 |
Legislative
Council |
|
 |
||
| Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
|
Legislative
Council |
|
|
||
| Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
Debate on the Local Government
package of Bills. i.e.
This page contains only Ian Gilfillan's speech opposing the proposed "land bank" or "land trust" for Adelaide Parklands development. For an index of other topics covered in the Local Government Bills, see the Democrats Local Government page, or the 1999 Budget Session Index |
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: Mr Chairman, as you may well have noted, the Democrats oppose this clause; in fact, we oppose the land bank or land trust proposal in its entirety. I respect that all members do genuinely have a concern and care for the parklands, and I believe that that will increase as we are made more and more aware of the world uniqueness and the growing push to have the parklands listed as a world heritage item. It is reasonable to say that this has excited interest even in the ranks of the current Government. I will come to some of the more specific details shortly.
Whether or not this measure facilitates the actual technicality of the Government alienating land, it does create or reinforce a totally false premise, namely, that if the Government has some land which had previously been alienated for whatever purpose—rail, school, waterworks, gaol, police—and returns that to the parklands, it then is seen and itself is convinced that it has done a noble gesture for which it will be rewarded. Although the proportion of that reward has been adjusted down from the minuscule 1.1 to 1, it is an interesting numerical factor to ponder on. But, whether or not those details are arbitrary, the fact is that in the mind of the Government, the Parliament, the public and the media the Government has the moral right to put development on a portion of the parklands upon which at this stage there is no development. That is the unarguable result of this measure.
It does not matter whether it is tinkered about with, whether various other aspects are emphasised, whether there is a land change name or whether the actual formula changes. The really dangerous aspect of preservation of the parklands has not been the love that people express over and again for the parklands but the acceptance from time to time that there is an irresistible debate in favour of a certain development going on in the parklands for various so-called reasons at the time—the Grand Prix, the ASER development, the National Wine Centre, the proposal to develop quite substantially the offices at Victoria Park and the Lloyds commercial leisure centre. All of them, at the time, have the flavour and the initiative that, `This has to go ahead; this will not really damage the parklands.'
Until we reverse that mind set completely it does not matter what we pass today: the parklands will be under constant pressure or threat of erosion. Make no mistake: whatever we pass today will not stop a Government of the future acquiring land for whatever project it wants, provided it can get it through this Parliament. It has never been frustrated by this Parliament, either Labor or Liberal. Every time they have come up with a project they have bowled it through. Unless the Government is persuaded otherwise by general public revulsion at the continuing erosion, what we do today will not be a safeguard. There is no guarantee. The Crown Lands Act empowers the Minister, virtually without any consultation with this Parliament, to acquire land for the Government's projects. These are the threats to the parklands which will not be changed a jot by what we do with this amendment.
This amendment and this clause—and this is the danger—enshrine the mental attitude that a Government is entitled to develop. The 2:1 provision has no condition as to what that development will eventually be, and it may or may not comply with the Development Act and the City of Adelaide Plan at the time. I hope there will be a lot of restrictions, because it looks as if this measure will get through this Parliament in some form or another, but the self deceit that the promoters are putting up that this is really a defence, protection and sanctimonious enshrining of the value of the parklands is sophistry. It is self-deception.
If the Government is so strongly motivated to return alienated land, why does it not do it? Why does it need some credit before it does it? Where is the sincerity of a Government wanting to enhance the parklands and determine that it will return only a certain amount of the alienated land in exchange for another area which it will be able to use for whatever project it wants, later down the track?
The Hon. Diana Laidlaw: It does not require them to use it.
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: It does not require them to use it, but the fact is that if they have this lovely credit in the land bank there is a strong incentive to land the next flavour of the month development, such as the Investigator Science Centre, waiting in the wings for the Government to make a goody-two-shoes of itself by returning land it said it would return, and therefore it will be able to take part of the parklands for that type of project. We have heard that office blocks would never be built on the parklands. One has a conveniently short term memory. We in the Adelaide Parklands Preservation Association negotiated with the Australian Equestrian Association, which was being offered by the Adelaide City Council of the day the opportunity to set up its national offices in Victoria Park—on the parklands. What sort of centre do you think there is at the National Wine Centre? There is the national office conglomeration for the whole of Australia on the parklands.
Do you believe that offices will not be established in the Lloyd Leisure Centre? People have a very convenient way of trimming their acknowledgment of what is likely to take place when it suits the argument of the moment. At the moment, we are in a glory of euphoria. The promoters of this proposal see themselves as the saviours of the parklands. The sad fact is that it is another substantial blow to our eventually getting the total alienated area back as parklands. That is the reason why, regardless of what amendments are passed, the Democrats will strongly oppose the clause; it should not be entertained. It should not be considered as a measure by a Parliament that professes to care for and want to enhance its parklands.
I had questions passed to me by the Adelaide City Council, and I understand that they may have been given to the Minister for Local Government's research officer for consideration. If that is the case, I want to read them into Hansard so that an answer can be given. The definition of `land bank' or `land trust' is:
land forming part of Adelaide parklands that is available for unrestricted public use and enjoyment. Clause 208(4) provides: The Crown, or an agency or instrumentality of the Crown, may only take action to remove land from the land bank to the extent that the Crown holds credit units equal to or exceeding the number of square metres of land to be so removed. If one inserts the definition into that subclause, it will provide: The Crown may take action to remove land forming part of the Adelaide parklands that is available for unrestricted public use and enjoyment. The questions asked are:Does this mean that the Crown may take action to remove land from the Adelaide parklands? If it does so, will that land then become freehold?
We had part of an answer to that extent. The questions continue:This would be different from the Memorial Drive Tennis Centre, for instance, where the land is leased and eventually the land would be returned to parklands, or does it mean that the Government will remove unrestricted parklands and make it restricted parklands?
Further:If the Crown chooses to develop land arising from the operation of the land bank or land trust, will it always be subject to a lease with the Adelaide City Council? If it is subject to a lease with the Adelaide City Council, how will this be achieved if no credits exist in the land bank for this purpose?
Clause 208(3) provides:
The council may only grant a lease or licence over land that forms part of the Adelaide parklands. . . to the extent that the council holds credit units. . . Subclause (4) provides that the Crown may only take action to remove land from the land bank to the extent that it holds credits. However, the Adelaide parklands are vested in the Adelaide City Council. The Crown has no powers under this legislation to remove land from the parklands. It could only do so under the provisions of the Crown Lands Act or a separate piece of legislation. Therefore, it is argued that subclause (4), as a relates to credit units, is inoperable. There is no compulsion on the Crown to create credit units or to return alienated land to the parklands, and the question is: Does the Government agree with this? Is this true?The Minister may be in a position to put into Hansard answers to those questions from the Adelaide City Council. I want to make a couple of comments regarding the fund. The formula, which has been set out in the Bill, stipulates that, if the total anticipated development cost exceeds $5 000, the actual contribution to the fund will be $50, plus $25 for each $1 000 over $5 000 and, where the total anticipated development cost is not exactly divisible into multiples of $1 000, any remainder is to be treated as though it were a further multiple of $1 000, up to a maximum prescribed amount of $150 000.
My understanding is that that means that $150 000 would be the maximum contributed by a developer on the land being developed as a consequence of this Bill. Unless I have it wrong, even at that maximum of $150 000, I would estimate that that covers a development of approximately $6 million. If my sum is even approximately correct, it means that the sort of development envisaged in this legislation is not just fountains, seats and pagodas. An office block may be involved, but it is envisaged that a lot of money will be spent on these developments.
As we know historically, when a development is placed on a portion of the parklands, it is almost impossible to get it off, and the more expensive and prestigious the development happens to be the more difficult it is. The Minister reflected quite accurately, but I think somewhat divisively, that we look at the area of alienated parklands east of where we are where the university and public buildings are, worth millions of dollars. They are on alienated parklands. There is no hope. No-one in their wildest dreams expects that area to be returned.
The Hon. Diana Laidlaw: I thought that was your policy. Didn't you say when speaking earlier that your goal was the return of all alienated land?
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: Yes, it certainly was.
The Hon. Diana Laidlaw: Do you want to qualify that now?
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: Anyone in their right mind would realise that the areas that are possible for return are not currently hosting substantial and irreplaceable assets of the city—they are there.
The Hon. Diana Laidlaw: So you're not asking us to return that to parkland?
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: The issue of returning the north side of North Terrace on the eastern end is a quite fatuous suggestion. However, its value is to point out how Governments can ride roughshod, take over parklands and put their developments on it, and it is lost forever. So, once this little trade goes on—a Government, not necessarily this Government (let us give this Government the credit that somewhat naively and maybe not very intelligently it believes that this measure is protective of the parklands), but perhaps a succeeding Government—maybe of a different political persuasion—enjoying a lovely credit of 50 or 60 acres, and with a reasonably compliant City Council and control over this Parliament, could put the next generation of substantial civic buildings on the credited land. They are then gone forever, too. That really highlights the downside of this.
This is a dangerous measure. It does not go any way towards addressing the real challenge that we must address, namely, a mindset change as to how we deal with the parklands. I hope this Government can actually prove its worth by being more sincere in its return of alienated parklands than the false promises that devastated so many people's expectations for the Hackney bus depot. That was promised by Bannon and reinforced by the Liberal Opposition at that time. But what happens? When they get into the position they contaminate it with development.
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Olsen criticised the Government for not returning it.
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: That is exactly right. We will strenuously oppose the Bill when it comes to that point. We will look as closely as we can at what appear to be genuine efforts to improve the Bill by amendment. I show appreciation to the Hon. Terry Cameron for having given it so much thought. I believe that the Hon. Nick Xenophon is still giving it earnest thought. So, there is a remarkable degree of goodwill to the parklands in this place. It has to be harvested in action, and sadly I believe that this measure, even with the improvements that may be successful with these amendments, is counterproductive.
(a) on behalf of the Crown, sell, lease or otherwise alienate (other than by way of a grant of fee simple) any Crown lands; Further, paragraph (d) states: by notice in the Gazette dedicate any Crown lands for any of the following purposes:— and there is a great range of them, but they include: marketplaces or abattoirs; institutions for public instruction or amusement; parklands or places for the recreation and amusement for the inhabitants of any city, town or place; forest reserves; public reservoirs; and hospitals, asylums or cemeteries. Finally, it states: . . . for any other purpose he thinks fit, whether similar to the purposes referred to in the preceding subparagraphs or not. Whatever legislation we pass today or in whatever form this clause is passed, any Government that wishes to alienate parts of the parklands can use this legislation. We have well acknowledged that any Government that can get a Bill through this Parliament can also alienate parklands, totally ignoring any of the conditions that have been put in through this clause. I raise that matter because I believe the Minister was not fully aware of the consequences of the Crown Lands Act in her answer and it is important that it be in Hansard to indicate just what power a Minister of the Crown has in this respect. However we deliberate and refine this clause, essentially a Government that is hell bent on putting development on the parklands can go ahead, which is why my principal argument is that it needs a conviction. If it needs a sea change of approach so that no future Government would dare use those Acts or use the power to put through Bills in Parliament, we will be on a win. This clause by itself will certainly not achieve that. The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: I will put the Hon. Mr Gilfillan's mind at rest and let him know that I am fully aware of what is in the Crown Lands Act, having made reference to it three times today already. The Act was framed in 1929 and for various purposes, which apply not just for the city area but for the whole of the State, it essentially sets up the basic infrastructure of this State. We have long moved on since then in terms of abattoirs, water courses, wharves and health facilities. There are even opportunities here for asylums and other things. I am well aware that some of those measures that allow the Minister to alienate Crown lands are essential public infrastructure today, are valued, and bring a lot of jobs and economic development to this State. Most, if not all, of that infrastructure is in place, and some of the provisions here are antiquated. As I say, the Act was promulgated in 1929 and perhaps we should look at some of those matters.
In the House of Assembly, on August 4, the provisions establishing an Adelaide Parklands "Land Trust" were removed from the Local Government Bill, because it was not regarded as the appropriate piece of legislation to house them. The next day, August 5, the House of Assembly inserted the same provisions into the Statutes Repeal and Amendment (Local Government) Bill which was subsequently passed by the Legislative Council later the same evening.
However because the Legislative Council also passed other amendments to the Statutes Repeal and Amendment (Local Government) Bill, it must be re-submitted to the House of Assembly. This will happen when Parliament resumes on 28 September 1999.
