House of Assembly Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1) 55 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate University of South Australia, Magill Campus Land Transfer University of South Australia, Magill Campus Land Transfer The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER House of Assembly Morialta Deputy Leader of the Opposition The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:32): There are many residents in my electorate and the member for Hartley's adjoining electorate, particularly in the suburb of Magill but also the surrounding areas, who are deeply concerned and troubled at the moment by a lack of information that has come from government, and a lack of clarity about what is going to be taking place in relation to the land at Magill, formerly—or currently actually still the site of the University of South Australia Magill Campus, but which is currently being transferred to the ownership of the state government from the university, and about which the government is yet to make clear what its plans are. Hundreds of local residents in my electorate and the Hartley electorate have already signed a petition to the following extent, and I will read it out: With the transfer of Magill Campus land from the University of South Australia to the State Government underway, and the news that the University plans to depart the site within the next ten years, the local community is most concerned that any future use of the land takes into account community concerns—especially in relation to community facilities, open space, environmental and biodiversity concerns, heritage buildings and active and passive recreation opportunities. In particular, this petition: Notes that the University of South Australia has sold the land attached to the Magill Campus to the State Government as part of the University merger proposal, with the land East of St Bernards Road to be master-planned for sale imminently, and the land West of St Bernards Road to be retained by the University for five years, with an option for five more, with master-planning to take place in the coming years; Urges the Government to prioritise the retention of open space, given the unprecedented levels of development and infill in the surrounding area over the last decade—particularly under the planning rules in place from 2012-2019; Notes the impact of recent infill development on traffic and infrastructure in the local area, and that existing challenges ought to be met with a new traffic management plan for the area, even before any potential changes to the use of this site; In relation to the land on the eastern side of the road, urges the Government to engage with Campbelltown Council with a view to the development of community recreation and sporting facilities, rather than selling to the highest bidder for high density development; and In relation to the land on the western side of the road, urges the Government to commit to retaining the Childcare Centre, the Oval, the sporting and recreation facilities, and the public space around the creek-line, and to respecting the heritage status of Murray House. Sir, you would be familiar with much of this detail as the committee on which we both served and which you chaired had dozens and dozens of submissions from local residents making similar points and, indeed, we heard hours and hours of evidence from different relevant actors in relation to this matter. I particularly note the member for Hartley, who has, along with myself, been engaging heavily with our local community. Indeed, when challenged on this engagement by the Minister for Planning, which I will get to in a moment, the member for Hartley responded very clearly: The anxiety of local residents comes from the complete lack of consultation [or] communication by this Labor Government about the Magill Campus—not one resident was told that the Campus would be closed under Labor’s Merger proposal before the election. We want to see actual consultation, upgraded state road infrastructure, preservation of open space and an updated road traffic management plan. There has been some positive news. After repeated questioning by myself and the member for Hartley in the house and, indeed, the recommendation of the committee, the government has given signals that the community childcare centre will be retained. The centre, I note, is looking forward to getting ink on that paper. We have had reassurances that the heritage status of Murray House will be retained. But in relation to the land sale, it is very clear that the government has not yet determined that community use will take precedence. It seems instead, going by statements from Renewal SA and from Treasury in the committee and in the public sphere, that they will instead be looking for the highest bidder to be sold. Despite Minister Champion accusing in InDaily the Liberal Party, and in particular myself and the member for Hartley, of, and I quote, 'harvesting…votes through community anxiety' and 'wild campaigns against density', and going on to say, 'I think there are a number of Liberal Party politicians who are out there running campaigns on a site they know is going to remain a university campus for 10 years,' this week, it has become clear, through FOI documents released by the government under the instruction of the Ombudsman to InDaily, that it was indeed the Premier's office that changed the language on the map released to the community from its initial statement of 'Short-term transitional lease to university, earmarked for future development' to instead saying 'Short-term transitional lease…ahead of master planning for future use'. In relation to the Mawson Lakes campus, they changed the language from 'Development' to 'Not part of campus'. The Premier's office has made it very clear through these FOI documents that they do not want people to know that the government plans to have this developed potentially to the highest bidder for the highest density. The community, whether it is the Burnside Hockey Club's proposal, whether it is the Campbelltown council's proposal, whether it is any of the proposals that retain biodiversity, open space, community active and passive recreation facilities or any of the other community proposals, want assurance from the government that those proposals will be taken seriously and community concerns will be prioritised when Renewal SA eventually undertakes their work on the master plan.