process, to sit and listen through 15 hours, in my case, of overwhelmingly resident concerns about rezoning, we need to honour their contribution by at least letting them know how their submission was treated, how it was summarised, how it was reported back to the minister, and what advice flowed.

If we take Mount Barker as an example, from memory there were 451 submissions: 95 plus per cent of them against the rezoning, and 100 per cent of oral submissions at the five DPAC meetings against the proposal. I would love to see the DPAC advice. How is it going to reflect the mood of that community? What advice is it going to give? The minister—

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. M. PARNELL: —will take that that advice, and he will do with it what he will.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The minister says that we are distorting the situation.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The honourable minister will come to order, and the Hon. Mr Parnell will refrain from responding.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Mr Barone, the chair of DPAC, has been pretty consistent over the 15 years that I have been asking him to release his advice. He should just tape-record it; I will tape-record my question and he can tape-record his answer. Whenever I ask him, 'Are you going to release your advice?' he says, 'Our job under the act is to advise the minister. It is up to the minister what he does with our advice and whether he releases it.' That is what Mario Barone says at these meetings.

The bill I have drafted does not put any obligation on the Development Policy Advisory Committee. It does not oblige Mario Barone to do anything; it obliges the minister. After he receives the advice, after DPAC have washed their hands of it—they have given their advice—the minister should then come clean with the people who went to the trouble of writing submissions and tell them what that advice is. What the minister wants is to hide behind a series of secret, behind closed doors, advice and information, so when he makes—

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. M. PARNELL: —his decision the community will not know on what basis the minister made this decision. I wonder whether it was—

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! We have turned this into a debate. The Hon. Mr Parnell will wrap up the second reading.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I will wrap up—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: You're debating it, too.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I will wrap up very quickly, Mr President, and thank you for your sage guidance. There are two other things that the minister said that I want to respond to. First of all, he pointed out the regimes of parliamentary scrutiny. The minister well knows that, under section 27 of the Development Act, never once since this regime came in in 1994 has this parliament ever exercised its power to throw out a rezoning, and it is certainly not going to do it now. I know the Hon. Carmel Zollo stays awake at night wondering whether she should throw out her ministerial development plan amendment; the Hon. Michael Atkinson—I am sure that it keeps him awake—and the Hon. Gay Thompson wonder whether they should throw out the ministerial DPA—

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Parnell will stick to the bill.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: It does not happen, and it will not happen, certainly, under the current system.

The PRESIDENT: There might be a Green thrown out in a minute.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The final thing the minister said, which I do need to take objection to, is that he referred to the fact that I have released the freedom of information report at a time that coincides with the local government election. What I say is that I received those freedom of information documents on Wednesday of last week, and I released them as soon as possible because I thought they were in the public interest.

The fact that it timed with the local government election was just that the EPA is a bit more diligent about responding to freedom of information applications than the minister's department. I will just say that—and this is something that is very important to me and is a response to the minister's statement that this is scaremongering—I taught public health law for many years. One of the things I taught at Flinders University was the origins of the community right to know provisions of the legislation throughout the world.

In the United States, they had awful laws that were all about secrecy, and you could not find out anything about polluting industries, chemicals or anything. What happened was that Union Carbide's plant in Bhopal exploded. It killed thousands of people, and the American population said 'Gee, we have these sorts of facilities in our neighbourhood as well.' So the origin of community right to know laws in western democracies, including the United States, dates back to those thousands of deaths in Bhopal.

So it is not scaremongering for me to say that the people of Port Adelaide have a right to know when their health department, their environment protection agency and SafeWork SA, all singing from the same hymn sheet, are saying, 'This is a dangerous situation. We need to deal with it.' Why is the minister not convening a public meeting next week in Port Adelaide? Why do the Greens have to do it? I think it is outrageous for the minister to suggest that this is scaremongering.

In conclusion, I will be pleased if this chamber supports the second reading of this bill today. I think it warrants approval at the second reading stage, and I look forward to our concluding the committee stage of this bill on the next Wednesday of sitting.

Bill read a second time.

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