HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-06-22 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MINDA INCORPORATED

The Hon. S.G. WADE (15:29): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Urban Development and Planning a question about the Minda redevelopment.

Leave granted.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: On ABC radio this morning, disability advocate David Holst said:

This government did a detailed coastal development summary survey and plan of the Minda dunes three or four years ago…Minda has then taken that report, taken this government's work, and they've developed this staged plan to try to ensure their long-term future and the long-term care for these disabled people...Minda is not building inside this coastal protection zone which was doubled as part of that plan.

The building plan is currently being reviewed and things can only be adjusted slightly but fundamentally the building plan has been put together on the rules this Government set down.

In response, Ms Fox the member for Bright said:

I had some constituents come to me, saying that they were very worried about the secondary dunes...An undertaking was given by Minda to the council and indeed reported by the council in 2006 that they weren't going to build on those dunes.

The compere Mr Bevan then said:

...but wouldn't it have been a good idea to just put it in the law…if you think this land is so precious, it should be preserved forever...?

The member for Bright responded:

Minda's a very august organisation, so I guessed we took them at their word.

Mr Bevan asked:

…but if you think it's really important, then make it absolutely clear, you can't build there.

The member for Bright then responded:

Well it's certainly revisiting now that all of this is happening.

My questions are:

1. In finalising the North Brighton coastal plan amendment in 2006, did the minister base any part of his decision on any commitments given by Minda to not build on part of the land beyond the coastal protection zone?

2. Can the minister confirm (as apparently suggested by the member for Bright this morning) that the government is revisiting the development plan for the Minda land on the basis of a breach of a commitment?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister Assisting the Premier in Public Sector Management) (15:31): In relation to the latter question, as I understand it—and I did answer a question on this subject from, I think, the Hon. Mark Parnell earlier in this parliament—the matter still rests with Minda. Minda put out a proposal for how they intended to develop the future of their site to enable them to refurbish some of their infrastructure and to pay for the services that they provide for the disabled community.

As far as I am aware, that is where it still rests. I am certainly not aware that it has gone beyond that to the point of Minda finalising their position. Certainly, I have not seen any statements that Minda has finalised that. As I indicated in an answer to the Hon. Mark Parnell, I think the chair and the acting CE of Minda did give me the courtesy of informing me of their plans in relation to the future of that Minda development at that time. They indicated they were going through that process and we simply await the outcome.

In relation to what happened in 2006, clearly, some negotiations were held between the department and Minda. They might well have had discussions with the member for Bright, after all, she is the local member for that area. I am sure she has much closer contact with Minda than I would as the minister. I am not sure what undertakings might have been given to her at any meetings. In relation to that particular plan, it was negotiated by the then chief executive, from memory, of Planning SA. What was put forward in relation to the coastal zone was to protect the primary dunes. I certainly was not aware of any implications for the so-called secondary dunes. This appears to have come out later.

Certainly, my motivation in pushing that plan—and I did push that development plan strongly—was so that we could protect that dune system, because it is one of the last remaining dune systems within the state. Clearly, at some point, the land belongs to Minda Home. If it had been any other private developer, the owner of that land would be able to challenge development decisions in the Environment, Resources and Development Court, and if it is compliant with the development plan for the area, presumably that would be accepted. That would be the normal course of events. Clearly, there are special factors in relation to this particular site, which I am not overly familiar with, but as to whether or not this proposed site is on secondary dunes or to what extent they have been built on—I understand there are some buildings in the vicinity—is a matter for Minda to determine and that is where the matter rests at this stage.

Minda are determining what the future of that proposal will be and once they make a decision they will then let everyone, including myself, know in which direction they intend to move. In relation to the member for Bright, she is entitled to represent the views of her constituents. Similarly, I am sure the member for Bright—and I saw the transcripts of her comments this morning—also indicated that she has great support for Minda, as would every member of this house, in relation to the work they do, but clearly this is one of the complex planning issues that will just have to be worked through.

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