HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-02-10 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE (TRUST PROPERTY) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 25 November 2010.)

Mrs VLAHOS (Taylor) (10:32): I wish to speak on this bill today that the member for Bragg has tabled with her proposed amendments to the University of Adelaide Act 1971 section 4(7), with particular reference to the sale, mortgage or change to any land vested in or conveyed to it by the trust. This amendment is not supported.

Effective use of the university's assets is essential to providing the highest quality educational opportunity to their students, whether they be local or international. This government recognises that our South Australian universities are generally well run, audited by a number of organisations and have such strategic and good governance processes in place that we should have trust in them. Such good governance mechanisms are part of the scope of an audit undertaken by the South Australian Auditor-General's Department and the Australian Universities Quality Agency, to name but two instances.

Therefore, it is understood that when a bequest is made, a university's senior executive would consider the terms and conditions carefully before entering into any such arrangements. It then follows that such arrangements would be entered into only if they were conducive to the long-term vision and direction of a particular university.

Such bequests are private arrangements between the benefactor and the university. Their arrangements should remain between those two parties unless there is a dispute or demonstrable noncompliance with the spirit of the bequest. At this point there is no evidence to suggest the University of Adelaide did not comply with the trusts underpinning the bequest of Martindale Farm, Munduney Station and Moralana Station. The university has explained that these properties were listed within Martindale Holdings Pty Ltd and not separately listed in university reports but identified through the global reference.

The university is dependent, to a large extent, on commonwealth government grants, which may be approved for general spending or for specific purposes. In addition to these sources of funds, the university receives student tuition fees and charges, endowments, general bequests and sponsorships. The university is accountable by the provisions of its act through regular audits by the South Australian Auditor-General's Department as noted above.

The university's major product and service is the provision of higher education and research. Universities are very complex business entities these days. The requirements of a university in the 1960s were very different from those of the 21st century. Many of the students currently enrolled at the University of Adelaide will, in their working lifetime, be engaged in careers that have not even been considered yet. There is a general community expectation that universities will provide the most dynamic and 'future oriented' learning opportunities possible. Therefore, the universities should be allowed opportunities to use assets to best benefit their business and reputation within a highly competitive international environment.

It is appropriate that benefactors will want to have confidence that their bequest(s) are treated with respect and with the general or specific direction agreed. South Australian universities are well served by pro-active and talented councils whose professional and personal expertise is recognised. I have confidence that the universities have recruited to senior executive positions individuals with sound backgrounds and significant talent. For example, the University of Adelaide's Service and Resources Vice-President was a senior executive of the South Australian Treasury; the vice-chancellor is highly respected nationally and internationally and is implementing strategically his research vision for the university's future through an ambitious plan for infrastructure. The university's council is advised by its Audit, Compliance and Risk Committee, and much of this audited information is available on the university's and other websites.

The member for Bragg notes 2003 amendments to the three South Australian universities' acts to be based on a principle of providing 'greater autonomy in the handling of the university's own affairs, including its financial affairs and, in particular, the capacity to be able to buy, sell, lease, encumber or deal with its assets, and particularly real property.' The member for Bragg also makes reference to the properties of the North Terrace precinct.

This compounds current consideration of properties acquired by trusts as the North Terrace campus does not constitute such a category of facility and therefore cannot be disposed of without government consideration. South Australian governments have contributed in donations, payments, financial and in-kind, over many years, but it is not this campus that is being considered for selling, leasing or other encumbrances.

In referring to specific properties, the member for Bragg notes their appreciation over time. She does not, however, refer to the ongoing maintenance costs of such buildings. The University of Adelaide has advised that it is not appropriate for it to conduct its teaching, learning and research through such small 'specimen farms', especially as the Roseworthy Campus Farm, a large property of some 1,600 hectares, is being enhanced through major university and state capital investment.

The member for Bragg has asserted that the university's decisions are part of an overall context within the 'government's abandonment of its commitment to primary industry, etc.' To the contrary, Roseworthy is continuing its pioneering role with a strategic vision for the 21st century that focuses on combining and integrating resources with campus partners and rural industries to develop the campus as a hub of learning and new technologies for the rural community. This supports the state's agribusiness and exports.

Campus partners include Technical and Further Education SA (TAFE), Primary Industries and Resources SA (PIRSA) and the South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI). Roseworthy is also the location for collaborative centres such as the Pig and Poultry Production Institute (PPPI), which is part of Livestock Systems Alliance (LSA).

The SPEAKER: Order! There is a lot of background noise. Can you just keep your voices down a little? It is quite okay for you to chat, but don't yell; I can actually hear what is being said on the chamber floor.

Mrs VLAHOS: Thank you. Roseworthy has made an invaluable contribution to the education and careers of many local, state, national and international identities over many years and across a range of industries, including agriculture and viticulture. The campus is home to several cooperative research centres (including Pork CRC, Poultry CRC, Beef CRC and Bio-remediation) and the JS Davies Beef Cattle Research Centre.

Australian Grain Technology Pty Ltd is the largest cereal breeding company in Australia and one of the largest in the world, and it has made Roseworthy the centre of its national operations. Roseworthy is once again leading the way in servicing the vitally important agricultural sector of South Australia.

The Roseworthy campus has been reinvigorated with the re-establishment of the highly successful bachelor degree in animal science, attracting more than 50 students per year; and, building on this success, an annual intake of approximately 62 students in veterinary science. The Roseworthy and Waite campuses are recognised as centres for excellence in agricultural science, and their reputation underpins the Bachelor of Agricultural Sciences.

The head of the school of Animal and Veterinary Sciences is Professor Gail Anderson who runs the bone biology section. The deputy head of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Professor Phil Hynd, runs cutaneous biology, and he has been involved in the sheep CRC and developing improved techniques in mulesing sheep. Therefore, it is evident that the Roseworthy Campus of the University of Adelaide is one example of ongoing contributions to and development of agriculture and education in South Australia.

It is not necessary to amend the provisions of the trust properties granted to any university to ensure that this type of valuable work continues.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (10:41): This amendment bill has been introduced in response to the University of Adelaide's decision last year to sell off three mid-northern properties: Martindale Farm, Moralana Station and Munduney Station at Spalding, which I am very aware of and which were bequeathed to the university to encourage education and to provide agricultural education facilities.

The combined value of these properties was in the tens of millions of dollars, and I commend the member for Bragg for bringing it to the house because it has been quite a sensitive issue in rural South Australia and, indeed, here in Adelaide. These three properties were not bequeathed just to be sold off with the cash going into general revenue, lost to the cause.

When the sale was announced last year, the rural community was outraged, and I believe rightly so, particularly with the information that was around. There has been some softening of that impact, but there is still a lot of concern. I am sure that, if these generous benefactors knew that their properties would become just cash cows, they would not have bequeathed it and they would never have been so generous.

The sale of these properties—the three of them—raised concerns regarding the decision to sell any property bequeathed to the university, particularly when it had been a good income provider, not just an asset for sale. In 2003, three bills relating to each of the three universities in South Australia were debated in this house. They were passed (and I participated in that), which allowed the universities greater autonomy when dealing with their affairs, including their finances, and the capacity to be able to buy, sell and lease the assets.

These reforms included an obligation to the University of Adelaide to secure cabinet approval for any sale or lease relating to the substantial property that it owned, including the North Terrace precinct and the Roseworthy and Waite campuses. However, Martindale Farm, Moralana Station and Munduney Station were not included in the list of assets for which the university needed to secure cabinet approval, and thus were not considered during the 2003 debate, and I think more is the pity, Madam Speaker.

This bill seeks to amend the University of Adelaide Act 1971 to ensure that, in future, any assets, such as these three properties, will be protected as will any future bequests. I am unhappy, and I vented my anger at the time, that, in some cases, these properties have been sold (or soon will be sold) and therefore lost to the agricultural education sector at a time when PIRSA has been gutted by the state government and food security is becoming a prominent issue.

I cannot understand why the highly-regarded University of Adelaide would also make a decision that will impact heavily on future agricultural research and development. We had a briefing on this the other day—a couple of my colleagues were there—with the Roseworthy people and also the University of Adelaide through Mr Martyn Evans, the Chairman; a man of many hats, past and current. I raised several matters with him, particularly the future of Roseworthy College, the campus itself, because there were rumours running around that certain sections of the property were to be sold as well, particularly under this huge new development expansion which has been currently going through at the moment where there are thousands of new housing allotments to be allocated just to the west of Roseworthy town. I was very concerned about what that would do to the college.

I was told by the chairman, Martyn Evans, that, no, the college lands would not be included, and I hope that means they never will, but we certainly need to be very careful about that. Also, I was assured (and we were shown quite clearly) that some of the money from the sale of these projects would be going directly into the Roseworthy campus, particularly in relation to the agricultural veterinary science sector—a great facility. I certainly appreciate having the facility there but I still believe that money for projects like that should be coming out of general revenue.

I did hear the argument and I was thankful to the group, particularly Mr Evans, to be able to brief us and show us, but I am still very concerned particularly about places like Martindale Hall There is a lot of history and beautiful land to boot, and it should have been kept for community use in relation to education, and, likewise, Munduney at Spalding. My wife was a neighbour to that property and I knew it well even from the Davies family many years ago and it was run pretty effectively by a very good manager. I cannot understand why that could not be kept for the training of young farmers to go on site to work on these properties—an actual commercial farm in operation, not just a cellared education without experiencing the real world. Moralana is another great property that was bequeathed to the state.

I have a difficulty: if the bequest or the wills specifically gave us the power to onsell these, I would be comfortable with that but it is not there. I am sure the people gave them to the state of South Australia, like the Waite Institute out here. All these properties were given to the state and, to see them cashed out now, I think is pretty poor.

I am not convinced. Even though Mr Evans has a great manner with him and is very persuasive, I still have this concern and I am very pleased that this bill is before the house. Part of the Martindale property has already been sold, apparently, for $13.7 million; Moralana has been sold; I do not think that Munduney has been sold yet. Unfortunately it is too late for these assets, but this bill will ensure that any future sale of such assets requires cabinet approval at least prior to proceeding. I support the bill.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (10:47): I rise in support of the member for Bragg's bill. Much has been covered by speakers in this place, including the member for Schubert, about the sale of the properties—Moralana Station, Munduney Station and Martindale Farm—by the university. The issue here comes back to what recurrent funding has been available from the federal government to support further education at the university and what state funding is going to support the education, especially of rural people in this state.

What bothers me and the whole rural education scene in this state is that everything seems to be coming down to a few acres at the Waite Institute and I think there are many reasons for that. I have been very troubled in the past few years about the future of Roseworthy and whether that institution is safe into the future, and I mean the very long-term future of agricultural education in this state.

We have seen many courses cut that used to be run out at Roseworthy. We had the horse course. Viticulture was a big course out there which has now come into Adelaide and a lot of the Ag. science courses are now mainly run out of Waite. I was very concerned that, with the way things were going at Roseworthy, it was getting run down to almost nothing. Thankfully, there has been an injection of funds to put in the veterinarian school out there, and I was fortunate to be at the opening of that with several other members. It is a fantastic facility and may it be well used and maintained. It provides a great impetus to get up to 450 or 500 students, I believe, back into that campus. I think that before that happened, we were at very real risk of losing a major facility for the state.

There are many concerns about these properties being sold by the university. They were bequeathed to the university, and it uses the excuse that they were only bequeathed for 20 years and they have kept them for 40 years. Well, is it good enough for the people of this state, though, to see these very good income earning assets sold off so that other items on the university's learning agenda can be propped up? I do not think so. They should have been retained by the university. They were forgotten about in the earlier legislation, and legislation should have gone through before any sale could proceed.

I said that I would be succinct with my remarks, but I reiterate that, as the shadow minister for agriculture, I am very concerned about primary industry education in this state. I am concerned about the build-up and spread of the suburbs, and I know there will be a lot of pressure on Roseworthy to retain all its property from developers out there. You hear all sorts of rumours all the time, but all I can say is that Roseworthy had better be kept as it is, with all the acres that are attached to it, in its present form. We do not want to see things like this going away and the foot off the pedal with agricultural learning experience in this state.

Finally, we have already seen one problem this morning where this government has just taken its eye off the ball, as far as supporting our local primary producers goes, by importing Chinese apples into the health department. It is interesting that after a little bit of media that decision has been overturned.

So, someone does not have their eye on the ball. This government has taken its eye off the ball with primary industries in this state, using it as a cash cow to prop up suburban projects—$180 million over four years ripped out of primary industries support and 180 jobs. It is not good enough for the future wellbeing of agriculture in this state. I support the bill.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (10:52): I, too, rise to join my colleagues in support of the member for Bragg on this issue. Two of the three properties that are being discussed at the moment are actually in the electorate of Stuart, and they are the significant primary production agricultural properties of Munduney and Moralana. I know that Martindale is in the electorate of Frome.

I would just like to put a few thoughts forward on behalf of the people of Stuart and, probably more broadly, the people concerned about agriculture and primary industries. This is one of our most important industries. South Australia has no future if we do not stay strong and get stronger in regard to agricultural production. It concerns me that the university will relinquish properties that were bequeathed to it to support, grow and improve training in that area.

In regard to training in that area, it is not good enough just to move towards a world of virtual training. It is not good enough to move towards a world where we learn what we can in classrooms from books and from the internet and take visits out to other properties. I think the university has had for a long time now a wonderful resource in owning these properties, which did actually make money. It is not as though they were a burden; it is not as though they were a problem; they did actually make money for the university.

The opportunity to do that training, to control it yourself, to be involved in it, to set programs and tasks exactly as you would like to in the university, instead of having to use other places and other means to undertake the practical side of the training, I think is very, very important, and I think it is a shame to let that go.

This really does flow on right from the nuts and bolts of the pastoral industry, from cattle or sheep all the way through to important grain growing practices that would be learnt at Munduney and other areas. There is a lot more to this. I know, from having lived in the Outback for seven years, that you can learn all the book work, accounting, staff management, you can learn all the skills that you might need for your business or practice, but until you actually do them when it is 40° to 45° and you are having to sit by the air conditioner, you are hot and sweaty and trying to keep your computer and paperwork and all of that sort of thing together, it is not the same.

If we are going to train people to be future pastoralists, for example, they do not really know what it is like to be doing their book work if they learn it all in a classroom in Adelaide. They need to be learning what it is like to do their book work out on a station, out in a remote place, out where it is anywhere from 40° to 50° on any given day. So, I think that some of those nuts and bolts practicalities may have been missed in the system here, and it is a shame to lose those properties where you can control every little bit of the training.

I will also comment briefly on the social implications of this bill. I can give a very real world example of the community of Spalding, which has just lost its school bus. Who may or may not come to live at Munduney after it is sold may or may not make the difference on whether that school bus is available for the Spalding Primary School. Right now they are just below the cut-off. If a new family comes they will be just above the cut-off, if they have kids for that school.

I do not expect the University of Adelaide to be making its commercial decisions based on the Spalding school bus, but I use that as an example of the importance of these properties to the community and to South Australia far more broadly than just the technicalities of what the university might think it can or cannot teach its students and how it might be able to do it in another way and release the capital and use that capital in some other way.

I am not pretending that this needs to be the biggest issue for the University of Adelaide but it is a very important real world example. If the community of Spalding loses its school bus, then for the kids who live between Spalding and Clare, or Spalding and Jamestown, or any other community, they will say, 'Well, there's no school bus here. We will go to the other town.' The next thing you know they lose their school, they lose the shop and Spalding is potentially in all sorts of trouble.

I will not labour this point because people in this place have heard me talk about this a lot: school buses are critical. I just use that as a really good example of the impact of selling these properties, and there are lots of other examples. One other example that I will comment on is my concern that lots of pastoral properties, pastoral leases, are being taken out of pastoral use. Technically, pastoral leases in Outback South Australia are being used for non-pastoral purposes. I do not object to that per se. Some of those uses are quite sensible and quite practical and I support them, but it is a trend that concerns me.

For a strong pastoral industry, as with many other industries, you need a critical mass. It makes it so much easier if your pastoral property is surrounded by pastoral properties. You will then be much more efficient and your operations and all of the other operations will work much better together. So, every one that is taken out of pastoral use hurts the rest of the industry. That may or may not happen with Moralana. I am not suggesting that is automatic, but here is one that while it was owned by the University of Adelaide was guaranteed to be in pastoral use and now, down the track in years to come, it may or may not. So, it is a small step but it is an issue that concerns me. Those are two social, community, but very real world issues that are attached to this.

I will leave it there. I support the member for Bragg and my colleagues who have spoken on this issue and I would like everybody to consider the broader issues associated with this decision, other than just the pure efficiencies, from the university's point of view, in meeting its curriculum objectives and simultaneously freeing up cash for other purposes.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:59): I have a few words on this. I think it illustrates a couple of things, that when you donate to an institution, or in this case where something is bequeathed, I do not think you can rest in peace, literally, because when things are given in trust then the organisation may not do the right thing.

I am sure the people who donated these properties did not expect them to be sold off or, in the vernacular, flogged off for the sake of the university's finances. We see a parallel, going back a few years, with the University of South Australia and the campus at Underdale, which was paid for by taxpayers and then, for the sake of the real estate (I think a measly $30 million), was sold off, including the Linear Park, which the government had to retrieve, and wonderful buildings were destroyed. In that case, the University of South Australia, like the University of Adelaide in this case, did not look at the bigger picture.

Universities are part of a community; they are not something in isolation. The taxpayer supports them heavily, and I agree with that; in fact, I would like to see the taxpayer support them more heavily. However, they have a responsibility in terms of, firstly, not breaching a trust and, secondly, making sure that the decision is not simply short-term monetary gain.

I touch on a point made by one of the members earlier about research. These may not have been prime areas for agricultural research (certainly not horticultural), but one of the things that has been happening in recent times, as anyone in the bush will tell you, is that there have been continual cutbacks and reductions in agricultural and horticultural research. Whether you look interstate or here, a lot of those institutions and facilities—Waite may be the exception; there has been extra money put in there—have been cut back, and there has to be a fight to save things like weed research.

If we want to lead the world in agricultural and horticultural production in terms of techniques, we have to invest in research. You cannot expect the average farmer to be doing that; they do not have the time and they do not have the resources, but collectively we need to do it. What we have seen in recent years is a continual decline in a focus on agricultural research.

I am not an agricultural expert, but I take a general interest. We have seen some progressive changes in tilling techniques that have been developed and changes in sheep production in some areas where they are moving into what are called 'cleanskins'. The member for Mawson probably thinks that is wine, but I am talking about Dorper and Wilty Poll and sheep like that.

The farmers themselves are moving to adjust and adapt to the new circumstances of the market and trade, and so on, but it needs to be backed up by community-funded and supported (out of their taxes) proper and adequate research. These three properties may not have been central to high-tech agricultural research, but it does move the university away from a focus on rural activities, which is another negative in terms of this particular outcome.

I express my concern, as I did in relation to the University of South Australia. They flogged off the Salisbury campus for peanuts and then they flogged off the Underdale campus and, in the process, the community has lost out. The university has improved its bottom line, but the community has suffered as a result.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (11:03): I thank members who have contributed to the debate on this motion to amend the University of Adelaide Act, essentially to ensure that, if the University of Adelaide in future is to sell properties as named, it does so with the approval of cabinet. It is a small ask.

I am disappointed to note that the only speaker from the government is opposing this motion and, indeed, not one minister came forward to speak on it. The reason I am particularly disappointed is because, whilst the member for Taylor has made a contribution, which I thank her for, clearly she was not here in 2003 when we debated this matter. She suggested that this was an issue available for debate in 2003, when clearly this parliament was entirely bereft of that information, which was outlined in our contribution, which indicates a level of naiveté, perhaps, or possibly someone else prepared the notes for her presentation; I do not know.

I simply say this: we were completely in the dark on this issue. The fact that the government came back and said, 'We restructured the legislation some years ago to give universities autonomy', when they have failed to make this disclosure, in itself, should send alarm bells to her and every member of the government party, and particularly the ministers.

There are a number of aspects as to why this is important, not the least of which is respect for the bequests that have been made. But it is also the importance of making sure that we have a transparent process by the university, which deals with public assets and public money and which is a public institution.

The other aspect which is important, which I think in recent days has been confirmed by the government, is the announcement by the Premier that he is going to have a food marketing minister. This is so important for the state of South Australia that there should be a food marketing minister to make a contribution to securing South Australia's future economy on behalf of South Australians, yet they are not prepared to come in here and support a piece of legislation that would ensure that the government would have responsibility for making a decision in relation to assets that are available for the training and research for people who will be involved in the future in the food industry in this state.

It is staggering that they would not take the opportunity to come in and say, 'Yes, this is very important and, before there is a sale by a public institution of valuable property that is available for this purpose, we need to scrutinise it, therefore we will support the bill.' It staggers me that, in light of that decision, here today the only representative from the government came in and said that that will not be pursued.

It also comes in the wake of the decision by the government to pursue an amalgamation of the operation of SARDI, which the research arm of our primary industry department, with the university, and those negotiations are pending. That entity (SARDI) owns some $60 million worth, I think, of assets—it might be more than that—in this state. Whether the Treasurer decides to keep it and flog it off, including the very valuable property at West Lakes, or whether he transfers it to the university, in which case the university will have permission to flog it off, are issues of importance, particularly when the government itself has acknowledged the significance of the food industry in this state. So, I am very disappointed about that.

I will place on the record that I have called upon the university leaders (that is, the Vice Chancellor, who I have had meetings with over a number of these issues, and the new Chancellor, the Hon. Robert Hill) to meet on these matters. I had an indication on 4 January from another colleague, who had met with the Chancellor, that he would be in touch with us about this bill. I place on the record that there has been silence from the university, absolute silence.

It is not up to them; it is a decision, of course, of the government—the government and its cabinet will have a role in any future sale. However, this will obviously impinge on aspects of their autonomy, so I would have expected to hear from them, but I suspect they know that the government has the numbers and that it will vote this down and they are going to leave South Australians bereft for it.

The house divided on the second reading:

AYES (19)
Brock, G.G. Chapman, V.A. (teller) Evans, I.F.
Gardner, J.A.W. Goldsworthy, M.R. Griffiths, S.P.
Hamilton-Smith, M.L.J. Marshall, S.S. Pederick, A.S.
Pegler, D.W. Pengilly, M. Pisoni, D.G.
Redmond, I.M. Sanderson, R. Such, R.B.
van Holst Pellekaan, D.C. Venning, I.H. Whetstone, T.J.
Williams, M.R.
NOES (23)
Atkinson, M.J. Bedford, F.E. Bignell, L.W.
Caica, P. Conlon, P.F. Foley, K.O.
Fox, C.C. Geraghty, R.K. Hill, J.D.
Kenyon, T.R. Key, S.W. Koutsantonis, A.
O'Brien, M.F. Odenwalder, L.K. Piccolo, T.
Rankine, J.M. Rau, J.R. Sibbons, A.L. (teller)
Snelling, J.J. Thompson, M.G. Vlahos, L.A.
Weatherill, J.W. Wright, M.J.
PAIRS (4)
McFetridge, D. Rann, M.D.
Treloar, P.A. Portolesi, G.

Majority of 4 for the noes.

Second reading thus negatived.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT