Bills

Waite Trust (Vesting of Land) Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The CHAIR: I think we are dealing with the minister's amendment first.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! Generally the practice is to deal with the minister's amendment first, so I give the minister the call.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I am proud to move the amendment standing in my name:

Amendment No 1 [TransInfrLocalGov–1]—

Page 3, line 25 [clause 4(3)]—Delete 'may' and substitute 'must'

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: This one does say 59(1) and that one says 59(2), so normally one comes before two. In discussion with the member for West Torrens, he raised a concern in relation to a phrase in clause 4 that says we 'may' return land that is not needed for the road back to the minister, and he wanted that changed to 'must'. We are more than happy to move the amendment to say that we must return the land. It is self-evident. There is not much else we are going to be able to do with whatever land gets returned, and returning it back to its original purpose, I think, is a very worthy amendment and one that I was more than happy to move as a government amendment, showing good faith with the member for West Torrens in that regard.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is a proud moment for any parent to see their child grow up and to see that the minister is finally acting like an adult and accepting a good amendment, although he could not help himself with one brief childish splurt there to make sure, 'My amendment goes first!' I have to say it is the appropriate amendment, and I do give the minister credit for accepting it almost immediately and seeing sense in it.

I am not quite sure why the department or parliamentary counsel wanted 'may'. My guess is that the department may have thought that they needed as much leeway as possible from the school while the works were ongoing. My question to the minister on the amendment is: at what stage does he expect the land to be vested back after the works are completed?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Without wanting to say 'after the works are completed', what tends to happen in this process is the work is undertaken. For the period of construction, we will obviously want to maintain a buffer area to make sure that we reduce risks for people who are using the Urrbrae site whilst construction is being undertaken. What does happen is that, once the road project is finished, normally the soft landscaping is one of the last things to be completed. We would obviously confer with the existing users of the land—the Minister for Education, who the land will be vested back in, but also the Urrbrae high school—about what they would like to see us do with the balance of that side. We will certainly return it as soon as we can after the works are completed but also, I would suggest, give it back in a format that is decided upon in conjunction with the existing land users.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: There was no answer there whatsoever. Given that the minister has not delivered a project on time or on budget yet, I wonder if he is contemplating, even while landscaping is occurring when the roadworks are finished, whether the land may still not be vested back. At what point does the minister view DPTI's role of the requirement to excise land from the trust to build the road end and the land is returned back to the trust? Is it once they are completely finished, or is it once the roadworks are completed? Is it once the landscaping is finished, or is it once the tennis courts are reinstalled, or the carparks done or the line markings are down? Do we have a general ballpark idea of when the minister thinks it will be done?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: As soon as is practicable, but, as I pointed out in my previous debate, the design on this project has not been completed, which is why we need to undertake this bill in the first place. We have some draft designs, but they are still being worked through and worked up. Precisely how much land is going to be vested back is still an open question, but it will be as soon as is practicable. I would have thought that it is much better for us to return the land in the state in which we agreed to return it, rather than doing that beforehand.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You might recall—in the epic debate on noting the report—the minister talking about speed, the necessity for stimulus during COVID. The minister just told the house that the design is not even done yet.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: Shame!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, shame, indeed. The design is not even done yet. The design is not done. I have to say that my confidence in the minister diminishes by the hour and, let's face it, it did not start at a high point. The opposition agreed to a speedy passage of the bill. We want stimulus as well. We think that this is an important road to upgrade. The minister agreed to our amendment and then tells the parliament that the design is not even finished yet. The parliament loses more and more respect for this minister every hour he speaks and every time he gets up in this parliament. My question is: will the design be completed by the end of this year?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: This is quite an interesting question coming from a previous minister for infrastructure. There are a number of processes that are undertaken simultaneously to speed up the time frame to get to construction, so we are undertaking land acquisition processes in parallel with design processes in parallel with investigation on early works in parallel with decisions about other parts of the project—for instance, the relocation of the gatehouse on the other corner. We do all these things simultaneously to speed up the process.

I understand that under previous governments they did the design and then they did the land acquisition and then they undertook the early works and then they did the construction, and that actually elongates the process. Undertaking these things simultaneously is a way that we can compress the time frame to ensure construction starts more quickly. That has proven successful and continues to prove successful as a way to be able to get the works underway as quickly as possible.

As the former minister may be aware, you move from a 5 per cent design to a 30 per cent design to a 70 per cent design to plans issued for construction. There are a number of acronyms in there that escape me. That work will continue. The more important question is: at what point can construction get underway? By undertaking the processes in this way, we are truncating that time frame.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: How much of the Peter Waite Trust remains vested in the Minister for Education?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Essentially, the subject of what we are doing here today is all the land under Title 5540/952. There is a second title, Title 5408/215, that will remain vested in the Minister for Education.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: What is the size of that title the minister quoted, the square metreage?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: The information I have is the land area we require is about 7,200 square metres. As to the total land under this title, that is information I will endeavour to get the member between the houses.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The minister quoted the title, so we know the title. On that title would be the land size. Can the minister please provide to the house the size of the title he quoted.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I am saying that is not information I have to hand, but I will provide it in between the houses to the member.

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, that was clarification. This is your third and last question.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you, sir. This will be my last question. Again, this concerns me about the due diligence this minister does. If you have the title number, you know you need 7,700 square metres, what is the size of the title you are excising from the trust, and the minister does not know. It is not difficult. If the title is there in front of him and he has the folio number, tell us how big it is. If he does not know, why does he not know?

These are not difficult questions. I am not trying to trap him. The reason I want to know the answer to this question is that the advice the opposition received in the briefing was that the way the title is structured it was a very large title and the department only needs a small portion of that very large title. The government has given us an estimate of nearly 7,700 square metres. I want to know, once this is completed, how much they are vesting back. The way I will know that is by knowing the size of the original land being excised.

If you want the parliament to agree to excise land from the trust, can you pretty please with a cherry on top tell us how much you are excising? It is not hard.

The CHAIR: The minister has agreed to take that on notice and get the information back.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am sure.

The CHAIR: Well, he has, member for West Torrens. Minister, do you wish to add to that? You are taking that on notice. Nothing further to add?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: No.

Clause as amended passed.

Remaining clauses (5 and 6), preamble and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL (Schubert—Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government, Minister for Planning) (21:29): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (21:30): I rise in support of the third reading contribution, and I am again stunned at the level of shoddy workmanship being done by the minister. As a quick little history lesson for members who have not been on this journey like the member for Port Adelaide and I have, the government has a hybrid bill because they want to excise land from the Peter Waite Trust to extend some roadworks that impact on land assigned to the trust.

They did not agree that it had to be a hybrid bill. The Speaker had to come in over the top of the government. The government has still not provided advice to the house about why they think it is not a hybrid bill, which I think is interesting in itself, and they then sought approval from the opposition. The opposition immediately gave support for the bill and agreed that the government would have passage of this legislation before the winter recess, so the minister had that in his pocket.

The opposition wanted to have a select committee meeting at the Waite Campus so we could talk about the excising of this land. The minister refused. He held two meetings, sat when the bells were ringing, sat when the Labor Party caucus was on, did not have the courtesy to call Labor members to tell them what the committee had agreed to before tabling the report. When he tabled the report, he did not want to debate it and even refused to move it. Then he voted against noting the report. It is a cavalcade of maladministration by the minister in the way he conducts himself and his portfolio—misconduct, maladministration, and who knows what else he is guilty of.

We get to the committee stage, we move the amendment and, for some reason, after the amendment that I tabled before the minister, the minister had a childish fit and insisted that his amendment, even though it is identical, be considered first. The Chairman rightly gave precedence to the minister—and I am not reflecting on his ruling whatsoever; he is entitled to do as he pleases—and the amendment passes unanimously.

I then ask the obvious question: 'How much land are you excising from the Peter Waite Trust?' What does the minister say? 'I don't know.' I ask, 'What is the title number that you are excising?' He gives us the title number. 'How big is that title?' He says, 'I don't know.' The incompetence! If you are excising land from a trust, surely the first thing you know is how much land you are taking out. As I said, I do not have any nefarious reasons for wanting to know how much it is. The reason I want to know is so I know exactly how much is put back at the end. Pretty commonsense stuff.

The minister says, 'I'll tell you between the houses.' Fat chance! He did not even have the courtesy to call the opposition and tell us what the committee had agreed to in its 'tabled report', and I say that in inverted comments because the report needed to be noted and the minister did not even want the parliament to note the report. So I take everything this minister says with a grain of salt.

That said, we do agree with the works. We will support the legislation. We will pass it in the upper house, even though the minister claims that time is of the essence, even though he just told the parliament that the design is not finished, he does not know how much is being excised, he cannot tell us when it will be done, he cannot tell us when it will be finished, and he cannot tell us when the land will be vested back in as the amendment demands. Everyone should be full of confidence that this is going to go swimmingly. Again, the maladministration and misconduct of this minister is in very large proportions. That said, I support the—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for West Torrens, be very careful please.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am very careful with my words, sir. I make them an informed reading, Mr Deputy Speaker. With those few remarks, I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a third time and passed.