Question Time

ST CLAIR LAND SWAP

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (14:26): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Urban Development and Planning a question about the Cheltenham Park/St Clair master plan.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: As members would be aware, we have had significant discussion in this chamber during the past couple of question times in relation to the St Clair land swap and the new development at Cheltenham Park. In fact, minister Gago, minister Atkinson and minister Foley have all been on radio saying that this is a government project, that it is part of the transport-oriented development projects that the government is rolling out and that the St Clair land swap, in particular, was their idea.

On 11 November, I think, Mr Peter Jensen, national chair of the urban chapter of the Planning Institute of Australia, said on 891 Radio that it was not anything to do with the government but that in fact it was the council planners who came up with the idea and that the council was driving the idea. I have a chronological map here of the Cheltenham Park draft DPA from 2007—

The Hon. I.K. Hunter interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: —one of them is in colour, Mr Hunter; the other two are in black and white. They are the Cheltenham Park final DPA of 2008 and the Cheltenham Park master plan of August 2009. It is interesting to note that, while it might be somewhat similar in shape, it does not end up anything like it started out.

The President of the Planning Institute of Australia, South Australian Division, Mr Gary Mavrinac, at a public hearing for submissions on the rezoning of Cheltenham, said that the Planning Institute did not support the redevelopment of the Cheltenham racecourse unless a new railway station was built to accommodate the development. He said, 'It is an opportunity to create Adelaide's first "transit-oriented development" with mixed use, medium and high rise apartments around a new railway station built at the site.' We have noticed with the Cheltenham Park/St Clair master plan that the site known as St Clair is now just in a beige colour and marked 'possible future development'. My questions to the minister are:

1. What types of developments will take place on the St Clair site if the land swap goes ahead?

2. Is it the government's intention that a future development on that site will be integrated with a new railway station?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (14:29): If one is proposing to build a TOD and the 30-year plan identifies the site around the Woodville station as a TOD site, obviously, the development that takes place there would be integrated with a transit facility. That is what transit-oriented developments are.

In relation to the thrust of the honourable member's question, my recollection of the history of the consideration of the Cheltenham issue is that it began with the SAJC proposing the sale of Cheltenham Park Racecourse, and that was (so my notes tell me) back on 4 August 2004. That is when it began. The SAJC made the decision that it would sell Cheltenham Park Racecourse.

That was something I well recall. It was a move for which the then opposition spokesperson, Angus Redford (who I think was in here yesterday), was an advocate. He was an avid supporter of that move by the SAJC and he made several speeches in this place admonishing the government for not getting behind the sale of the Cheltenham Park Racecourse. The government had various meetings with residents and others and the Jockey Club around that time, and in the end it became clear that because it was SAJC land it would proceed with that. It was then that the government made clear that we would not support any lifting of the encumbrance on that land unless there was a significant amount of open space. The government proposed 35 per cent, of which it would contribute—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: You backed down on that.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: No, we did not back down. We would contribute $5 million, and we suggested to the council, which at the time had been lobbying for the retention of open space, that, if it provided a $5 million contribution from the City of Charles Sturt, that would enable 40 per cent of the site to be open space. That is all history and in the end the City of Charles Sturt decided not to support that. Nevertheless, the government honoured its promise to ensure that 35 per cent of that Cheltenham Park land remain as open space and that we would make a contribution towards that.

Around the same time, Stockland had purchased the former Actil site and was proposing to develop it. They came to see us about a development plan to enable that former industrial site to be redeveloped. It obviously made sense, given that it was right next door—about 17 hectares—to the site of the Cheltenham racecourse, to consider it together. Since both those parcels of land were being considered, the potential to look at the whole region, given that council owned the land around St Clair, it made sense to look at the entire area from Cheltenham Road right through to Woodville Road, because with the significant amount of open space land available in that area the potential for a path that went right the way between those two roads would have been a significant community asset for the people of the western suburbs.

What began with the sale of the SAJC land, combined with the Stockland land, has grown eventually into the master plan put forward for the entire site. Obviously a master plan of the entire site provides a much better outcome for the people of the western suburbs than if one were to look at the Cheltenham area alone or at the Stockland land, which ultimately was sold to AVJennings, which won the tender to purchase the Cheltenham racecourse site.

There has been an involvement with this project over more than five years and it has evolved as these other issues came into play. Clearly the council played a part from originally opposing the sale of Cheltenham to becoming involved with this, and it has been a keen supporter—appropriately so—of the enhanced development. One of the issues looked at in the original development plan when it was Cheltenham only was the location of the railway station. Clearly the best outcome in terms of a transit-oriented development would be to use the Woodville station site, because it is at that point that the line branches off to Grange. Being a junction, it is from a number of perspectives a most desirable location for a transit-oriented development. A lot of work involving three different parcels of land has come together ultimately with the master plan. What should be pointed out to this chamber is that the Liberal Party's latent interest in this matter—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Let's get the history straight. The Liberal Party's original interest was to support the sale of the SAJC land with no open space requirement. That was the original statement way back prior to the previous state election. So, that was the Liberal Party's position. But, of course, the Liberal Party's position now is that it does not want to proceed with the city to coast rail line. So, not only would there be no open space down there but there would be no upgrade of the rail system for the western suburbs because the Liberal Party has made it clear that it does not support that city to coast tram line. So, really, the Liberals are playing games with the people of the western suburbs, and they are trying to capitalise on public interest in the sale of that land.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Yes, I know you go and talk to them and you mislead them, because you don't tell them the truth about how you are not going to proceed with that rail line. It has taken five years for the evolution of this project—and it has been an evolution. As the other parcels of land have all been put in place, the potential to do something much better for the people of the western suburbs has evolved and various parties, such as the council, have changed their views during that period.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Well, you can talk about that. It is strange how for years councils, particularly in country areas, have been entirely dominated by members of the Liberal Party—and they have been doing it for years. Within the Australian Labor Party, there is no caucusing, and there is no declared policy in relation to local government issues. It is quite clear that, under the rules of the Australian Labor Party, we do not have a policy in relation to local government issues. The Labor Party, while certainly supportive of anyone who wishes to run for local government, does not have a policy in relation to local government in this state, like other parties do in other states. That has never been the case in South Australia.

So, the honourable member can try to mislead in relation to that. As was mentioned yesterday, a number of prominent Liberals, such as the Mayor of Mount Gambier, are running for office. I make no criticism of his doing that; he is entitled to do that. However, why is it wrong for members of the Labor Party, in an area where the Labor Party has 70 or 80 per cent support, to run for local government and for that council to have a significant number of Labor Party members but it is okay for Liberals to run for local government? It seems that it is okay for people like Mr Winderlich to not attend parliament and turn up at and disrupt a local government meeting, clambering over desks like he was doing last night at Burnside.

It is about time that we had some respect for local government within this state. Instead of attacking those people who take on this difficult job, we should be grateful to those people who give up their time to run for local government. We all know that local government is not particularly well remunerated; there is a small allowance. No-one wants to know about local government until there is something they disagree with, and then they try to attack it.

I think it is about time that members of this place had some respect for local government as a separate tier of government. This government accepts that local government is a separate tier of government. We have a memorandum of understanding, and we respect the difficult job that many volunteers do in local government around this state. I want to put that on the record, because it is so easy for others to come in here and criticise those people doing that job and try to make a political point by resorting to cheap, grubby politics.

The fact is that someone has to run for local government. It is a democratic election and, if people do not like the people who are running their local councils, they have a remedy just like they do in this parliament. It is ultimately up to the people. In my view, once they are elected, they should be entitled to govern.

In relation to St Clair, it is an issue that has evolved. It began more than five years ago when the SAJC made the decision to sell the land at Cheltenham. These other bits of land gradually came into the equation, along with the evolution of policy in relation to transit-oriented developments. So, yes; it has evolved over that five years, but I believe that the current proposal has a great deal to offer the people of the western suburbs. Members opposite who really do not support transit-oriented developments in that suburb should be outed for their hypocrisy.