Legislative Council Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time St Clair Land Swap ST CLAIR LAND SWAP The Hon. J.A. DARLEY Legislative Council ST CLAIR LAND SWAP The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (14:53): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Leader of the Government a question regarding the St Clair Park land swap. Leave granted. The Hon. J.A. DARLEY Legislative Council The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I understand that the plans for the new community open space have included roads and land already designated as open space in the calculation of the total area and that the exclusion of these parcels results in the loss of approximately 2 hectares of open space to the community. It is my view that the St Clair land is worth considerably more per hectare than the old Actil site and, when considering that the portion of the old Actil site is smaller than the St Clair land, I am not convinced that there is equality in value in this proposed swap. Further to this, I understand that the old Actil site has contamination issues which may make it difficult to grow vegetation on the site, and the council will be contributing $440,000 to the development of the new park. My questions are: 1.	Will the minister advise of the current market value of the St Clair site and the land from the Actil site that is available for a new park? 2.	Given the inequality between the two sites, why should the Charles Sturt council contribute $440,000 of community money to this project? 3.	What was the basis of the $2 million offered by the joint venture partners, bearing in mind that the loss of two hectares alone would account for this and possibly more? 4.	If the re-establishment and development of the new park and associated facilities exceeds $2.5 million, who will be liable to pay for it? 5.	Will the minister advise whether any research has been conducted regarding any potential ongoing costs associated with the contamination at the Actil site and, if so, what are they? The Hon. G.E. GAGO Legislative Council 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 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) (14:55): I have information in relation to some of those questions which I am happy to answer, and I will refer the others to the minister. In relation to some of the costings that the honourable member has requested, I have been advised that the Valuer General's assessment for the St Clair reserve (allotment 70) is about $8.2 million—that is for the whole site. I have been advised that the swap parcel part of the reserve is around $6.1 million and the Actil site is about $17.3 million. My understanding is that the end result—and it is a complicated way that they go about doing it—will be a swap of like with like. So, it is about a 4.7 hectare piece of land for a 4.7 hectare piece of land. I have also been advised that the open space, once the project is all said and done, will be slightly greater than that which is currently available. In relation to the costings, however, one has to bear in mind that these values are based on the fact that currently the St Clair reserve site is zoned as recreation (for recreational purposes) and, therefore, it is at a lower value; whereas the Actil site is currently zoned as residential and, therefore, has a higher value. Again, I have been advised that once the Actil site reserve component becomes zoned as recreation, and the current recreation component becomes zoned as residential, the effect will be that they will both be worth the same—about $17 million. So, the assessment is that it is very much like for like and value for value. In relation to the EPA, I understand there has been one. Again, this is not my area of expertise but I have been advised that one EPA assessment has been done and it was found to be satisfactory. I was then informed that a second independent assessment would be made and I believe that it is almost complete. Obviously, the agreement depends on the outcome of that. I cannot remember any of the other questions so, in light of that, I do not know whether the honourable member wants to add anything, otherwise I will take the rest of the questions on notice and refer them to the relevant ministers.