Legislative Council Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2) 51 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Cheltenham Park Racecourse CHELTENHAM PARK RACECOURSE The Hon. M. PARNELL Legislative Council CHELTENHAM PARK RACECOURSE The Hon. M. PARNELL (15:20): As a supplementary question: if the minister cannot commit to releasing the advice he received from the Development Policy Advisory Committee, will he commit to attending the public meeting in person so he can hear for himself the submissions and concerns of local residents? The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: That was hardly derived from the answer. The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY Legislative Council Minister for Police, Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Police, Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning) (15:20): As is my job, I will consider the input from this. There are hundreds of development plan amendments. Hundreds of public meetings are held in relation to various development plans all around the state. It is my job to make the decision on these. We know where the members opposite will come from in relation to these things. What they will not come from is any position of consistency or substance in relation to them, but members opposite will look for some political benefit, because that is the way they operate. They do not have any basic principles. What the government is attempting to do with its Cheltenham development decision is to provide 35 per cent of the area as open space. Let me make a point. I heard the Hon. Terry Stephens make a statement regarding public interest earlier this morning, and he was talking about racing and how this state needed to get on with it. The Leader of the Opposition has been telling us we should just get on with the Victoria Park racecourse. Never mind what the newly elected council says; we should not talk to it. We have said we would look at a compromise and it has said no. We should ignore that; ignore what is said by the city council in relation to Victoria Park and just go ahead and do it. That is what members opposite are saying. We should just come in, not listen any more, just act, go ahead and push on with Victoria Park. That is what they are saying here but, in relation to Cheltenham, there we have the SAJC, the premier racing body in this state, which has made the decision. It owns the land. It is the SAJC that owns the land at Cheltenham. It has made the decision that it would discontinue racing at that venue. It believes that its future lies in having racing at either Morphettville or Victoria Park. That is its decision. That is what it has decided to do. It came to the government and, as a result of those considerations, we said that, if it were to get rid of this land, given the proclamation on it as open space, we would ensure that a significant amount of that area was retained as open space. Our goal was that we should have at least 35 per cent of it. We offered to put in—and in fact we have put in—$5 million towards the cost of that open space. All these people they want us to consult with like the members of Charles Sturt Council said they wanted more open space. We said, 'Ok; we will put up $5 million; you put up a matching $5 million.' What did it do? After all these demands it totally went to water. The government has continued; we will come good with our contribution. We will make sure that we get 35 per cent open space, and we will ensure that it is a very good development with the DPA we have released. I hope the members opposite—and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition when he was there—would have complemented this government on how we are using this important tract of land under the DPA to develop our transit oriented development policies. Being on a railway line it is an ideal site to promote transit oriented development. All this is allowed for within the significant work that has been done by Planning SA in relation to the development plan amendment for that site. All that work has been done. We have gone through a year or more of negotiations where the council let us down on the open space, but nonetheless we have battled on. We have come out with this proposal, and it is now out for consultation until January, a couple of months away. As a result of that, we will consider the input and move ahead from there. Ultimately this government will reach a good outcome for the people of this state and for the people of that area, notwithstanding the cheap politics that is undoubtedly being played by some people in that area.