GAWLER RACECOURSE

Mr PICCOLO (Light) (15:32): On 25 February the Supreme Court of South Australia handed down its decision in the case of The Town of Gawler v the Minister for Urban Development and Planning and Others. It was a judicial review proceeding instigated by the Town of Gawler to seek a review of the ministerial DPA to rezone a small portion of racecourse land in Gawler for a neighbourhood shopping centre and also some land to create an education zone for the adjacent school.

The application for judicial review was dismissed by the court. It was held on the grounds that the council raised in its legal arguments, that the minister had complied with the requirements of the act, counter to the council's argument that it was developer run. The council also argued that the minister had been improperly influenced by the actions of a lobbyist acting on behalf of the racecourse.

The court found there was no apprehension of bias at all and, in fact, it is interesting to note on this point that the very lobbyist whom the council criticised in this case was actually approached by the council to act on their behalf; so on the one hand this lobbyist was improperly influencing the process, but on the other the council was quite happy to engage him if he was available.

The council also argued that there was improper process and that there was a denial of procedural fairness. Again, the court held there was no denial of procedural fairness and the process was proper. The last argument was that the gazettal of the actual DPA by the minister was ineffective. Again, the court held that was not the case. Every ground the council raised on this matter was knocked out by the court. I think it is very important to know that.

While mounting this case in the court, the council, in collaboration with the local Liberal Party branch and also the Greens, ran a political campaign locally—as is its right—but interestingly, the Liberals have gone very quiet now that the issue has been resolved by the courts. The Greens are not happy with the court outcome and have now asked that the law be changed. So I think it is also important to note in this matter that the Liberal Party and the Greens, in collaboration with the council, have actually attacked this DPA which has been upheld by the Supreme Court and also supported the community; but I will come to that in the second.

The political campaign waged by the council and its political supporters, namely the Liberal Party and the Greens, was about the merits of the DPA. On the one hand, in the courts they were arguing one case and in the community they were arguing another. Well, you can understand that. This council was prepared to waste hundreds of thousands of dollars of ratepayers' money on this case when it became clear from the outcome that it had no case at all.

In terms of the political argument run by the council in the community, the council argued that the DPA would significantly impact the Murray Street precinct as a business zone and significantly impact negatively on local traffic and would be bad for development in the area. The council also said that it had community support.

It is interesting that, when you talk to business people in the town, as I do on many occasions, the biggest negative potential impact on businesses that people talk about is the council itself. The council is raised time and time again as the one institution in the town holding up the growth of small business in the town. In fact, I was at a public forum recently when that comment was made. So, to suggest that blame should be shifted to the government is just a nonsense.

In terms of traffic management, the DPA has a traffic management solution for what is a traffic management problem at the moment. In terms of bad development, it is interesting that, when I surveyed the people in that locality, of the 500 responses I received from my survey 447 (over 80 per cent) said that this development was a good idea and opposed the council action.

Additionally, when it mounted its action in the courts, the council told the community that it would cost only between $20,000 to $30,000. In fact, when I suggested that, should the council lose the case and costs were awarded against the council, the cost could blow out to $300,000, the council derided that suggestion. The council's costs are now over $130,000. Did the council lie or is it just incompetent?

This matter also raises some other issues in relation to an associated DPA managed by the council itself. Having set the standard of performance for buyers, etc., the council has not adhered to its own standards of performance. The handling of this case raises questions about the competence of this council. That said, this legal decision does give the council the opportunity for a fresh start.

Time expired.