HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2023-10-31 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Parliamentary Committees

Joint Committee on the Establishment of Adelaide University

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. S.E. Close (resumed on motion).

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:37): It is a great pleasure for me to continue discussing the Joint Committee on the Establishment of Adelaide University.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: A great pleasure for whom, did you say?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: A great pleasure for me, sir. I enjoyed, over the course of some 40 or 50 hours, spending time with a number of our colleagues, and we learned many things. Applying myself as I do as a member of parliament, I also took a great many hours outside the 40 or 50 hours of the committee inquiry to explore issues, to think about issues, to do a great deal of reading and to engage with constituents who came to speak with me and with other stakeholders who had concerns.

It was a great many dozens of hours of my time, and I have much to reflect on for the benefit of the members who did not necessarily have the opportunity to spend so much time with our colleagues as I did. I think it is only fair to them that they have the opportunity to learn from some of the highlights of that time.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We thank you for your consideration.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I am generous, sir. Thank you for recognising that. There are a couple of key issues that need to be considered in some detail. I want to spend a little bit of time talking about Flinders in this section—I think that we are going to be coming back tomorrow, as I understand, to conclude the matter—and the Magill campus and the regions. I spent some time before the break talking about some of the risks that were highlighted by some of the people with concerns about the proposal.

As I was going through those risks, I identified a number of them where I did not necessarily share the concerns and why, but I do think we need to explore a little bit more the way in which the international student market works as well because an understanding of that is utterly important to being able to understand the benefits, the costs, the risks and the opportunities of the bill that will presumably be coming to this house next week as it makes its way through the Legislative Council today and tomorrow. There is opportunity there. Every member needs to be informed of these matters because the consequences of the decisions that we make through this debate and the bill to come are going to be with us for some time.

I guess if there was one thing I was going to highlight in my contribution above all others it was an encouragement to the government to join us in reflecting on some of the opportunities that could be better realised with the suggestions we have put forward.

Specifically, as I discussed at around midday today, we think that the proposal, which does have some significant upside if fully realised, would be better realised with the inclusion of a research function fund for Flinders University. It would be better realised with a commitment from the state government to work with the new university and Flinders as well with the regional campus delivery or regional uni hub delivery or other offering in the regions very much their focus. I again encourage the government to take on board the reflections of the committee as far as they relate to the Magill campus.

Perhaps I might take a moment now to reflect on Magill. UniSA Magill, formerly a campus of the South Australian Institute of Teachers, has a history that its former students and former staff, and its current students and staff are very proud of. It is a beautiful part of the world. There are students and local community members who will actively use the facilities at Magill, the beautiful natural environment at Magill, on a daily basis. It is obviously somewhere I am very familiar with as one of the two local members of parliament for the site in question. The site on my side of the road is highlighted by Renewal SA and Treasury as an opportunity to realise some of the $64 million that is proposed to be spent on purchasing this land in the shorter term.

Just to go back to a little bit more context, the purpose of this land transaction is to provide funds for the new university to enable them to help defray the risk of the transition process, which may be a contribution by state government towards helping them defray that risk, but it is a contribution which is intended to come at no net cost to the taxpayer. By having this land purchase of land for which University of South Australia has identified it has no ongoing need for beyond the next handful of years, the government is proposing to provide that ready cash to the university at a time when it may need it during the transition, and in return the government will have on its books land that has been valued at $64½ million.

The decisions that government will then take in relation to the land are what is of most interest to me. The Deputy Premier has previously characterised it as a choice between the University of South Australia, were this deal not to take place, and the University of South Australia potentially selling the land to a developer or indeed the government purchasing the land, which the Deputy Premier, if I have fairly characterised her, suggests is a potentially better outcome for the community because the government can take the community's interests into account with potentially more justification than a developer might. A developer might be seeking to maximise the profit margin.

So I take the Deputy Premier at her word there. I therefore encourage her in particular and the Minister for Planning and the other members of the cabinet who will have the question of how they will deal with this land in the coming years to pay particular attention to the submissions from the member for Hartley during the process and the Mayor of Campbelltown on behalf of the Campbelltown City Council during the process.

I will start with the eastern side of St Bernards Road. The eastern side of St Bernards Road in the electorate of Morialta is a large patch of land which to the untrained eye might seem less utilised than the western side of the road but is in fact also an important part of the community. The fields, the ovals, the soccer pitches are used for informal soccer games pretty much every weekend. The area that was once dominantly tennis courts is now mainly used for car parking. As the University of South Australia will have use of the land for the next couple of years as it continues to be a campus, I wonder myself what they are going to do for parking if that ceases to be available as a car park. That is certainly going to be a concern for residents. I would highlight that inasmuch as the government thinks about the timing of what they might do with that land.

The Campbelltown City Council in its submissions to the committee, which is reflected in the majority report of the committee of inquiry, but I accentuate this, highlighted that this is a part of South Australia and a part of metropolitan Adelaide that has been developed at a rate greater than pretty much any other in the city. The infill and the removal of open spaces in the patch around this Magill campus, Magill and Rostrevor—that part of the Campbelltown area—has been dramatic over the last decade. In particular, between 2012 and 2019 under the planning regime instituted by then former Deputy Premier John Rau, we were talking about a spate of infill development, block sizes at 150 square metres, setbacks that were minimal, and indeed a very dramatic change to the nature of that part of the Hartley and Morialta electorates, the Campbelltown council area in particular.

In 2019, the planning rules that applied to this area changed, which effectively increased the minimum block size from 150 square metres to 250 square metres, but the impact on that community of the loss of character, the increased density, the dramatic increased strain on amenity, on facilities, and traffic growth has been utterly marked, and we are still seeing developments approved prior to 2019 fully realised.

At the same time, just up the road you have the Magill Training Centre block, which was sold in the time of the Weatherill Labor government—again for housing—and another John Rau amendment to the planning rules has allowed the development of 400 dwellings on that space, but I think the community was comfortable with 200 dwellings.

That level of development includes some high density and it includes a five-storey apartment block right on the edge of the Hills face, facing into the city. It is where roads are narrow and where parking availability is minimal. As I pointed out in the SCAP meeting, the design on which the development was based, in terms of justifying how many car parks each dwelling should have, was on the public transport use in inner city Newtown in Sydney—not Newton down the road in Campbelltown but Newtown in Sydney, where the public transport availability is entirely different.

Residents in this area have in very recent times—the development is still being built at that Woodforde site—been confronted with what they see as very sub-optimal planning decisions, and so consequently they are concerned. Campbelltown council has highlighted the impact on this area of development to the largest possible degree, and has made a pitch to government for consideration. They have also suggested Campbelltown council is willing to put some skin in the game themselves for support in developing part of that land on the eastern side for active recreational facilities, for sporting and community facilities.

I do not want to get in the way of any negotiations that might be underway between government and Campbelltown council; I do not know if they are underway. I hope they are. I encourage ministers to familiarise themselves with the proposals from Campbelltown council and to take any meetings requested by Mayor Jill Whittaker, who I know has a good relationship with a number of members of the government. Certainly inasmuch as Campbelltown council has proposals for that eastern side of the land, as the local member they will have my encouragement and support.

In relation to the western side of the land, this is an area that is proposed to be maintained within the University of South Australia's active use for a few more years, but not forever, and I think the proposal is that UniSA would continue to occupy it for the next five years after sale, and after that potentially five more, and in the meantime there would be a master plan.

In terms of what the committee determined, there was a recommendation from the committee that the government actively commit to public consultation, community consultation and engagement in relation to that land at the same time as the other land. I will see if I can get the exact quote; it is not immediately to hand, unfortunately.

The other aspect that I want to thank members of the committee from the majority for agreeing to was also highlighting the need to engage with the Magill Campus Community Children's Centre, which is on the site. The Magill Campus Community Children's Centre is a long day-care service. It is certainly high quality. It is a community centre. It has certainly, imminently, the capacity to offer a preschool-style program, which is the government's intention for a majority of students when they introduce their three-year-old preschool program. This is a centre with highly respected staff, a waiting list from the local community and, hopefully, a big future.

The problem they have is they only have about three years left on their lease with the university. They have been unable to secure an extension of that lease to this point because the university obviously has not known what the plan was for the land going forward. That amenity, that facility for the community that is in so sore need, we know that there are many centres in Adelaide and the metropolitan area that are only half full that are not necessarily—some of them are challenging in terms of their viability. To see a centre that is full, with a waiting list, removed from our local offerings would be a great disappointment. I do not think it is anyone's intention, but I would hate for it to be a consequence of land sale on the western half of the Magill campus.

The recommendation from the joint committee—I think I do have this one handy here—which I am very grateful for, was that:

…public consultation in relation to the use, development or sale of land at Magill and Mawson Lakes should commence at the earliest reasonable stage and councils with an explicit interest in the disposal of land should be involved in master planning processes.

I agree; the Liberal Party agreed. The recommendation continues:

Moreover, Renewal SA should, once the land is in the hands of the State Government, commence discussions with Magill Community Children's Centre as soon as possible with a view to renewing its lease.

This is the important part for which I was expressing my gratitude to the committee.

Renewing its lease at the rate we are talking about—it is basically a peppercorn rate—provides an amenity to the community which is important, but to the state government it is directly in alignment with the state government's plans for early childhood and I certainly encourage them to pursue that as soon as possible.

One of the key things we are talking about here is a community childcare centre with an active parent population engaged in their committee who will do fundraising, who will do work in the local community, who want to invest in the future of the site and want to invest in its infrastructure and, indeed, make the most for their centre in the future. It is hard for them to do that when they only have another three years on their lease. By engaging early and committing to a longer term lease, a significant-term lease, the government will get much more back from this centre than it is giving up, and so I urge them to do so.

The Liberal minority report goes further in relation to the eastern part of the land and says that:

As part of the public consultation recommended by this report, in relation to the Magill campus land, Government should include an offer to deliver on Council's suggestions for the development of community facilities on the Eastern part of the land.

I certainly encourage the government to do that. They are likely to make decisions in relation to this land prior to the next election so, as a local member, as the shadow minister for education, and as a member of this committee who heard from dozens and dozens of local residents keen on what is happening to this area—including Chris Schacht, Vincent Tarzia and the Mayor of Campbelltown—I make that plea to the government.

In relation to the other side of the land as well, there was some discussion in the committee about the way in which local members were presenting materials. The member for Hartley talked about this issue with residents at the door, talked about this issue with members of his community who were interested and provided evidence in relation to the feedback he got from his community. For my part, I have spoken to many local residents about this issue. I will share, for the benefit of the parliament, the comments I put in my newsletter a little while ago during the winter. In relation to University SA Magill campus, I wrote:

As mentioned on page one, the proposed closure of the Uni SA Magill campus is big news for us locally. The State Government has announced they want to buy it for $60 million from Uni SA as part of their $440 million Uni Merger proposal, however they are yet to say what they want to do with the land.

As Shadow Education Minister, I have been pursuing a range of questions about this merger through the Parliament and through the media. As a local MP, I am concerned about what the Government proposes to do with this precious site at Magill. The site includes significant open space, has important local environmental and biodiversity value, as well as sporting and recreational facilities valued by many. The Childcare Centre is a critical community asset. The facilities include buildings of heritage value. Many local residents enjoy the site every day.

I've worked hard to establish a Parliamentary Committee inquiry into this proposal, of which I am a member, and that inquiry is now underway. If you have a view about any of these matters, I'd be keen to hear from you.

As we have heard, many members of the community went on to make submissions to the parliamentary inquiry. I thank those who did that.

What I hope comes from this process in relation to the Magill land is a process that does not necessarily satisfy everybody. The government wants to realise $64½ million in value, certainly as presented by Rick Persse on behalf of Treasury and the assumption of the Renewal SA officers.

If you only look at the dollar figure here, I think you are doing a disservice to a community that has had significant urban infill in recent times, a disservice to a community that has put up with some bad planning decisions up the road, leading to much higher density at Hamilton Hill than I think would have been desirable for the local community. It is a local community that does actually use the current open space on both sides of the road every weekend. As Chris Schacht said, people walk in that creek line every day as part of their physical activity to keep their health up, to keep them alive. The environmental impacts should be taken into account.

There are certainly spaces within that site that we are not talking about when we talk about the beauty and heritage of Murray House. There are some tutorial rooms, lecture theatres and areas within Magill campus that are, let's just be kind, functional. Certainly, I think that many members of the community will understand that there is an opportunity with some of these spaces for some level of appropriate use that is in the broader interests of the whole state as well as people who are looking to find a place to make their home.

I urge the government and ask the government to put the community's interests very high on the list of priorities. I commit—indeed, I recognise the commitment that the Leader of the Opposition has made today—that a future Speirs Liberal government certainly will do so. We will ensure that there are sufficient protections for the land on the western side of the Magill campus. We will ensure that biodiversity and environmental protections, the need for active and passive recreational facilities that are there, the community childcare centre and the heritage value of Murray House are well and truly taken into account in terms of whatever happens to that land going forward.

With time that may or may not be available this evening or tomorrow afternoon, I also wish to talk about not just the eastern suburbs of Adelaide but the southern suburbs of Adelaide, where we are looking at Flinders University and the opportunity that this proposal creates for better outcomes for students living in country South Australia, in regions around the state. In doing so, I reflect particularly on the way in which Professor Colin Stirling presented himself to the committee when he gave his evidence and the way that he has made himself available to the opposition and members of the joint committee from all sides of the parliament in terms of understanding the evidence that he has provided. I encourage members of the parliament to read the evidence he has provided. It provides a very useful context for the further commitment the Liberal Party has made for a research fund for Flinders University should we be elected in March 2026.

To summarise the commitments very briefly for members present, the research fund for Flinders University will support research work in line with the state's strategic interest. Obviously, Flinders University has expertise in defence industries. Some of the work they are doing at Tonsley is utterly world leading. There is also research in areas relating to agtech and food production, which is an important part of the South Australian economy that can only benefit from further protection and accentuation of that work, and indeed health sciences, which are very important. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.


At 17:59 the house adjourned until Wednesday 1 November 2023 at 10:30.

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