 |
Legislative
Council |
|
 |
||
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
|
Legislative
Council |
|
|
||
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
Debate on the Local Government
package of Bills. i.e.
This page contains only Mike Elliott's speech opposing the proposed "land bank" or "land trust" for future 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. M.J. ELLIOTT: I have been a supporter of transferable development rights for a long time, and to some extent this scheme is somewhat like a transferable development right scheme. However, in my view, if you are to have a transferable development right, you are trying to ensure that development does not happen in one place by encouraging developers to put it in a more desirable location. The scheme that we have before us effectively is saying, `We do not want development in the parklands, but it can go in the parklands.' It does not actually say where in the parklands we do not want it, nor where in the parklands we do want it. It just simply says that for every bit of development, if you like, which is removed from one part of the parklands, development will go somewhere else.
However, the point needs to be made—and I think the Hon. Paul Holloway touched on this—that we are not even talking about like for like. Probably 100, 200 hectares of land held by the State Government might be described as low level development, that is, it is not of high density or intensity. It is land, which, at this stage, one could reasonably resume at a very low level of cost. However, this says nothing about the intensity of development, plot ratio or those sorts of things that we might see in terms of what is being removed and what is coming in.
That is significant in a number of ways: first, obviously, the higher the development, if it is intended to have multistorey developments (and we have already had some of that in the ASER development), not only does that impinge on the parklands because of its very scale but it guarantees that it will become permanent. This trade-off scheme is essentially saying, `Take a couple of hundred hectares of land of very low intensity development'—development that we could actually afford to remove over time; in fact, much of it is severely under-utilised—`and at this stage it is recoverable but, under the land bank scheme, part of that land will become land that, once developed, will never be recoverable.' That is another failure.
It is not just a question of failing to remove development from the parklands: in any sort of development transfer scheme, you should be trying to take land from where you do not want it and putting it where you do want it. In fact, the transfer is happening within the parklands and it does not even say where in the parklands—that basically is up to the Government to decide. Worse than that, the alienation that will happen under this process will go from what is, I would argue, a temporary to a permanent alienation.
Even if you intended to have a transfer scheme, a one to two, whilst better than what the Government is offering, is incredibly generous if one looks at the density of development that has occurred on much of the land held by the State Government at present and the sort of density of development that we would see on anything that is picked up under this land bank scheme.
The Hon. Ian Gilfillan: Like another ASER.
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: That is right, like an another ASER. It is true that, over time, there has been a gradual invasion of the parklands, but I think that even the current Government was starting to hit a bit of a brick wall. When one looks at what the Government has done in the past five years or so, one sees that it had really gone as far as it could get away with for some time. But this scheme, as far as I am concerned, creates a lively expectation of a right to develop. It does not establish a right to develop but it creates a lively expectation. We know that other buildings are already in the queue.The Investigator Science Centre wants land (and it has wanted it for a long time) on the other side of Morphett Bridge. The centre lobbied hard and extensively for perhaps two years that I am aware of, and it has suddenly gone quiet: it has said nothing for four or five months.
The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: It has no money. It's a rather sobering thought.
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: There is another possibility: that the Government said, `Right now we have pushed our luck as far as we can, but when we have this land bank scheme we'll be able to announce that we are returning to the parklands this land over here and, at that stage, you're in business.'
The Hon. T.G. Cameron: It's a good story, Mike.
The Hon. Diana Laidlaw: You must stay awake all night dreaming up these possibilities.
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I could not possibly have dreamt up the Wine Centre. Geniuses in the Minister's Government dreamt that up. I would not, in my wildest dreams, have thought that anyone would have had the gall to put something like the Wine Centre in the parklands. I would not have thought in my wildest dreams that anyone would have had the gall to put that private tennis centre in the parklands. I do not need to dream: you guys do that all by yourselves. You come up with propositions that no-one else would have half the nerve to suggest.
The Hon. T.G. Cameron interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I also learnt from history, and I do not forget. If the Government wonders why people are cynical about it, it is because of its behaviour: the Government creates the grounds for cynicism. Unfortunately, with this Government, the cynicism is well based. This part of the legislation relating to a land bank will not achieve the stated goals: it will merely create a lively expectation of a right to develop. It will guarantee that low level development, land that is capable of being recovered, will be replaced by high density development—land that will never be recovered. The long-term impact (and history will judge us on this) will be that, as a consequence of this proposal, more permanent alienation of the parklands will occur.
AYES (9)
Cameron, T. G. (teller) Crothers, T.
Dawkins, J. S. L. Griffin, K. T.
Laidlaw, D. V. Lawson, R. D.
Redford, A. J. Stefani, J. F.
Xenophon, N.
NOES (6)
Gilfillan, I. (teller) Holloway, P.
Kanck, S. M. Roberts, T. G.
Weatherill, G. Zollo, C.
PAIR(S) Pairs
Lucas, R. I. Roberts, R. R.
Davis, L. H. Pickles, C. A.
Schaefer, C. V. Elliott, M. J.
Majority of 3 for the Ayes.Clause as amended thus passed.
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.
