Waite Trust (Vesting of Land) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 3 June 2020.)

Mr DULUK (Waite) (12:02): I rise to speak on the Waite Trust (Vesting of Land) Bill 2020. As the member for Waite, this bill does indeed hold significance for my constituents and the community we live in, its heritage and the legacy of Peter Waite.

Before addressing the bill itself, I wish to pass on my sympathies and those of the electorate to the family of Mrs Marion Waite Wells, who passed away last week at the age of 94. Mrs Marion Waite Wells was the great-granddaughter of Peter and Matilda Waite. She was also the foundation president of the Friends of Urrbrae House and a strong supporter of her local community. We have lost a pillar of our community, and again I extend my sympathies to her family.

As we know, the purpose of bill is to allow the Minister for Education to vest part of the land, which is subject to the terms of the Peter Waite Trust, in the Commissioner of Highways to allow for construction of the upgrade to the Fullarton Road-Cross Road intersection. The land is currently owned by the Crown in the trust and, given the Crown cannot compulsorily acquire its own land, the bill is needed to free that land from the trust. The land in question is part of the Urrbrae Agricultural High School campus.

This land forms part of the proud legacy of Peter Waite, who, on arriving from Scotland in 1859, proceeded to establish himself as a property manager and pastoralist. He worked closely with Thomas Elder and was a strong advocate for agricultural education. His passion for improving South Australia's agricultural standing led him to gifting 45 hectares to the state government to establish an agricultural high school. At the time he said:

I have been much influenced by the wonderful work our agriculturalists and pastoralists have accomplished hitherto in face of the very great odds they have had to meet. With comparatively little scientific training they have placed our wheat, wool and fruits in the highest estimation of the world.

Our agricultural machinery has been found good enough even for the Americans to copy; and our farming methods have been accepted by other states as the most up to date and practical for Australian conditions. We have now reached a point where it behoves us to call science to our aid to a greater extent than hitherto has been done, otherwise we cannot hope to keep in the forefront.

Since the time of those words of Peter Waite, Urrbrae Agricultural High School, and the Waite campus that is now part of the Adelaide University, has certainly done that: it has kept up with the science to aid the betterment of the agricultural sectors.

Peter Waite also gifted many hectares of land to the University of Adelaide to be used for agricultural studies and as a public park. His legacy continues today with the great work happening at Urrbrae Agricultural High School and at the Waite Agricultural Research Institute as part of the University of Adelaide.

Heritage and local history are of great importance to me and to many of my constituents, and undoubtedly to members here who represent the surrounding electorates. The seat of Waite is home to many heritage buildings and sites, including the Urrbrae House historic precinct and the Waite gatehouse lodge. Preserving our heritage buildings and character suburbs adds to the charm of our communities, tells the history of our neighbourhood and benefits future generations.

As part of the upgrade to the Fullarton Road-Cross Road intersection, I believe the preservation of Peter Waite's legacy of historic trees and the Waite gatehouse is very important. Heritage preservation was identified as a key concern of local residents who provided feedback to the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure as part of its consultation on the project. I thank the department for seeking a second round of consultation in recent months from local residents on this very issue, after, I think, the department realised that the preservation of the gatehouse and the historic trees, as part of the Waite Arboretum, was of great concern to many who will be impacted by this proposed development.

Those who responded to DPTI's community consultation expressed their apprehension about the impact of the Waite gatehouse, the significant trees, Peter Waite's legacy and the heritage value of the Waite campus. Many local residents around Netherby and Urrbrae reminded me of the role they took in ensuring, in the 1990s, that the Netherby Kindergarten was not carved out of the Waite campus but that it sit on its current site today.

I have been in constant liaison with my community regarding the proposed upgrade, as well as potential impacts to the state heritage listed Waite gatehouse and the avenue of trees on the eastern side of Fullarton Road. I have also met with Dr Wayne Hervey from Friends of Waite Arboretum to understand their views on the proposed development. I was pleased to hear, as I mentioned before, that the department has recognised community concern regarding the future of the gatehouse and is conducting further investigations to see what design mechanisms can be met and if the Waite gatehouse can be preserved as part of this development.

It is also encouraging to hear that the department is working with Heritage SA, the University of Adelaide and other stakeholders on this project. As planning progresses, I implore the government to listen to the many South Australians who want to preserve these key heritage pieces, not just in my electorate but across our whole state. Another key concern of local residents is the impact of those living along the two roads in question, the devaluating of land, the loss of frontage and the acquisition of land for the project.

Another key concern about the project—and something we must consider in progressing this important project—is around significant trees. There are many in my electorate who have taken part in the department's feedback who have said the same. I thank local resident Mrs Joanna Wells for her advocacy of the strong protection of the significant trees in the arboretum as part of this project. She has certainly been going around the electorate, suburbs around Waite, Kingswood and Mitcham, fighting for the trees at the arboretum, which is fantastic.

Since 1928, the Waite Arboretum has been a place of tranquil beauty and botanical treasures. It comprises 27 hectares and 2,500 specimens from around the world, growing on annual rainfall of 618 millimetres without supplementary watering after establishment. I did not know until recently, when I was talking to Dr Jennifer Gardner, that indeed the only time when the trees in the arboretum are watered outside of rainfall is when they are initially planted. After that, they survive on what nature provides. That is why the arboretum is such an important ecosystem, not only in and of itself in its location but in what it gives back to science and those who are interested in all things botanical.

The values of the trees in the arboretum are quite incredible. A 2017 report by Dr Jennifer Gardner, Marian McDuie and Erica Boyle, entitled An i-Tree Ecosystem Analysis, found the structural value of the surveyed trees (about 50 per cent of the Waite Arboretum collection) to be about $13 million. Carbon storage of 1,167 tonnes, equivalent to annual carbon emissions from 910 vehicles or 373 single-family homes, is captured in the arboretum. Air pollution removal is 1.2 tonnes per year, equivalent to annual emissions from 160 vehicles or 36 family homes. Carbon sequestration is 34.3 tonnes and oxygen production is 91.5 tonnes. These are just some of the environmental benefits that are captured by those trees that sit on the corner of Fullarton Road and Cross Road.

These significant trees have been around for almost 100 years. They add so much to the local environment, and to have them torn down unnecessarily and without due consideration as part of this project I believe would be a huge loss. Once again, I ask the government to take these valid concerns into account as they move forward on this project.

The Fullarton Road-Cross Road intersection is a vital part of the daily commute for many residents in my electorate and surrounding electorates and, indeed, those coming down from the Adelaide Hills. For many people living in Waite, this intersection is one of the only intersections that they travel through to get to the city. About 60,000 vehicles go through the intersection each day, and with it being the site of a number of horrific crashes we can understand the need to ensure that this intersection facilitates efficient and safe traffic flows.

There is also a strong desire from my constituents and many others in the Adelaide Hills that we seek to remove heavy freight vehicles from the South Eastern Freeway, Cross Road and other suburban roads. Once again, I remain disappointed at the KPMG report released not long ago into freight movements across South Australia and believe that in not pursuing alternative freight options around the back of the Adelaide Hills or through the south we are missing out on great opportunities to undertake road freight reform in South Australia.

One of my constituents, Dr Ken Moxham, summed up this issue well when he was talking about freight movements and alternative plans. In this case, he was referring to GlobeLink and he said:

…GlobeLink offered a viable plan to get the freight trucks off of suburban roads—

including Cross Road—

roads [that voters] use to go to work, to take their children to school, and to shop.

Getting freight road transport away from normal suburban roads and off the freeway is what most people including myself found attractive in the GlobeLink idea and I want to encourage you—

as in me—

to do all in your power to commence activities to achieve this goal.

Whilst that disappointment remains, it is good to see that alternative freight routes are still on the agenda. The RAA released a report to that extent last week. Residents of the Adelaide Hills, Mitcham Hills and Urrbrae area would completely agree with the RAA's assessment that 'major freight routes along busy urban corridors should be avoided wherever possible'. For many in my electorate, this includes Cross Road.

The RAA's advocacy for an alternative freight route, such as the route via Truro, to be used by higher productivity vehicles is one that would receive a lot of support from commuters, including my constituents who regularly use the South Eastern Freeway, Cross Road and Portrush Road. Once again, I ask the state government to work with industry, work with the federal government, and indeed work with the community, to develop alternative road freight routes for the benefit of my constituents and all South Australians.

In conclusion, I am supportive of the upgrade to the Fullarton Road-Cross Road intersection. Safety is so important and too often we see road fatalities in our community. Of course, this intersection was subject to an horrific motor vehicle accident just some months ago. At the same time, we can get transport right, we can get the commute right, we can get traffic flow right, but we can also look after and protect heritage trees at the same time. I believe in this proposed development we can do both: we can look after our environment and protect heritage, and save it for future generations, and we can look after the motorists of South Australia, which is so important.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh for 618 millimetres!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (12:15): I indicate to the house that I am the lead speaker for the opposition on the bill. I have to say that listening to the member for Waite's contribution concerned me a bit, given his inability to actually engage with his electorate appropriately, given the cloud that he is under personally because of his actions on a drunken night here at Parliament House. That is now before the court, so I will not go into that in any great detail. I just feel for the people of Waite, as they do not have a parliamentarian who can actively advocate for them in this matter. I was interested to hear the member's concerns about traffic coming down the South Eastern Freeway using the Portrush Road—

Mr DULUK: Point of order, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is a point of order, member for West Torrens. Yes, member for Waite?

Mr DULUK: Standing order 127: personal reflections on a member, the member for West Torrens saying that I cannot advocate on behalf of my community. I respectfully ask that he withdraw those statements.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Waite has asked that the member for West Torrens withdraw comments that he made reflecting on the member for Waite.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I will not, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You will not. I have asked the member for West Torrens to withdraw the comments. I have not directed him to. In essence, he does not need to, but I would ask him in the remainder of his contribution to be conscious of the fact that he needs to stay on topic.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you, sir. I also note that the member for Waite talked at length about Portrush Road and Cross Road and people from the South Eastern Freeway using that intersection. I point out to the people of Waite that they were told before the election that an incoming Marshall government would build a bypass road to avoid those traffic congestion issues on Portrush Road for people coming down the South Eastern Freeway.

Of course, those promises made by the member for Waite and members opposite in the lead-up to the last election were abandoned, so I think that anything those members talked about in terms of improving congestion on Portrush Road and Cross Road would be treated by the people of Waite with the same level of scepticism that they had once GlobeLink was abandoned by this government. I think, given the member for Waite's personal problems, they will take everything he says with a pinch of salt.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for West Torrens, I have asked you to stay on topic, please.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you, sir. The Waite Trust (Vesting of Land) Bill alters the operation of a trust. The Speaker has yet to rule whether this is a hybrid bill or not. There is some debate about whether there should be a select committee to look at whether or not changing the purposes of this trust is the appropriate manner in which to deal with this matter. It is certainly the opposition's view that if the standing orders require having a select committee, we should comply. We should absolutely comply, because, let's remember, at the very beginning Peter Waite vested this land to the state for a purpose. The government is now using its power in the parliament to alter that purpose.

The government is altering that purpose for a common good: to build a road. The outcome of a select committee could very well be that this is overwhelmingly popular, that we do want to see part of the Waite land gifted to the people of South Australia through Archibald Henry Peake, whose portrait sits up in this parliament and after whom the seat I won in 1997 was named, used for this purpose.

Mr Waite approached Archibald Henry Peake about vesting this land for educational purposes. He gave one portion of the land to the University of Adelaide and another portion of the land to the state government to encourage and incentivise agricultural practice. It has been a huge success. The minister is in a very difficult position here and I have some sympathy for him. He wishes to upgrade an intersection because the local MP, who used to be a Liberal, probably will not be the candidate for the Liberal Party at the next election and they are going to need something to talk about with their new candidate they are going to run in opposition to their former member who is no longer a Liberal.

My guess is that this intersection was fast-tracked so that the government would have something to talk about in the seat of Waite. So here we are, an upgraded intersection; I am sure the government will argue it is a worthwhile upgrade, but we are changing the use of the trust. To the minister's credit, I raised an issue with him about, once the trust is vested to the Minister for Education so that the land can be used for a road upgrade, whether it is the government's intent to return the remaining part of that portfolio that is on the title back to the trust for those purposes. I quote the bill under clause 4—Variation of Waite Trust at subclause (3) as follows:

If the Commissioner no longer requires any land vested in the Commissioner under this section such land may be revested in the Minister in accordance with the scheme prescribed by the regulations.

That is, once we have finished building the road, once we have finished with the land that we need to build this road upgrade, because the member for Waite can no longer be a Liberal Party candidate and we have to find a new one so that we will have something to talk about, the question then becomes that it is entirely up to the discretion of the minister or the commissioner to revest the land for the purposes that Peter Waite set out.

My guess would be that the people of Waite and the people of South Australia want more than a promise from the minister and more than a promise from the parliament. They would want it in writing in statute that it must revert the land. The minister told me, when I raised this matter with him, that it was always his intention to revert the land, and I take him at his word. I think he is being completely honest with me about that but I think it serves a public purpose for the minister to move an amendment in committee to amend this clause. If I attempted to move that amendment here, I would not be successful without the support of the government. I would need the government's support.

I can flag that if the minister does not move this amendment we will have discussions between the houses, and I can assure the minister that someone will move this amendment in the upper house, whether it is the opposition or a crossbench member. I think it makes sense. I think everyone in this parliament wants that to occur once the government has finished with taking as little land as it needs for the purposes of this road and vests it back to where it was originally.

I am advised that one of the reasons the entire portfolio is being handed over to the commissioner for the purposes of this road upgrade is that the department have not yet finalised their plans about how much land they are going to need for these road works. In effect, the government is asking the parliament to give the department a blank cheque for how much land they take and then a promise that they return it after it is completed.

It is very hard for parliamentarians by committee to work out what engineers need to make this road work, so I accept that first part of the department's and the minister's argument. It is hard to know how much land to compulsorily acquire until the designs are completed because there are some very sensitive issues to deal with, including some property of historical value that is diagonally opposite and directly opposite this intersection upgrade.

The question for the opposition is: do we support this bill on the promise that it will be returned once the land is taken? Consider the government's history on making promises with roadworks like GlobeLink. I still see no 24-hour airport in Murray Bridge. There is no sweeping freight line and new highway going around the Adelaide Hills straight down to the port of Adelaide, connecting up with the Northern Expressway and the Port River Expressway, to bypass all that freight, as promised before the election.

So when the minister says to me, 'It's always our intent,' I want to take him on his word, but the government's track record on transport promises is pretty flimsy. I suppose the question then becomes: will the minister move an amendment? The second question is: do we hold a select committee? I think it is pretty clear that we have to, and I do not know why we have not considered that. The standing orders are clear: this fits the definition of a hybrid bill.

We are changing the purposes of land that has been entrusted to the state on bequest in a trust. That requires a select committee. Why? So we can go out and speak to the people impacted, so we can put an advert in the paper and let people know that the government is planning this. What are people's views? Let's hold a public meeting at the Waite. Let's ask people what their views are. Do they support this? Let's find out how South Australians feel about this land that has been gifted to them for a particular purpose that the government is now changing.

I think the government will argue that, when a former Liberal government changed the purposes of land used in the Waite Trust in the 1990s under then attorney-general Trevor Griffin, that hybrid bill and that select committee were sufficient for prospective parliaments to do as they please. If it is a hybrid bill, the Speaker rules that it should be a hybrid bill and the government then does not want it to be a hybrid bill, the question then becomes: will the government use its numbers on the floor to suspend standing orders to rush this bill through?

I will wait for the advice from the Clerk and the Speaker about whether it is a hybrid bill or not. I understand that parliamentary counsel believe that it is not a hybrid bill, but that is a matter for us as a parliament and the Speaker. It will be an interesting test to see what path we go down here. On the face of it, we take the minister on his word. There is nothing to suggest that he is planning anything else, but let me give you a scenario that is not that uncommon. This is a very large portion of land. I am not sure exactly how large the title is, but it is a large portion of land.

The entire title of that portion of land has been taken out of the trust and vested in a different minister, who changed the purposes of it. Let us say that, 20 or 30 years from now, the school closes. How many schools have we seen throughout South Australia be redeveloped for housing? A future parliament, a future treasurer and a future minister might think, 'Well, this is prime land. It's on the corner of Portrush Road and Cross Road. It gives us the ability to develop it. There is no need for legislation anymore; the government in 2020 did that for us. It's already vested in the minister.' The minister can then hand it up.

Mr Pederick: You did it on Grand Junction Road.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am not sure you can compare Grand Junction Road with the Waite. If the Liberal Party thinks it is similar quality land, maybe, but I think Peter Waite might disagree with the member for Hammond. I keep wanting to say 'Goyder' for some reason; I do not know why. I think it is because that is where the member for Goyder used to sit when I first came to parliament.

I think it is important that this parliament expresses its view that, yes, okay, the government wants to upgrade this intersection—we will allow that to occur—but once you finish using the portion of land that you want for this intersection, the remainder of that land on that title must be returned immediately for the purposes of the Waite Trust, as established.

Then, if the government is right and this is overwhelmingly popular, that everyone has been calling for this, that this is absolutely necessary, what is the problem with forming a select committee as we are required to by standing orders? Or are we really now going to suspend standing orders and use the government's numbers to suppress giving the people of South Australia what is their right, bestowed on them by parliament: to have their say about whether or not we should change the use of this land?

I did a bit of research about Peter Waite because I did not know much about him—guilty as charged. I am not an expert on Peter Waite, but I understand he wrote to the Premier. I got this from a webpage on the internet, which I will disclose. It is about the Waite historical precinct. People may have already seen it and know it, so I hope I am not repeating myself. It reads:

In October 1913 Peter Waite wrote to the Premier of South Australia, Hon. A. H. Peake, and the Chancellor of the University of Adelaide, the Rt. Hon. Sir Samuel Way—

two very renowned names in South Australia—

informing them that subject to his own and his wife’s life interests, he intended presenting the Urrbrae property of 54 hectares to the University. The eastern half was to be used for scientific studies related to agriculture and the western half—

the part in question—

as a public park. He also intended handing over 45 hectares adjoining Urrbrae to the Government of South Australia for the purpose of establishing an agricultural high school. This statement of intent was subject to South Australian Parliament making the gifts free of succession duty.

So he did not want us to tax him for handing over the land, which I think is a pretty good deal, and says a lot about the times that he may have been charged for giving a gift. It continues:

In explaining his gift Peter Waite wrote:

'I have been much influenced by the wonderful work our agriculturalists and pastoralists have accomplished…in face of the very great odds they have had to meet.

He goes on to say:

With…little scientific training they have placed our wheat, wool and fruits in the highest estimation of the world—

indeed, the wheat and grapes on the carpets of this parliament reflect those agricultural pursuits of the early 19^th century—

our sheep have been brought to such perfection that they're sought after not only by all the sister States but by South Africa.

Anyway, he goes on to talk at length about all this and, given his contribution to one of the largest industries in South Australia, we should continue to train the next generation of farmers and agriculturalists in this state on which we rely so much for our economic prosperity.

I do not think Peter Waite would begrudge us taking a bit of land for a road. I am not saying we should not, but I think he would look with suspicion on any government that changed vast portions of that land that are not being used for a road and then not revert it back once they are finished, calculating how much they need for that road.

Even if it is the intention of the government without the amendment to return this land by regulation, I think this parliament owes it to Peter Waite and other philanthropists who have done so much for South Australia and especially our regional South Australians. Those institutions have done so much to help those families dealing with, quite frankly, very moderate land.

South Australian farmers have done remarkable things with the land and the rainfall that we have here in South Australia. If you searched Hansard for 'the driest state in the driest land and the driest country in the world', it would come up repeatedly in this chamber. Water is the lifeblood of this state because we have so little of it.

This is a man who gave so much to South Australia at great economic cost to his family, no doubt. The least we can do is make sure that once we have upgraded the public amenity that we need to upgrade, we give the rest back—not 'may' give it back, but 'will' give it back. The way to do that as parliamentarians is not to rely on the promise of a politician but to act like a legislature and legislators and compel it. That is our job.

If the minister will not move an amendment, I can foreshadow to the house that the opposition will move its own amendment in the upper house that, once DPTI have completed their design work and taken the land that they need for the road, the remaining land be returned back for the purposes for which it was intended. I do not think it is in any way slowing down the operation of the road.

To the select committee, I will be fascinated to know when the Speaker will rule because I understand that before second reading speeches are completed we will need a contingent motion to establish a select committee. I will take advice on how that is done. Obviously, the opposition would like to populate that select committee if it is so ruled.

I would say to the government that I suspect they are going to get a select committee one way or another, either here or in the upper house. I think it probably makes more sense to do it here than the upper house because I think we can do it a bit faster so as not to delay the passage of this bill and for DPTI to be able to do the work they do, get out there and build the road, because the government have abandoned GlobeLink. In the end, the government need something to talk about in Waite because there is not much else to talk about in Waite that they can talk about with any conviction.

With those remarks, the opposition reserves its right between the houses on this bill. I eagerly await the ruling of the Speaker on whether or not this is a hybrid bill. It is my very strong view that it is a hybrid bill and that the house should immediately form a select committee on the conclusion of the second reading debate. I am happy for the Minister for Transport to chair it as long as there is opposition representation on it and we hold at the very least one public meeting—just one—where we go out and hear the views of the people of Waite and the broader South Australian community about whether or not they are happy for this change. With those words, I look forward to other members' contributions.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (12:39): I rise to contribute to the debate by providing some brief remarks in commending the bill to the house. I have listened very carefully and with interest to the debate that has preceded. In the context of what has already been said, I move to observe that Peter Waite was very much a modern man of science and technology. He would have, in my view, flourished very much had he lived another century to be alive today. His family motto became 'Do and hope'.

At the time that he made his really extraordinary gift to the state and to the university, he was very much occupied by both his own life experience of the advancements in agricultural practice and of the absolute imperative that as a state, a nation and a modern economy, we must seek out and apply the science in order to continue to make advances and to stay, as he described, at the forefront. He was in a very good position to judge because his life after he came to Australia at the age of 25 was punctuated by continuous and extraordinary success in his chosen field.

He came out from Scotland, the source of many proud immigration stories in our state, going back to the very early days and continuing to the present, not as a young man of great wealth or as someone who brought a whole lot of capital to invest in South Australia, as did some of his contemporaries and particularly the generation older than he. He followed his two older brothers who had made the move to South Australia, and he had the friendship, the mentorship, one might say, of the elder family, who had already become well established in South Australia by the time that he arrived.

He came to South Australia—and again the modern parallels and the relevance continue to resound—having completed an apprenticeship, of which the member for MacKillop might be proud, in ironmongering. He had completed his apprenticeship and he had decided that the prospects for advancement were very much in Australia. He then went on to see great success as a manager and administrator, particularly of pastoral property, throughout his working life.

It is well also to observe, as is the case with other benefactors of around his time, Peter Waite's life story was not without fundamental and serious tragedy. It was part of his whole life from the very beginning. His father died in the year of his birth, falling off a horse. His mother was left to bring up him and his brothers, and so he knew hardship in a very practical way right from the very beginning.

If we fast-forward all the way to 1913 and his gift, his gift occurring late in that year was preceded by the shocking and horribly sad development of the news of the death of his son David. He also lost his older brother, James, very shortly after he arrived in South Australia, so he suffered loss throughout his life. He and his wife suffered the loss and the premature death of children as well.

In coming to the point in 1913 when he made this extraordinary generous gift, it was, I hazard to summarise, motivated by what was a clear legacy of the application of education and science to particularly agricultural pursuits. Secondly, sadly, to a significant degree it was perhaps motivated by what he had seen as the loss of significant family members, particularly, in David's case, the son who might have otherwise continued on with Peter's life's work.

Another observation by way of context might be to say that two large parcels of land are the subject of Peter Waite's gift. Firstly, the 54 hectares comprising the Waite estate were where he and his wife and family ultimately lived from the 1870s on and the location of Urrbrae House, which after renovations in the 1880s became one of the state's significant residences and a house of technology—the first house, we understand, to have an electric light and a fridge and so on—and a significant residence and home to the Waite family on that 54-hectare estate. Secondly, over the road, the adjoining 45 hectares were also gifted and are more particularly the subject of this bill.

Had they not been gifted for the purposes to which they have been so productively applied over this last more than a century, then it would be reasonable to expect that that land, so close to the city as it is, would in all likelihood have been at some point filled with residential development. It would have become a relatively near southern suburb of Adelaide and, as the surrounding suburbs show, it would have been in great demand from about that time.

So the situation that might have faced a government today, as it does in so many other cases where road developments are required, might well have involved the compulsory acquisition of residential property. If one considers that for a moment, and the inevitable difficulty associated with those sorts of growing pains structurally, there might have been another kind of complexity in these circumstances.

Happily, in a very practical sense, because of the gift of this land by Peter Waite we have seen the establishment of Urrbrae Agricultural High School, the Waite Arboretum, the university facilities and the wonderful things that they continue to permit, and we have heard reflected on in the course of the debate the amenity that it provides to the city and surrounds. It means in a practical way that what we are contemplating here is the use of a particular small portion of that land to provide for the growing pains of a city, a capital city that is growing a century later and requiring that further infrastructure capacity.

It is not for me to hazard an opinion, and it is not relevant either, as to what Peter Waite might have made of all that, but I suspect that he would have been proud and delighted to see—a century after what his gift brought in terms of the use of the land—the way in which it has provided a home for the advancement particularly of agricultural technology in that time. It might be reasonable to say that he would be wholly unsurprised if the result of all that learning and application of technology and the modern economy that followed did not lead to a certain amount of need for infrastructure growth and so on in those surroundings.

I think he would find that wholly unsurprising, and I suspect that he would be among the first to say, 'It's good to see that Adelaide has grown and thrived over the century following the gift,' and, as it were, onwards and upwards continuing the legacy. Of course, that is a matter of irrelevant speculation, in that what we are dealing with is legislation and the circumstances in which there are provisions according to which the gift was made and formalities and so on. I say that by way of context because the evidence gives us a picture of the kind of man that Peter Waite was, and the occasion to debate the bill is an occasion to reflect on the extraordinary significant life and gift that he gave.

What is clear is that in many ways the means by which the land was originally given, the trust, has in all respects crystallised. What we have is a set of terms according to which the land has been given. We also understand that land owned by the Minister for Education relevantly cannot be acquired by the Commissioner of Highways in the way that it would be acquired compulsorily in residential or other developments in the more common circumstances.

I say that briefly really to highlight that what we are dealing with is land that has been gifted to the minister and that for nearly a century has been crystallised as such. It has been land upon which the high school is located and continues to carry on. It happens, therefore, to be held by a person, in the minister, from whom compulsory acquisition cannot be applied. Contrast that with a gift to someone else: if it were not the minister, as I understand the situation, to whom the land was gifted, then it could be compulsorily acquired and there would be no need to turn one's mind to the terms of the trust or to the need to specifically legislate for it because the commissioner would exercise powers as they ordinarily do in terms of an infrastructure upgrade.

It is the combination of two things that lead us to reflect on the terms of the trust and, in turn, the life and gift of Peter Waite. It might be contrasted in all sorts of ways with the usual circumstances in which parliament might consider what constitutes a hybrid bill. I have listened carefully to the debate about that matter, and I understand the government has advice, and I expect that advice steps out the reasons why when considering the spectrum of interests on the question of what constitutes a hybrid bill and whether or not this one falls in that category.

I would be unsurprised if that advice were able to make it really quite clear, in this case, that it is the peculiar situation of the land being held by the minister which is really the operative cause for us to be here considering the matter, so the minister's holding of the land and the difficulty with compulsory acquisition. In my view, that is an explanation as to why we are here in the form that we are here.

I very much welcome the opportunity it brings to have reflected in some very brief way on the life of Peter Waite. Whilst listening carefully to the contribution of those who would seek some further assurance, the interests of South Australians, of those who use the road and environs and, as I hazard, also in line with the life and nature of the man who made the original gift, align to make it a wholly unsurprising development for the advancement of the infrastructure in the local area.

Thanks and appreciation to Peter Waite. I wish the progress and implementation of the works that this bill will facilitate can happen posthaste, with a view to improving the infrastructure and surrounds for all of us into the next century to come.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Pederick.

Sitting suspended from 12.59 to 14:00.