Grievance Debate

GLENSIDE HOSPITAL REDEVELOPMENT

Mr PISONI (Unley) (15:27): I would like to continue my remarks on the lack of consultation and the sale of open space at the Glenside Hospital site. Most people would recognise what the state government seems unwilling to concede, and that is that the redevelopment of mental health facilities and the privatisation of open space at Glenside are two separate issues. While most people would welcome an upgrade of facilities, they oppose the loss of their open space to pay for it. I would like to express the dismay that local residents in and around Glenside have about this project.

The same dismay was reflected when I asked some questions in the Public Works Committee last week about the funding of the $153 million extension to the Flinders Medical Centre. I asked my question of Brendan Hewitt, the Acting Director of Asset Services, about the funding of the project. I asked whether any part of Flinders open space was being sold off to fund the extension. A very surprised Mr Hewitt said, 'No.' He was very surprised that I would ask the question. Why would it be relevant? Why would it be a condition? I then went on to ask whether any areas of Flinders open space had been identified for urban consolidation. Again, there was a look of surprise from Mr Hewitt.

I go back to a comment minister Gago made to the Legislative Council, that one of the justifications for selling off the land was that the housing development is about helping contain the growth of our urban sprawl. So, we have the minister justifying the sale of public open space in Glenside to contain urban sprawl, yet at Bedford Park at the Flinders Medical Centre there is no such thought, or even consideration. The public servants at the Burnside briefings were telling us that without the sell-off of the land we cannot afford the upgrade of mental health facilities at Glenside. When I asked the question about the Flinders upgrade of a similar value, the answer came back, 'What sort of a question is that? Of course, we are not selling off land to fund it.'

The people at Glenside are being asked to accept that this is a reasonable solution or a reasonable way of funding this project. The fact is that the people of Glenside and the surrounding suburbs of Eastwood and Frewville have a small amount of public open space, which is used frequently. It is now obvious that the sale of a large part of Glenside will proceed without meaningful consultation, and questions now arise as to the process by which the different elements will be sold and to whom.

There is already considerable disquiet among neighbouring shopping centre operators that the owners of Frewville Shopping Centre will be given a free run to acquire precinct 4 for an option price, based on valuation. How does one determine that valuation when there has not been an expression of interest? One does not know who the potential buyers are or the motivation for purchasing that land by competitors of Frewville Shopping Centre. Where does that valuation come from? I challenge the minister, when the deal is done, to tell us the sale price immediately so that we can scrutinise it and see that taxpayers did get the best price possible. A first option, based on valuation, is an unusual process in selling land.

Premier Rann's and minister Gago's media release of 20 September declared that 'the owners of the existing Frewville Shopping Centre will be given the first opportunity to buy this land.' We do not need additional shopping centres in Unley, Glenside, Parkside, Frewville or Eastwood. People come from all over the state to shop at the strip shopping at Unley, yet we are seeing a favourable decision outside the market being given to one particular operator.

Time expired.