Local Government (Gawler Park Lands) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 18 March 2015.)

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Are you going to speak?

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (15:46): The minister asks if the opposition intends to speak on the bill. We do, in order for parliamentary review to occur. I confirm that I am the lead speaker for the opposition, and the opposition does support the bill. We will speak to the bill even though, when you review the bill, it contains only one clause. It is not overly large, but the implications for the Gawler community can be deemed to be significant in the aspect of it but, as I understand it, it will make no difference at all to the way the parklands are administered.

In the interest of full disclosure, the bill was introduced by the minister on 18 March. The intention of the bill is to discharge a trust, which was established in 1864, for the control of 134 acres of parklands, and for the land to be declared as community land under the Local Government Act 1999. I was intrigued by this, that land declared as community land does allow an opportunity for that to be revoked and for the land to be partially disposed of, or disposed of.

However, it is quite explicit in the bill, particularly in the second reading explanation provided by the minister, that it is irrevocable. So the bill gives an assurance to the good people of Gawler that it will make no difference at all for them, but it does allow a more modern approach to be taken to the way in which the land is administered. Indeed, it reflects the fact that it is used for a multitude of purposes already. Examples of that are showgrounds, bowling greens, a greyhound track, a swimming pool and a caravan park.

I respect the fact that other members of the opposition will make contributions. Indeed, the member for Hammond has a strong family connection with the community, through several generations at least on both sides of his family, so he has a personal perspective to put to it. However, the bill will pass relatively quickly.

Government staff were good enough to provide me with a briefing on 25 March. Since that time, as part of the information provided to me, we were advised that the opinion of the Clerk of the house was that it is a hybrid bill and it may be necessary for a select committee to be formed to consider it. I am not aware of the minister making a determination on how to proceed with that.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You will be shortly.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I have no doubt he will, when he comes back from his meeting. I did ask for a copy of how this bill came about, and the minister and his staff were good enough to provide me with a copy of a letter from July 2012 written by the Town of Gawler in which they put the issue before minister Rau, as Attorney-General, seeking that this bill be developed and the change to occur. As that was nearly three years ago and the mayor and the CEO of that council have changed, I wrote to them in March and received a reply back from Mayor Redman, which I might take the opportunity to read into Hansard, so that we get the opinion of the Town of Gawler on the record. I quote:

Thank you for your correspondence dated 25 March 2015 relating to the Local Government (Gawler Park Lands) Amendment Bill 2015.

The Gawler Park Lands consist of approximately 130 acres within the township of Gawler. The Park Lands were transferred to the Corporation of the Town of Gawler in 1864 on trust for the purposes of park lands.

In 2012 the Council commenced a review of the management of these Park Lands, in particular addressing the complexity of the historical and current use of the Park Lands and past and current agreements in place for their use. This resulted in a request from the Council to the State Government seeking consideration of the introduction of appropriate legislation. This legislation would dissolve or modify the trust while ensuring the validity of current leases and providing the Council with the power to continue to effectively manage the use of these Park Lands in the future.

The council was provided a draft of the bill we are now debating by the minister on 21 November 2014—so very close to the election period last year, when the new council was put in place. At its meeting held on 16 December 2014, the council resolved that it considered this draft bill to be appropriate and wanted to endorse the amendments to the trust as proposed and provided their support of the bill.

I take that as meaning there is a wide level of community support. However, it was put to me by the Hon. John Dawkins—who, members would be aware, resides in Gawler and has a strong connection with that community also—that, because of the hybrid nature of the bill, a select committee should be formed but that it should not be one that just meets, considers it within three minutes, then closes and finalises the report to go to the parliament. His request to the house through me is that it seeks input from people within the community. It will be interesting to see what the position of the minister is.

One could argue that the Town of Gawler, the local government authority, is reflective of the community, but I think that with any bill, even though it may be considered to be relatively minor, that has an implication for the management of such a large area of parklands for a growing community, there is a need for community involvement to occur to ensure that everything is okay. With those brief words, I confirm the opposition's support for it. I look forward to the contribution of others and, indeed, the declaration by the minister if a select committee is to be formed.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (15:52): I also rise to support the Local Government (Gawler Park Lands) Amendment Bill 2015. As the member for Goyder indicated, I do have family connections going a long, long way back in my family. In fact, my forebears, William and Mary Pederick, who came out in 1840, are both buried at Gawler River along with their son, Robert Adams, and his family. In closer terms, both sets of grandparents—the Dutton family, who were at Freeling and then in Gawler, and on my father's side, Len and Dorothy Pederick—were living for many decades in the Gawler region, whether directly in Gawler or in the Angle Vale area, as were their forebears.

Our family has a long connection with Gawler; it is a great town, and I would hate to see it spoilt in any way by having the wrong thing happen with the parklands. It certainly has its issues with the beautiful main street that turns into a car park with what I understand to be 27,000 vehicle movements a day. It is one of the best main streets in South Australia, I must say, but something needs to be done to address that.

It is a while since I was a young bloke, but Gawler is starting to become part of the urban sprawl, with little green space between the ever-expanding suburbs and Gawler, but not much at all, and even coming out Gawler, for instance around Evanston/Evanston Gardens, more and more land is being land being built on. So, I think it is highly important that we discuss this 134 acres of parklands and the intention of the bill to discharge a trust that was established way back in 1864 for the control of these parklands and for the land to be declared as community land under the Local Government Act 1999. The Town of Gawler has had some practical difficulties in managing the area, which has been developed for use as showgrounds, bowling greens, greyhound tracks, a swimming pool and a caravan park and, associated with all of this, facilities have been put in place, such as clubrooms, etc.

I concur with the member for Goyder that this is a hybrid bill and must be referred to a select committee. I certainly think that if it goes to a select committee the right notice should be put in the appropriate media so that people can have the right to comment on it. I would hate to see any issues with this 134 acres of parklands. As I indicated, the local mayor, Karen Redman, has identified issues relating to the trust and sought the support of government for the legislation. This legislation will dissolve or modify the trust, while ensuring the validity of current leases, and provide council with the power to continue to effectively manage the use of the parklands into the future.

In relation to attaching community land status to the site, this prevents the sale of any portion of the land. From what I understand, this can be revoked if the council goes through the required community consultation process and demonstrates support for any sales. If there is any support for a sale in the future, the council will have to seek out whether that is there. I would be surprised if that could happen.

Mr Griffiths: They've corrected it: it's irrevocable.

Mr PEDERICK: It's irrevocable, sorry; I have been corrected. It is completely irrevocable. I thought I had been led astray there for a moment. It cannot be sold, I am informed, so that makes it even better.

With land that has been held in trust for that amount of time (since 1864), we want to make sure that this is discharged in the appropriate manner. Now that I have been reliably informed that it cannot be sold at any cost, that makes me feel even better. This is in regard to the Town of Gawler taking control of the land and after the trust has been discharged, which will be the operation of this bill if it does become an act.

I have long family ties to Gawler. It has certainly grown from what was once a large country town servicing local farmers and one that had a lot of history in our rail system, as many of the original steam engines in South Australia were built in Gawler. As a bit of history, if you go to Arkaroola and travel a bit further on through to the next station, there are a couple of boilers that are exactly the same as the steam engines they used in the copper mines to extract copper.

Gawler certainly has a rich history and a very rich heritage, and there are many people in South Australia who would have, as I do, some lineage ties with Gawler and the area, and all those people would hate to see the wrong thing happen, especially in light of the 134 acres of parklands. Now that I am assured that the land cannot be sold at any cost, it makes me even happier to support the bill, and I commend its speedy passage through the house.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (15:58): I rise today to support this bill. It is a small step, but it is a good thing that the government can do for the people of Gawler to maybe clean things up a little bit and make things a little bit easier. This afternoon, I would like to talk a little more widely about the beautiful town of Gawler. Whilst I appreciate and support this measure, there are a couple of other measures I think the government could take to help improve the beautiful town of Gawler.

The Town of Gawler was named after the South Australian colonial governor George Gawler. In 1837, Colonel William Light camped twice in the area and recognised the potential of the location for South Australia's first country township. How far things have come. It does not seem like a country township anymore and, if you look at the growth of Evanston Park and Blakeview, it may seem that the Adelaide suburbs and Gawler may meet, much to the chagrin of those who like its country town feel.

It became a regional centre for the surrounding farming communities and played an important role in supporting the copper mining communities of Kapunda and Burra. It continues to play the role of a regional centre as the town currently serves a catchment of some 90,000 people, my family included. My wife wanders down to Gawler to do some more major shopping when it comes to discount department stores in Gawler about once a month.

Its role as a regional centre is a major consideration for Gawler council in terms of service delivery and infrastructure; and 2014 marks the 175^th anniversary of European settlement in Gawler. Hansard may not be able to record this but I am wearing my 175^th anniversary badge that the Mayor of Gawler, Karen Redman, gave me a couple of weeks ago, and I wear it very proudly.

According to the ABS, the population of Gawler went from 17,800 in 2001 to 20,536 in 2011, representing an annual average growth of 1.3 per cent over that 10-year period. That is greater than the South Australian average of 0.84 per cent but slightly lower than the national average for population growth. However, in the council's immediate boundaries there are over 4,000 people in Hewitt, Buchfelde (which is how we would say it in German and I assume the English version is a bit different) and the Gawler belt. The state government projects that in 2026, the Town of Gawler will house 32,858 people.

That increase in population will lead to some issues, and I believe that there are four things that the state government could do to help the Town of Gawler. The first of those is to electrify the Gawler railway line. In 1885, James Martin & Co. secured a contract for the production of 52 locomotive engines for the South Australian government, followed by another contract two years later. The first locomotive produced in South Australia rolled out of Gawler in 1890. By 1894, the 100^th locomotive was delivered. Gawler has a proud history of rail in South Australia and it is a shame that we have a government that has had such an on-off relationship with the Town of Gawler in relation to electrifying its beautiful railway line.

On 5 June 2008, Labor announced with great fanfare—I am sure that there were trumpets going, bands marching, girls marching with pompoms—the electrification of the Gawler railway line, and there was a collective cheer from the people who reside in Gawler, especially those who commute to Adelaide for a whole manner of things—work, sporting events and the like.

Alas, on 31 May 2012, Labor scrapped electrification to Gawler and the collective heart of the Town of Gawler sunk. There was widespread angst in the community and it definitely had a downward effect on the mood of the town. On 6 June 2013, again, Labor announced the electrification but only to Dry Creek, and there was a smaller cheer because Dry Creek is almost to Gawler but not really, in the sense that it is probably less than halfway.

Mr Treloar: Less pompoms.

Mr KNOLL: Less pompoms, certainly, only a couple of marching bands—certainly the Tanunda Town Band was not asked to take part. On 3 December 2013, so we are talking six months later, Labor again scrapped electrification to Dry Creek, and those poor people in the Town of Gawler who were already starting to feel a little bit unloved, felt even less loved. But it is okay, because on 16 February 2014, Labor announced electrification to Salisbury, which is almost to Gawler except that it is probably just over halfway.

This is where we stand at the moment. The works have not started as yet. The Town of Gawler looks jealously on anybody who is able to catch the Seaford line, especially considering that the Gawler electrification line had a better business case than the Seaford line, and also, as has been suggested to me, the wasted costs on the blowout of the Seaford electrification could have been spent to electrify the entire line to Gawler. That is one issue. So, Gawler electrification would get a big tick. If we had an amendment bill to electrify the railway line to Gawler, there would be a big tick from the Liberal Party and a big tick from the people of Gawler.

The second thing that the government could do is improve the bus services in Gawler. This is one of those perennial issues that, if you walk the streets and ask for people's opinions, you would you get a variety of different answers. The buses were introduced in 2011, and it was something that the local member (member for Light) announced with great fanfare. Again, we had trumpets, again we had pompoms, and again we had town bands. Except, the member for Light bungled the Gawler bus service. The buses run empty or on very low patronage a lot of the time.

It is something that has been remarked on to me by a lot of people in Gawler. It is almost a source of mirth for the locals that we have this bus service that has empty buses or very low patronage. In July last year, 16 services, along with the extension to the 492W route, were cut. Prior to the election, the Liberals vowed to scrap the existing services and replace them with a new network. We thought, 'This is a joke. It doesn't work. Let's scrap it and start again.' Unfortunately, we did not win the election and we also did not win the seat of Light. The people of Gawler are still waiting and still laughing at their empty buses.

The third project that I think the government could undertake to help improve the Town of Gawler is the Gawler Connect project. That is something that the local council has been very keen to push. This Gawler Connect project will help to update some of the historic buildings on Murray Street, the main street in Gawler.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Newland has a point of order.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: Ma'am, while discussing public transport in such detail—and I am glad to see the conversion of the Liberal Party to the support of public transport—it does seem to be straying somewhat from the bill at hand.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Aren't we talking about establishing a charitable trust?

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: It is a trust and 134 acres of land surrounding the historical core of Gawler, rather than the general public transport access to Gawler, as worthy as that is.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think it is a really important thing—without bringing on what repercussions might transpire because we are not talking about the topic—and it might be an idea if we all thought about talking on topic. We are at the mercy of the house. If you want to establish a precedent where you can talk about anything at all, it is up to you. It might be worth just having a think about what you would like to do as a general rule in future before we take a course today.

Mr KNOLL: Deputy Speaker, I will reflect deeply on your ruling and on your advice, and I will make sure that my remarks are cogent to the Town of Gawler and cogent to—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am in your hands, member for Schubert.

Mr KNOLL: Thank you very much. If I might add that the cogent link here is the fact that this bill seeks to do something very small for the Town of Gawler. I am merely suggesting, with a rhetorical flourish, ways that this bill could be amended to further improve the Town of Gawler. In that spirit, Deputy Speaker, I will continue.

The Gawler Connect project is centred on the town council, and there are some historic buildings on Murray Street. It is interesting because there are a number of Murray streets. In fact, every town out in that neck of the woods (the Barossa) has a street called Murray Street. We have Murray Street in Nuri, Murray Street in Angaston, Murray Street in Tanunda, and Murray Street in Gawler, which holds the most amount of traffic.

That brings me to the greatest way that this bill could be amended to improve the Town of Gawler, and to deliver on what the Labor Party has been promising since 2010 and actually well before that: an eastern bypass road for the Town of Gawler. This is something that I have seen with my own two eyes: the local member (member for Light) asking and pleading with this parliament to deliver this for the people in his electorate. He stated in his Address in Reply speech to the parliament last year that the eastern bypass road is a road that he would like to see competed in this term of government.

On this side of the chamber, and certainly on behalf of the Town of Gawler, the member for Schubert stood up and said, 'Hear, hear! We're on board; bring it on.' Unfortunately, we sit here well over 12 months later and the deal is still not done, and that is a great shame and of great angst and concern to the community.

The government needs to get on and get this deal done. The community has been waiting for this for a long time; this proposal has been announced and repackaged since 2010, but it is well before that that an eastern bypass road for the town of Gawler was first mooted. In fact, I was discussing with a former member for Light, Bruce Eastick, his vision for Gawler, and the fact that a bypass road was something that was being considered while he was a member of parliament—and he retired in 1993.

My mail on this says that the government is trying to deliver this road on the cheap. The aim of this road is to take traffic off the main street of Gawler, Murray Street; I love it, but it takes 27,000 car movements per day, and that is quite a bit. Basically, it means that Murray Street turns into a car park for large portions of the day. The way around this is to build a bypass road. Fantastic, great idea, except that the government is trying to suggest, 'No, no; we don't need to get around the entire Town of Gawler, we only need to get around part of the Town of Gawler. So we won't build it all the way down so that it passes Trinity College and the entire Town of Gawler, we only want to build it to Potts Road, and we will take it from Potts Road back onto Adelaide Road and from Adelaide Road they can get onto Main North Road.'

The only thing is that in between Potts Road, Adelaide Road and Main North Road is Trinity College—which, I understand, has about 3½ thousand students—as well as various shopping centres and other amenities, which means that Adelaide Road takes a significant volume of traffic. But that is okay, because there is an answer: extend the eastern bypass road to Tiver Road. Tiver Road is the best option because it takes all the traffic out of Gawler completely, and you only need to extend the bypass road to go past Potts Road, down Bentley, and then we can turn right onto Tiver Road and end up at the beautiful intersection the state government paid for, that cost a lot of money (I think it was about $17 million) to build and that was completed only a couple of years ago. The eastern bypass road would be a beautiful thing to link up with this beautiful intersection on the corner of Main North and Tiver Roads.

I think the reason we are having this argument—and I am deducing here; it has been very difficult to understand the particulars of this case—is that in making it a bypass road it becomes state government responsibility, because it becomes arterial. However, if we built it only to Potts Road it would become a local road and therefore the responsibility of the local council, and they could fund the maintenance of it. I think this is where we have invented what professional debaters would call a 'definitional debate', where we are arguing about the definition of the road and then the implications that flow from that.

The government needs to think in the long term. Tiver Road is the best option for the longer term, and I implore the government—and I am sure the member for Light would also be imploring the government—to get the deal done. Build the road to Tiver Road, and take on responsibility for what will undoubtedly be a major arterial road that will help to relieve traffic right across the town of Gawler and its surrounds. My personal interest is the people of the southern Barossa, who have to travel through Gawler to get to the northern suburbs and Adelaide every day.

The government needs to get on with it, and deliver and build this road, so that this beautiful, burgeoning, bustling metropolis that is the town of Gawler can have the infrastructure that is needed, and that was first mooted in the early nineties. It has been needed for at least the last decade. If it is not delivered before the next election I will continue to stand up in this place and make sure that this parliament, and certainly the people of Gawler, understand what they are missing out on and who is to blame for them missing out on it.

With those four projects, I have outlined ways I think this bill could be improved, but I present them only in a rhetorical sense. I implore the government to take on these four projects in the near future, as being extremely worthy for the beautiful town of Gawler.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform) (16:15): I thank everybody for their contributions. I have been paying quite a bit of attention and I think they have enriched the work of the chamber considerably.

Bill read a second time.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Based on precedents established by this house and the consistent application of the joint standing orders and the principles that guide the consideration of such bills, I rule the bill to be hybrid.

Referred to Select Committee

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform) (16:16): I move:

That the bill be referred to a select committee pursuant to joint standing order 2.

Motion carried.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

That a committee be appointed consisting of Mr Bell, Mr Griffiths, Mr Hughes, Mr Picton and the mover.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is that seconded?

Mr GRIFFITHS: Actually—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Goyder has a point of order.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I would ask for one change to that, and only because the minister did not consult me, and instead of Mr Bell my suggestion is Mr Knoll.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps it is a typo.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I read that again? I hope this does not upset the member for Mount Gambier, but I did in fact misread that. I should have said Mr Knoll. I move:

That the committee be appointed consisting of Mr Knoll, Mr Griffiths, Mr Hughes, Mr Picton and the mover.

Motion carried.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

That the committee have the power to send for persons, papers and records, to adjourn from place to place, and that the committee report on 16 June 2015.

Motion carried.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

That standing order 339 be and remain so far suspended as to enable the select committee to authorise the disclosure or publication, as it sees fit, of any evidence presented to the committee prior to such evidence being reported to the house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As an absolute majority is not present, please ring the bells.

An absolute majority of the whole number of members being present:

Motion carried.