HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-07-24 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ST CLAIR LAND SWAP

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. J.M.A. Lensink:

1. That a select committee of the Legislative Council be established to inquire into and report on all aspects of the St Clair land swap including but not limited to—

(a) All previous and current decisions of the Charles Sturt council on this matter, including the vote to request the state government to dedicate this land as a memorial park;

(b) The findings of the Ombudsman's Report on the St Clair Land Swap Investigation, including matters of conflict of interest;

(c) The significant amount of land lost to roads in the land swap, and reduction of open space;

(d) The advice provided and sought by council on the area of open space available to the community before and after the land swap;

(e) The communications between council, prospective developers and the state government; and

(f) Any other relevant matter.

2. That standing order 389 be so far suspended as to enable the chairperson of the committee to have a deliberative vote only.

3. That this council permits the select committee to authorise the disclosure or publication, as it sees fit, of any evidence or documents presented to the committee prior to such evidence being presented to the council.

4. That standing order 396 be suspended to enable strangers to be admitted when the select committee is examining witnesses unless the committee otherwise resolves, but they shall be excluded when the committee is deliberating.

(Continued from 19 June 2013.)

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (19:45): I rise today to indicate the government's opposition to this motion. For the benefit of members, I will recap on the events of the last several years in relation to this matter. In November 2009, the City of Charles Sturt sought ministerial approval to revoke the community land classification on a parcel of land within the St Clair reserve at Woodville. Approval was granted on 19 November 2009. This decision was subsequently set aside by the Supreme Court on 2 December 2009, and the matter returned to the minister for further consideration.

The matter was subsequently delegated to the Hon. John Hill MP for consideration. On 10 December 2009, the then minister Hill approved the council's proposal to revoke the community land classification on the parcel of land at the St Clair site. The council revoked the community land classification at a full council meeting on 14 December 2009. The land swap allowed the integration of St Clair Reserve with planned open space within the Cheltenham racecourse redevelopment site. A transit oriented development (which are commonly known as TODs) adjacent to the Woodville Railway Station is proposed in the concept plan. Settlement of the land transfer between the council and the Land Management Corporation took place on 6 August 2010.

A number of complaints were made to the Ombudsman about the St Clair community land revocation and the land swap. The final report by the Ombudsman about this investigation into the City of Charles Sturt concerning the St Clair land swap was tabled in this place on 8 November 2011. The report found no fault on the part of the council in relation to the matters raised by the complainants.

As for the inquiry requested by the Legislative Council, the Ombudsman suspended the investigation when the council launched court action to clarify the investigation's scope. This was resolved through a mediation process. As a result of that process, the council and the Ombudsman agreed on a way forward. On 9 March 2012, the council provided the former minister for state/local government relations with a copy of its response to the Ombudsman.

The response noted that the council had resolved not to take any action in relation to potential code of conduct breaches due to the lapse in time between the alleged conduct and the finalisation of the Ombudsman's investigation. I am advised that following consultation with the Ombudsman in relation to the council's response, and being advised that the Ombudsman did not intend to take any further action, the former minister for state/local relations decided that no further action was warranted.

A ministerial development plan amendment has been prepared to review land use policy relating to the land adjacent to the Woodville Railway Station. The amendments proposed to the Charles Sturt council development plan are intended to support mixed use, medium-density housing and other complementary land uses in a landscaped setting.

The Woodville Station DPA was released for public consultation on 22 November 2012 for an extended 12 weeks until 14 February 2013. The independent Development Policy Advisory Committee (DPAC) conducted the statutory public consultation process for the ministerial DPA and will provide advice and recommendations to the Minister for Planning on the outcomes of the public consultation process in due course.

The City of Charles Sturt considered the ministerial DPA at its meeting held on 29 January 2013 and generally endorsed the intent of the DPA, but with some alterations—e.g. reduction in building height and restriction on commercial uses in transition areas. Any proposed alterations to the DPA will be considered by the DPAC in due course.

With all that has come before us on this issue, there are facts that stand out: the council decided to transfer land to the LMC in August 2010; the council considered the ministerial DPA at its meeting held on 29 January 2013 and generally endorsed the intent of the DPA, though with some alterations, which will no doubt receive careful consideration from the minister; the Ombudsman's report (at opinion 4) states that, on balance, the evidence does not support a conclusion that the ALP councillors approached their decision-making on 9 November 2009 with apprehended bias.

The government opposes this attempt to fan the embers of an issue that has been done to death. No doubt some members will vote to attempt to keep the issue still alive, and I expect that. The government will be very interested to see if the select committee makes the same finding as the independent Ombudsman because, while I would never question the integrity of a committee of this place, someone of a greater cynicism than I could draw certain conclusions as to the motivation of the committee should the reports prove to have divergent opinions.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (19:51): The Greens will be supporting this motion. This motion raises a matter of great public interest and importance and it is a matter that I have worked on for the last several years. I have attended numerous meetings of the Development Policy Advisory Committee, the City of Charles Sturt council and various other meetings organised by residents. This issue does not just involve St Clair and the land swap, although that is the focus of this select committee; it actually has a history that goes back much further.

I will begin my remarks by acknowledging the presence in the gallery of mayor Kirsten Alexander, who I first got to know when she was leading the community charge against what was a quite appalling process whereby the council and the state government in cahoots were dudding local residents. The community repaid that trust with her election to the highest office in the municipality.

The words 'St Clair', similar to the words 'Mount Barker', are simply two small words that sum up just about everything that is wrong with the planning system in this state. In particular, the words 'St Clair' have become a by-word for failure of government to engage respectfully with local communities, failure of process and an outcome where the interests of property developers trump the interests of local communities. I do not think there would be too many people in South Australia who pay attention to current affairs who would not have that reaction when they hear the words 'St Clair' or 'Mount Barker'.

I said that there were a number of planning issues that were interrelated, and this whole sorry saga started with the rezoning of Cheltenham racecourse. As members would appreciate, a strong campaign was fought by the local residents' group to try to protect as much open space as they could. The government originally promised that 40 per cent of the site would be open space. They then relinquished and went for 35 per cent, but one of the things that was upsetting about that process was that it was adjacent to another parcel of land that was also going to be rezoned—that was the former Actil site, or land also known as the Sheridan site.

It was clear to anyone that the two parcels of land would need to have any development integrated, that they would have to be dealt with in a sympathetic and consistent way. When it was put by the Greens to the planning minister that the rezoning exercise take into account both parcels together, of course they refused and said, 'But they're in different ownership, different people own them.' Of course that is entirely the wrong answer because the ownership of land has nothing to do with its most appropriate use from a town planning sense—it does not matter who owns it. You do not zone land differently because person X owns it or person Y owns it. Town planning is about finding the most beneficial and appropriate uses of land, bearing in mind social, economic and environmental outcomes.

So, they refused to deal with Sheridan and Cheltenham Park together. The real reason, of course, was that, having made a promise of more open space for Cheltenham, they were keen to hang on to the minimal open space that was to be provided at the Sheridan site. As I said, in the former it was to be 35 per cent open space and in the latter it was only going to be 12.5 per cent.

What none of us I think knew at the time was that the government's grand plan did not just involve those two parcels of land but involved an additional parcel of land, the land that we now know as the St Clair park or the St Clair reserve. It is one of the things that this committee, if established, should try to get to the bottom of, namely, to what extent was this grand vision known early on, to what extent was it always the plan to have those three parcels of land developed?

The land swap features strongly in the terms of reference for this select committee; in fact, it is the main subject. It was also the main issue I raised when I made my submission to the Development Policy Advisory Committee back in February this year in relation to the DPA, the development plan amendment, to which the Hon. Russell Wortley referred, known as the Woodville Station DPA. The first paragraph of my submission reads:

My main criticism of the government's plans for this area is the land swap with developers of the adjoining Actil site, which has resulted in the people of the western suburbs being dudded out of quality open space in a part of Adelaide that is already seriously under-provided with public open space. The land swap of the St Clair reserve, with a parcel of former industrial land that is less accessible to existing residents, remains deeply unpopular in the local community.

This matter has been raised numerous times in parliament. There was a motion again in February this year, which the Greens supported, and I said at that time that the so-called one-for-one land swap is a sleight of hand, and it is in fact no such thing. The areas, when calculated, show that the residents are being dudded on open space. They are also being dudded because there is a great community attachment to the park that is there, and the replacement they have been offered is, as we know, part of the contaminated former industrial site.

In fact at that stage I do not think that I was fully aware of the memorial nature of the park, and the fact that this area of public open space had great attachment in relation to war veterans. That type of land in most situations is regarded as hallowed ground, and it is generally not regarded by the community as an appropriate parcel of land for redevelopment.

So these terms of reference will I think help the Legislative Council get to the bottom of what has gone wrong. The terms of reference invite the council to look again at matters of conflict of interest, and I have no doubt that more will be found there. The significant amount of land that will be lost to roads in the land swap, the reduction of open space—what I have referred to as the community being dudded—it would be good to get to the bottom of that, and also the communications between council, prospective developers and the state government. I would be very surprised when we dig behind it if we do not find that the government, having eked out its plans in dribs and drabs, always had a master plan that involved those three parcels of land.

The outcome I believe could have been very much different and could have been very much better if the government had had a different attitude to engaging the community respectfully in relation to planning.

If they had talked to the Cheltenham Park Residents Association about alternative uses of the racetrack, they may have got a lot more agreement than they imagined they would. Similarly with St Clair, if they had dealt respectfully on the issue of the memorial park, if they had been offering local residents a two for one or a three for one or certainly something better than a sleight of hand less than one for one, they may have got a different reaction from the local community.

I think the assumption was and I think still is in government that communities will always oppose development, that communities are anti-development, and that is absolutely not true. I have been going to DPAC meetings and local council meetings on development issues for probably the best part of 10 or 15 years. You often hear from residents, 'We are not opposed to development, we just don't think they have got it right.'

I think there is a fair bit of that in relation to what has been happening in the western suburbs. As I said, we know that this is a part of South Australia that is under-resourced with public open space, and the government, through its plans and rezonings, have shown that they do not really care about that situation and they are not proposing to do anything actively to rectify it.

With those brief words, the Greens will be supporting this select committee. I have said to the mover (Hon. Michelle Lensink) that I would be happy to serve on this committee and help the committee get to the bottom of what has gone on. I would urge all members of parliament to take seriously our responsibility to investigate matters of public importance and urge everyone to get behind this important select committee.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (20:01): I will be brief. I made a number of comments when I moved this motion and also referred readers of Hansard to the excellent contribution of the Hon. David Ridgway in a motion he moved earlier this year. I would like to thank the Hon. Russell Wortley and the Hon. Mark Parnell for their contributions and also thank the crossbenchers, all of whom have actually indicated support for this motion, so I am sure the President will take that into account when he calls the vote.

The PRESIDENT: What?

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! I will come to order!

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I would also like to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Her Worship Kirsten Alexander, who is here to hear what we have to say. There has been a lot said about this issue. This committee is about transparency. The TODs were used as an excuse. They are not quite so much in vogue, so we do not seem to hear so much about them. I am not too sure what is happening with some of the rail plans.

All those things have probably proven to be on the scrap heap, along with the prisons project and a whole range of other things this government has talked about and had front-page headlines on and then not gone ahead with. I think that the comments of the government member who spoke against this motion (Hon. Russell Wortley), describing it as being 'done to death', demonstrates that the ALP just does not get it.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: They don't care about their own seats.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: That's right—the Hon. Mr Wade gets it. The Labor Party thinks it can take the western suburbs for granted, and not just that—it can use them as a pawn. That particular council, the City of Charles Sturt, has been long manipulated by the member for Croydon in a disgraceful way. The current Premier made comments as an election promise that 'only a Labor government will save Cheltenham', and we have seen how false that is.

The Labor Party thinks it can take these people for granted. I think that the election of Kirsten Alexander as mayor demonstrates that the community has a very strong opinion on this and will not lie down. That council was out of touch. I think it is unfortunately still out of touch, with the majority of elected members continuing to be supported by a faction of the Labor Party. It is certainly a government that is out of touch.

There needs to be greater transparency in this process and in an ongoing manner. We have had the Ombudsman's report and the Ombudsman had some very strong things to say about conflicts of interest and those sorts of things, but it is still going on. The Hon. Mark Parnell referred to the DPA for the Woodville west railway station, and that really is a euphemism because even the title was not transparent. There are some sticky fingers all over this process and all over the ongoing matters with it. A select committee would be able to call for a range of evidence, summon witnesses and so forth. We do hope to uncover some of the activities that have been going on, which the community still remains incredibly concerned about. I endorse this motion to the parliament.

Motion carried.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (20:06): I move:

That the select committee consist of the Hon. D.W. Ridgway, the Hon. M.C. Parnell, the Hon. K.J. Maher, the Hon. R.P. Wortley and the mover.

Motion carried.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

That the select committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to adjourn from place to place and to report on 27 November 2013.

Motion carried.

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