Question Time

ST CLAIR LAND SWAP

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (14:33): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for State/Local Government Relations a question about the St Clair land swap.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: As we have just heard with the Hon. David Winderlich's notice of motion for an inquiry, there is considerable interest in the St Clair land swap and, in particular, the events surrounding the meetings held by the City of Charles Sturt and also the minister's responsibility to have the final say and make a decision on the land swap.

We know that the Land Management Corporation has a significant stake in this particular development. In fact, in a radio interview between the minister and 891's Mr David Bevan, he was asked the following question:

But doesn't the Land Management Corporation want to swap the land? Ah, yes, but...this land swap decision is subject to the community land title being revoked...

The minister said:

It will be a land swap that we're committed to in the end.

He continued:

...the land swap is to do with proposed housing development around the St Clair site, which is to do with...a housing proposal...in line with our 30-year development plan for South Australia...that's about benefitting South Australians...The South Australian government is not going to end up with money in its pocket.

Later in the interview, she then goes on to say the following, in relation to the act under which she operates and makes a decision:

...before a decision is made to revoke the community land title, the act requires that a process of community consultation occurs and the act is quite explicit about some of those processes and that's what, if and when the council writes to me and requests me to consider this revocation, that's what my responsibilities will be to do, will be to check off the process really carefully to ensure that they have met all of their requirements under the Act...

I note also that the Attorney-General, Mr Atkinson, was on radio the next day spruiking this particular government project. I was intrigued to see that, in one of his opening statements, he said:

What I'm promoting is the light rail, of which this land swap is an essential element...The Rann Government is building the tramline from North Terrace, City West, past the New Market Hotel, over the railway bridge, past the Thebarton Police Barracks and down Port Road, past the Brewery to Port Road, outside the Entertainment Centre, and many of my constituents know that because they've seen the road works.

He then goes on to say:

What my constituents don't know is that that tramline is going to be extended onto the existing rail line...

My questions are:

1. Does the minister agree that, as the minister responsible for the decision, and given that it is a government project with little or no consultation and that the LMC will make a financial gain from the project, she has a conflict of interest in relation to this land swap?

2. Given that minister Atkinson has admitted that his constituents do not know about the project, can the minister confirm that there has been adequate consultation in relation to this land swap?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for State/Local Government Relations, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Energy) (14:37): I thank the honourable member for his important question, although he is misguided in some ways. It gives me a valuable opportunity to talk about the important process around land revocation and the rigor of that process and to provide the reassurance that, in fact, diligence will be applied and the rigor of this process will be upheld in full.

If councils want to deal with community land, they have to go through a community land revocation process. There are legislative requirements the council must meet in undertaking that process, and that is to ensure that certain protections, both legal and administration protections, as well as community protections, are put in place.

The act requires councils to prepare and adopt a public consultation policy, which must set out the steps the council will follow in cases where the act requires that the council must follow that consultation policy. It must also set out the steps the council will follow in cases involving council decision-making. We are talking about council decisions. The Hon. David Ridgway misunderstands the responsibilities of councils when decisions are made under the Local Government Act versus the local member's consultative process. The honourable member really does not know what he is talking about. The Hon. David Ridgway just does not get the difference between the local member's responsibility and the requirements of a council under the act. The local—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I set the record straight by saying that it is, in fact, the Hon. David Ridgway who does not understand the difference in the responsibilities of the local member and the requirement for local councils to consult. My responsibility as the Minister for State/Local Government Relations is around the responsibilities under the Local Government Act, and I am happy to outline those.

Before a council can revoke the classification of community land it has to prepare a report, and the report must be made available during the public consultation. It must contain: a summary of the reasons for the proposal to revoke the classification of community land; a statement of any dedication, reservation or trust to which the land is subject; a statement of whether revocation of the classification is proposed with a view to sale or disposal of the land, and, if so, details of any government assistance given to acquire the land; a statement of how the council proposes to use proceeds; an assessment of how implementation of the proposal would affect the area and local community; if the council is not the owner of the land, a statement of any requirements made by the owner as a condition of approving the proposed revocation, and a copy of the relevant certificates, titles or other title reference; and a map or plan defining the area of each piece of land for which the revocation is proposed.

The council will have to give consideration to section 194(2), report and pass a resolution to proceed with public consultation in accordance with the council's public consultation policy. Section 194B of the act requires the council to follow the relevant steps set out in its public consultation policy, following the preparation of the report. To fully inform the community, the council's reasons for wanting to deal with the particular parcel of land should be clearly articulated so that the community can put forward any concerns or give support to the proposal.

To publicise the proposal it is desirable to have a notice placed in newspapers circulating in the council's area so that the council's intentions are made known clearly to the community, together with details of the land, the reasons for the proposal, any conditions to be imposed, details of where the report can be obtained, contact details of relevant council officers, and the closing details for submissions to the council.

The act requires that a notice must give at least 21 days during which interested people can make submissions on the proposal, and also, to engage the community, councils should bring the proposal to—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Mr President, the Hon. David Ridgway has asked about community consultation and I am outlining that in detail for his information, and yet he continues to take no interest whatsoever. He asked a question about community consultation, which I am answering in detail. He is away with the fairies. He is completely disinterested in the level of community consultation that the act requires the council to undertake in fulfilling its obligations.

To engage the community, councils should bring the proposal to the attention of the wider community. Councils may choose to provide a period longer than 21 days for consultation. After considering the report, along with all submissions made during the public consultation process, the council would then need to pass a resolution to seek ministerial approval for the revocation of the land.

Once council has resolved to seek that approval, an application is then made to the minister, which has occurred in this case. The application should contain details of the steps which the local council has taken in relation to the list of matters that I have outlined. The minister then considers whether the council has fulfilled its statutory obligations and followed the processes required under its consultation policy. If the council receives confirmation it is only then, if the appropriate revocation process is followed, that the council is at liberty to make a further resolution to give effect to the community land classification.

So, Mr President, you can see that local councils, as democratically elected members of local government, are accountable to their communities for the decisions that they make, and they must consult with their communities to ensure that the matters that are being decided on are known to the communities and there is an opportunity for their views to be given. As I have outlined, statutory requirements under the act ensure that that takes place. The minister—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: To stop his harping, I have visited the park, and it is a lovely park. The honourable member asked a question about consultation, which he is clearly not interested in. I would like to put on record that the minister's role in the revocation process is not to make the revocation decision but to review the council's proposal and processes to ensure that they are followed. The matters outlined in the act that are requirements of the local council, including community consultation, must be fulfilled before I as minister would be able to approve that application. The effect of that approval then gives the council the authority to make the revocation decision.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Well, he wanted to know what the processes of community consultation involved, and I have outlined that. As I have indicated, it is a rigorous process, and it is only if, when and until I am satisfied that all of those statutory requirements have been fulfilled that, as minister, I would be able to approve an application. It is only if, when and until all of those statutory responsibilities are fulfilled.

For the record, in terms of the Land Management Corporation's involvement in land ownership, I have been advised that it will seek to own and be responsible for only that parcel of land that it is swapping and replacing. I have been advised that the Land Management Corporation does not own any other part of the Actil site, which is currently owned by AV Jennings. The only component that it will have any ownership of is the parcel of land that it will be handing over as part of the land swap. To say that there is some sinister money grab out of this development proposal by the Land Management Corporation is dishonest and misleading.