Ian Gilfillan: Australian Democrats in the SA Parliament

	Extract from Hansard Legislative Council 15 May 2001

Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council		Parliament Index 2001 Autumn Sitting Index Browse by Subject Search all Democrats material About the SA Parliament Hansard on line

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I seek leave to make an explanation before asking the Minister for Transport and Urban Planning, representing the Minister for Local Government, a question about the disposal of the Salisbury East University Campus.

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: For the past five years the former Salisbury East Campus of the University of South Australia has remained vacant. In June last year a contract was signed between the University of South Australia and Eastgate Property Developments to redevelop a 24.5 hectare site, despite opposition from the Salisbury council. It appears that the state cabinet changed the condition of sale some time in November last year after the Salisbury council had interpreted `mixed use' to mean that approximately 50 per cent of the site must be retained as open space, rather than the 12.5 per cent requirement that normally applies in the Adelaide metropolitan area.

This significantly limited housing numbers to a point where the project was no longer considered financially viable at the contracted price. The University of South Australia used the changed conditions as the basis for terminating its contract with Eastgate. The cancellation of Eastgate's contract has led to a multimillion dollar damages case that is now before the Supreme Court. I am informed that at least two senior government ministers may be called to appear in court over their involvement in matters relating to the site's redevelopment. I am also informed that, unless a negotiated settlement is reached soon, the case is set to drag on for up to two years, during which time no development will be allowed on the site.

Under the original plan lodged with the Salisbury council, Eastgate planned to create 249 allotments on the site. The conditions of the sale required the site to be zoned for mixed use, to include a combination of housing, redevelopment of existing educational buildings and provision for open space and community use. Because of the impasse, cabinet ruled some time in November last year that mixed use would allow up to 60 per cent of the site to be used for housing, with the remaining 35 per cent kept as open space for educational training and community use.

Surprisingly, within 48 hours of Eastgate's being notified of cabinet's decision-and this is in the face of Salisbury council's wishes-the university was approached by LandSA, which offered a higher price for the site, rumoured to be at least $7 million. The university subsequently cancelled its contract with Eastgate and signed with LandSA. My questions are:

1. Is the minister aware that the conditions for the sale of the site were changed at a cabinet meeting in October-November last year?

2. Did the minister believe that decisions taken by cabinet on this matter would lead to a cancellation of the original contract?

3. Can the minister indicate how cabinet information on this matter was made available to another developer?

4. Does the minister regard the provision of such information as a `cabinet leak'?

5. Does the minister believe that the best interests of the people of Salisbury have been served by the action of the university and the Salisbury council, given the costly legal proceedings currently under way and the lack of development?

The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW (Minister for Transport and Urban Planning): I believe that I should refer this question to another minister, because that minister was not involved in the cabinet decision and therefore would not be able to answer some of those questions. My recollection is that the submission was brought before cabinet by the Minister for Education and Children's Services.

The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: No, it is not a local government issue: it was a planning issue, after decisions were made.

The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: Yes; that might be a side issue, but it is a planning or a property issue. I will nevertheless respect the questions that the honourable member has asked and will work out the minister or ministers to whom they should be referred. I will send a copy of the questions to the Minister for Local Government for her information, but she will not be able to respond to some of those matters.