ADELAIDE PARK LANDS (FACILITATION OF DEVELOPMENT OF VICTORIA PARK) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Second reading.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite—Leader of the Opposition) (10:50): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: When you do that you start speaking.

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Actually, you wait for the acknowledgement of the Speaker, Attorney; you should know that. Perhaps you would be manager of government business in the house if you were better informed.

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Point of order! The government has given the opposition priority passage. Can the member please just debate the bill?

The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: The redevelopment of Victoria Park was proposed by the Treasurer and the Premier as a win for horseracing, a win for car racing, a win for major events, and it was a win for the Parklands. The Treasurer was going to beat up the council; he was going to get his grandstand no matter what. He was to achieve this by proposing a better public facility for horseracing to replace the dilapidated buildings that are so visible from Fullarton Road.

He was to achieve this for car race fans by ensuring a top-class central facility—an underground infrastructure for easier to assemble temporary facilities. We were to have the sort of facilities that every other state enjoys. That was the vision. The Treasurer is hoist with his own petard. He has staked his reputation on the fact that this grandstand would go ahead—it was a great government initiative. The Premier was right there with him along with the whole of the Labor Party and the government backbench. For 3½ years we had the promises, the threats and the bravado—it was all going to happen.

It is an extraordinary tale, a tale of delay and disappointment, and it began when the SAJC proposed significant changes to the area in which it has conducted horse-racing since the 19^th century. But right from the beginning—

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I rise on a point of order. The government has—

The SPEAKER: There is a point of order. The Deputy Premier.

Mr Hamilton-Smith: What is your point of order?

The SPEAKER: Order! Let us get on with it.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I am not one of your privates, Marty, that you can order around.

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I am not one of your privates that you can order around.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Premier.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will be quiet. Let us hear the point of order so that we can move on. The Deputy Premier.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Sir, I simply ask that the Leader of the Opposition not shout. We are actually listening in silence.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order and the Deputy Premier has to be careful about making frivolous points of order. The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: In typical Rann government style, the project became bogged down in bureaucracy and uncertainty. Then, of course, there was some opposition to the whole proposal from within the very heart of the government, wasn't there? The member for Adelaide: favoured goods, special produce—she is a protected species. She did not like it, did she? She did not like the Treasurer's proposal; she thought it stank.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I rise on a point of order. This is not a frivolous point of order, sir. What I ask is that the leader not refer to the member for Adelaide as 'she', that he in fact address her with appropriate parliamentary courtesy and refer to her as the member for Adelaide.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I do not uphold the point of order. 'He' or 'she' is a reasonable way to refer to members opposite.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: He does not like it, Mr Speaker. He does not like it one little bit. It is not a good feeling when you are the Deputy Premier and Treasurer and you get dudded by your own Premier. It ain't a good look. The member for Adelaide goes up to the Premier and says something along the lines of, 'If this goes ahead, I'm out of here.' We do not know what was said; we do not know whether she threatened to leave the Labor Party or whether she threatened to vote against the measure; we just do not know. Perhaps the government would like to tell us.

However, it was very clear where the Premier's favours lay: not with the Treasurer but with the member for Adelaide. And guess what? They lined up, one after the other, in cabinet to back the Premier and the member for Adelaide, and out there, hung out to dry, was the Treasurer. He had been out there puffing up and beating his chest, with hairs everywhere. He was going to roll over the council, and then all of a sudden it is a case of: well, I have gone from being an Indian chief to a feather duster. Welcome to the realities of politics! We know what happened: he was dudded by his own side. What sort of a signal does that send to the people of South Australia?

There are two important things that the government needs to understand about the Parklands. The first thing is that they are a precious jewel, owned not by Adelaide City Council, not by the ratepayers of Adelaide but by all South Australians, and they need to be protected and preserved. The Parklands also need essential infrastructure so that they are not abused: everything from toilets, water and power to pathways and seats. All sorts of infrastructure is needed to retain the beauty of the Parklands.

There needs to be a better vision for the Parklands. Part of that could have been getting rid of these dilapidated old buildings and replacing them with a bit of world-class infrastructure. The Treasurer does not like this because he actually agrees with what I am saying: we all know that. He just got dudded. He got dudded by the members sitting opposite. He probably got dudded by the member for West Torrens. He got dudded by all of them sitting over there, because the Premier hung him out to dry. The member for Adelaide was given special dispensation.

If the member for West Torrens crosses the floor or goes out publicly against the Labor Party he will get kicked out of the party, but not the member for Adelaide; she can tippy-toe about over on the other side whenever she likes. She can write to the council with her own plan for the Parklands. She can disagree with her party; that is all right. Protected species are like that, they are allowed to flutter about within their party and do whatever they like. This matter has really exposed, at its core, some fundamental flaws in the way this government works. More importantly, it has left Adelaide, the tourism industry, those who love the Parklands and those who want to see this city prosper and grow, wondering where this government's vision is.

What we could have had is a facility that could be used on 30 occasions a year for twilight racing; not a corporate box structure but a facility available for ordinary punters to go to the twilight race meetings. Who would come to such meetings? The would be young people and people living not only in the seats of Adelaide, Norwood, Bragg and Unley, but also people in the inner west of the city, all coming to the twilight races and having a ball. That would be great for tourism, great for the city and great for racing, and that was always part of Colonel Light's vision.

Instead what we are going to get is $20 million, according to a media release put out by the Treasurer, spent on a temporary grandstand, which looks as though it will be the same size as the one that was proposed anyway. Will it be for corporate boxes? Yes, it will, because racing will not be held there now. The racing industry said, 'To hell with this government.' It has thrown up its hands and walked away from Victoria Park. It has abandoned the site. It has gone away in disgust, like a lot of people who want to see a future for this city. It has walked away from this government, saying, 'Sort your mess out. We can't hang about.' It has gone, and 130 years of racing in the Parklands has gone with it.

We keep getting told by this government that Adelaide is open for business. It is not open for business under this government. It is not open for business at all, and here is an example of that. This bill—moved by us, the opposition, in the other place and passed in that place, gives the Treasurer what he wanted. It gives him a 99-year lease over the Parklands, with the authority to secure the development he wanted. The Treasurer can secure access to the site either by negotiation for a lease with the Adelaide City Council or by notice in the Gazette.

This would be for a specific period. The Treasurer can grant occupation rights to other entities like the SAJC or the SA Motorsport Board. Reasonable steps for negotiations with the council would be needed, but essentially the government could go ahead with what it said it wanted if this bill is agreed to this morning.

Instead, what will happen, because of the member for Adelaide—because the Treasurer got dudded—is they are all going to oppose the measure. It just goes to show that when you stick your chin out and you are all hairy-chested and you try to be Mr Tough Guy and then you get dudded by your own team, it is a very—

Mr Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Well, the Treasurer is finding out all about it.

Mr Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Member for West Torrens, I have been here for the same length of time as you, and look where I am and look where you are. So, before you open your mouth, you had better just get your facts right. You will probably be further up the back soon. If you want to have a go, keep them coming.

I would say this about the Parklands. The opposition believes in returning significant amounts of open space to the Parklands. The master plan predicted that some 56,000 square metres of land would be made available to use as open space. We supported the planting of a thousand trees. This would have created a smaller footprint on the Parklands than what is there at present, and we believe in that, because we love the Parklands and we want to see them made better and we want to see them protected. What is there at the moment is a disgrace.

We believe in Victoria Park realising its potential as a special events and entertainment hub. It was always envisaged that way by Colonel Light. In 1837, Colonel Light declared that the area now known as Victoria Park should be used for horseracing and public relations activities. That was always in the plan. Our bill supports Light's vision by helping to give racing and other activities a future in this unique inner-city venue.

This bill is good for the environment of the Parklands, for motorsport, for horseracing and for Adelaide. I call on the government to do what they said they wanted to do and support it. I want to expose the absolute furphy that this is the council's fault. This is his way out: blame the council. 'What can I do? The council said no.' Well, what a wimpish, pathetic effort from a Deputy Premier and Treasurer—the one who said he was going to bury the council somewhere over the back of Bourke. He was going to put them on a boat to China, and all of a sudden he is beaten to a pulp by the council. What a load of nonsense!

He has been beaten to a pulp all right by the member for Adelaide, his good friend, who managed to get the Premier and all the others over there to agree that she was right and he was wrong. It is a very sad exposure of a weak government.

What Adelaide needs is a little bit of vision and a little bit of drive. It needs a range of things, and I just suggested to the Treasurer and Deputy Premier that he look at the Liberals' master plan for Adelaide, that he look at the roads infrastructure and the developments proposed in it: our plans for City West, the CBD, the Parklands and a range of other measures and start to get something happening in this city.

This is a signal that the government has given up. It is a signal that the government has lost the plot. Do not blame the council. They were elected by their ratepayers to do a job and to represent their ratepayers. They have every right to support or oppose the measure and to do their duty to their ratepayers. It was a case that needed leadership; it needed a government to step up on behalf of everyone living in the Parklands. If you live in the northern suburbs or in the seat of Bright, the seat of West Torrens, Gawler or Morialta—you are all here, and your constituents have as much right to use those parklands as those living in North Adelaide or the city.

Mrs Redmond: He lives in Springfield.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Even if you live in Springfield, you have a right to use the Parklands. That is the point that this government does not get. But it is not too late. By passing this bill, it is all over red rover. By passing this bill the government can have exactly what it said it wanted. By passing this bill, the Treasurer could hop in his car and go down to the jockey club this afternoon and say, 'Everything is all back on the table,' and it could all be happening. But he will not, will he? He will wander off, pitter-patter off and hide under the bush, because he has been dudded.

The fact is that it is not the council's fault, but it is this government's fault, this Premier's fault, this Deputy Premier and Treasurer's fault, and it is the Labor Party's fault for losing its ticker. You are arguing among yourselves WorkCover. You have Labor MPs on TV bagging the party line. You have the union movement at your throat. You have Labor luminaries scratching each other's eyes out. You have the member for Adelaide having a poke at the Treasurer and winning. It is pretty obvious that she should move up a couple of benches here. Perhaps she needs to find her way up a little bit. Perhaps the Treasurer should go off and get that highly paid job in the private sector that he would probably like, because her star is on the rise and his star is on the way down the toilet.

That is very clear: it is a lack of leadership and commitment. It also exposes a government that is prepared to talk tough, but when the going gets tough it goes weak at the knees and falls onto the floor. This bill needs to be supported. This bill is needed to create a smaller footprint on the Parklands than what we have. It will mean that people can actually use the Parklands, and it will be popular—according to The Advertiser poll and many other polls—with people right across the city of Adelaide. The presumed wisdom, by the way, that the majority of the people in the city of Adelaide do not want this, you need to check. You need to do some homework, because you are wrong. Support the bill.

The SPEAKER: The member's time has expired. The Deputy Premier.

Mr Koutsantonis: Let Martin be Martin!

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Treasurer, Minister for Industry and Trade, Minister for Federal/State Relations) (11:07): Yes, that is our campaign slogan for the next election that I can announce today: 'Let Marty be Marty.' I am not sure which tactical genius—perhaps those in the gallery—thought it was a really clever idea to alienate the people of North Adelaide and to alienate the people of the city of Adelaide. That clearly could well be a tactical masterstroke.

I cannot yet quite work it out, but perhaps by abusing the people of North Adelaide and the south-east corner of the city and riding roughshod over them it is a good political tactic. Maybe members opposite are right, although I myself cannot quite see it. For the experts up there laughing and clapping at their beloved leader, perhaps this is their piece of political genius; good luck to them.

As I said in a press conference the other day, this is a better outcome than what was originally proposed by me. In hindsight, I was wrong to suggest that the permanent structure that, finally, was the compromise structure was the best way to go. I now accept the argument that this is a better process. I said that in a press conference on Monday and I will say it again today. When given an opportunity to consider all design options, the experts have come up with a design that gives us a better facility than the compromise (which would have been the fixed structure) and it also allows us to put shade over all the seated grandstands for the public.

Mr Williams interjecting:

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I would like to have this debate calmly. I do not need to yell and shout like the leader. We have given the opposition the opportunity to debate the bill, unlike what members opposite would have done to us when we were in opposition.

Mr Koutsantonis interjecting:

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Fancy the Leader of the Opposition saying to the member for West Torrens, 'I'm over here.' He is in opposition and we are in government. We are able to cover at least 24,000 seats that we could not afford to do under the previous proposal. In fact, it is estimated that we will do this for $20 million instead of $53 million. It is a significant cost saving for taxpayers.

It is a much cheaper option. We get a better facility than what was the compromise proposal (which would have been the fixed structure). We get to cover all the seated areas. I accept that I was wrong to be critical in the way I was of the residents of the south-east corner. I like a robust debate and I play the game hard. In hindsight I was wrong to have been as vitriolic and full-on when it came to commenting on the residents of the south-east corner of Adelaide.

If any of my remarks offended those people, I apologise to them. I am prepared to apologise on the public record for comments I made in the heat of debate against people who reside in the south-east corner of Adelaide. This process has been a very good learning curve for me in my development as a minister. What is important is that this process delivered a better outcome than would have been the case had I got my way.

I also want to say that the member for Adelaide is a very good local member of parliament. Within the rules of government and the rules of the Labor Party, she was able to represent her constituents outstandingly. I put on the public record, because it needs to be put on the public record—

Mr Williams interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for MacKillop will come to order.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: It needs to be put on the public record that the member for Adelaide never at any stage wavered, either inside or outside cabinet, in her total support of the residents of the City of Adelaide. Never once did she feel that she was overwhelmed by the debate. Never once did she flinch when I was putting forward a very strong case to get my way. While the honourable member and I may have had disagreements internally on the way forward, I am prepared to put on the public record that the member for Adelaide was right and I was wrong.

The constituents of Adelaide—whether they be those residents living in the south-east corner of the city or those residents living in North Adelaide whom the Leader of the Opposition has just criticised and degraded—can be confident in knowing that their member was prepared to stand up in cabinet and at party forums to argue their case and strongly disagree with the Treasurer of this state. In so doing, she was able to represent her constituents, as well as carrying out her bona fide duties as a cabinet minister and member for Adelaide. She was able to win an argument and convince a government that her position was the right position. I am prepared to put on the public record that I was wrong.

From my point of view, I am actually very delighted with what the member for Adelaide has been able to achieve. It is a better structure than what the compromise permanent structure would have been. Some 24,000 people at the next race will be able to sit under shade rather than being further exposed to the sun. The grandstand will be erected in perhaps about four weeks, maybe five. Hopefully, we can get that tighter so that it will be a put-up and pull-down time similar to the current demountable structure, except of course in the first year when we will have to get certification and a lot of underground work done.

The people who live in the state electorate of Adelaide can be confident now that their local member stands up for the people of Adelaide. Whether it is the Treasurer of this state—who, I might say, has a history of strongly putting a case and not liking it when he loses and not liking it when he gets his own way—this was never a personal issue for the member for Adelaide, this was an issue that was passionate for her elected constituents. She was elected to represent the constituents of Adelaide and in this case she represented those constituents outstandingly well and, in doing so, was able to show me and government there was a better way forward.

I do not think electors of Adelaide could ask for any better representation than they had from the member for Adelaide. I am not someone who is noted for saying I was wrong. I am not someone who is noted for heaping praise on someone because they were able to present a better argument than me. But in this case it deserves to be put on the public record and the people who vote at the next election in the state seat of Adelaide need to know that when the going got tough on this issue, when the second most senior minister of the government was absolutely determined to get his way, the member for Adelaide stood between me (the Treasurer) and getting my own way, and she was able to ensure that her constituency won the day.

What do we have here from an opposition? We have an opposition that wants to legislate, to make it law, to trample over the people of Adelaide, to trample over the people of the south-eastern corner, to trample over the people of North Adelaide. There is clearly only one choice at the next state election. If you want an elected member of parliament who will stand up to the most powerful people in government, to make sure the people of Adelaide get what they want, you vote Jane Lomax-Smith and Labor. If you want a member for Adelaide who will trample over the people of Adelaide you vote for Martin Hamilton-Smith, the Leader of the Liberal Party. A simple choice.

Time expired.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:17): This is a silly bill, silly in many respects because the game is all over in terms of what is going to happen in Victoria Park and I think it is a good outcome. I was one who did not support the permanent structure, and I must say that what has eventuated in terms of a quality temporary facility, demountable, I think is an excellent outcome.

I will elaborate on that point. I think the Leader of the Opposition is trying to adopt the role of the kamikaze kid, because I just cannot understand the logic of the Liberal Party in opposing something which is now a fait accompli, and alienating voters in the seats of Adelaide, Norwood and Unley. I do not know what happened to the word strategy, but maybe some people need to look at the word strategy in the dictionary.

I think the SA Jockey Club made a good decision to go to Morphettville. That is where it should have decided to go ages ago. Alan Scott—who is one of the smartest, shrewdest people in the racing game and in the business world—long ago said that Victoria Park for horseracing was really not viable and not an option.

I want to just knock on the head a couple of points that have been raised. First, I refer to this furphy about no-one uses the Parklands. I have the figures here. A survey done back in 2007 by the Adelaide City Council reveals that, on average, every day in the Parklands there are 28,000 people using them and that does not include people attending the Adelaide Botanic Gardens. So 28,000 people on average every day of the year—that is averaged over the year—use the Parklands. So, this idea that there is a couple of people from South Terrace with a chihuahua walking through the Parklands as their exclusive property is a nonsense.

The other point people at other levels of government seem to forget is that the Adelaide City Council spends $9 million a year looking after the Parklands and that is not something that I have often heard people at the state level of government talk about picking up the tab for. That needs to be put in context.

Other figures were revealed and made public yesterday and the ERD Committee is disseminating them, but I will share them with members. Professor Chris Daniels, who is a professor from the School of Natural and Built Environments at the University of SA, in a presentation yesterday highlighted the fact that Adelaide ranks amongst the worst in the world in terms of green open space. If you look at what we have in Adelaide, we have 5.5 per cent total green open space in the metropolitan area. That compares with Beijing, which has 47.5 per cent; Brisbane, which has 11.57 per cent; New York, 14.4 per cent; Toronto, 21 per cent; Moscow, 50.9 per cent; and London, 30 per cent.

The point is that Adelaide does not have a lot of green open space and the Parklands are very precious for that reason, because sadly, the Parklands have been used as an excuse for not providing extra open space in the rest of the metropolitan area.

I oppose this bill. I think it is silly and I think the Liberal Party is doing itself a disservice by even raising it and, rather than seeing things dug in the Parklands, I think they are digging a big hole for themselves at the next election.

Mr O'BRIEN (Napier) (11:21): This bill proposes that the state Treasurer would be given the authority to secure access to the site approved for the Victoria Park master plan DA/500/2007 through negotiation for a lease with the Adelaide City Council, or by notice in the GovernmentGazette. The main justification of this bill is to provide government with the ability to bypass a consultative process in relation to facilitating development on the Parklands areas of Adelaide.

The government will not support this bill. Why would you have a bill to provide all these powers to a government when the government has already announced that it will spend in the order of $20 million for a demountable pit building, shade structures and other track and site improvements for the Clipsal event? These structures will be of the highest quality and are the most advanced temporary buildings available in the world. Eight new shade structures will provide a more comfortable event for 24,000 spectators.

Rather than play politics, the government is more interested in providing essential and practical support to ensure the future success and growth of this important event for the state. The argument made by the Hon. Terry Stephens in the other place in originally moving this bill is that the South Australian Jockey Club is 'unsure about its racing future at Victoria Park'. However, this is not the case. The South Australian Jockey Club chief executive announced in late March that the club would be concentrating its presence at the Morphettville racecourse and terminating its tenancy at Victoria Park.

Why does the bill revisit the SAJC issue when the club itself has already made its decision to relocate to Morphettville? At best, the opposition is trying to find a solution to an issue that has already been resolved. The bill submitted by the opposition provides an ability for the Treasurer to fully occupy the Victoria Park precinct by gazettal, and then grant not only rights to the SA Motorsport Board and the SAJC but also rights for other events. In addition, in the other place, the mover of the bill stated that 'where the government is not using any of the land for the purposes described, the surplus land would be returned to the Parklands'. The government will be opposing the legislation.

Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (11:24): I briefly explain why I will be speaking only briefly to this legislation. It is a proposal by the Leader of the Opposition to facilitate built development at Victoria Park in our Adelaide Parklands. The member has previously introduced the bill and he sought to bring it up for debate this morning ahead of the precedence of other members, and I opposed its being brought forward as a matter of urgency on that basis because it did not go with the usual protocol followed in this place. However, now I move on to the substance of the bill.

The proposal is something I cannot support. If I had my Parklands file with me, I would be able to refer to copious notes in support of a passionate commitment to preserving the Parklands. They need to be preserved for the people of South Australia, not with particular preference to any section or interest. I must say one of my constituents, Ms Kath Crilly, has particularly kept me informed of developments in relation to these Parklands and also parklands developments interstate, and I am grateful for that. The Leader of the Opposition's proposal essentially allows for a government takeover of a very significant part of the Parklands, that is, Victoria Park.

I do not trust this government or the next government, or any government, with those sort of powers: the power to build things virtually unfettered. The bill specifically provides that there would be no compensation payable in respect of exercising government power under the legislation. There is a $25,000 fine for anyone who hinders the building of a development, and I suppose that is there to take care of protesters. The real solution to the Parklands issues is to have a completely independent body to administer the Parklands and to govern development upon them. There needs to be a Parklands trust or authority, completely separate from government so that no minister and no government of the day can interfere with the supervision of the Parklands. That supervision should be under the principles of preserving as much open space as possible and not preferring the interests of any particular commercial or sporting body, nonetheless providing for adequate recreational space for all South Australians. For these reasons, I must oppose the bill.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite—Leader of the Opposition) (11:28): I thank members for their contributions. I begin by addressing the remarks of the member for Mitchell and the member for Fisher. I make the point to them that preservation of the Parklands and appropriate development within the Parklands are not inconsistent. If the logic that there should be no development in the Parklands was carried through, we would bulldoze the Adelaide Cricket Ground; we would remove the zoo; we would take away all sporting infrastructure—there are already stands at the University Oval—and we would remove toilets, park benches, pathways and other developments in the Parklands because they are all developments in the Parklands. We would not allow any road access through the Parklands and we would allow it to revert to native bush. That is a ridiculous proposition and it is a proposition that was never envisaged or foreseen.

I re-emphasise to the members for Fisher and Mitchell and the house as a whole, that everyone in this house wants to see the Parklands preserved and conserved and made into all they can be—and they will be, I can assure you. We will have some exciting ideas on that to take to the next election, let there be no doubt, but that does include appropriate developments in the Parklands, the very position the Treasurer was arguing for when he first raised this issue: isn't it better to bulldoze old buildings in the Parklands—dilapidated, ugly buildings—and replace them with something which is up-to-date, more comfortable, less of a visual eyesore and which has a smaller footprint?

It makes sense. I will not be voting for the bulldozing of the Adelaide Cricket Ground or for the removal of the zoo, and I will not be voting for a whole lot of other nonsense. However, what I will be voting for is appropriate developments in the Parklands so that, as in every Parklands in every other major capital in the world—whether you go to Central Park or whether you go to European parklands—they are available for people to use and, whilst they retain their beauty, there are facilities to make it safe and appropriate for them to be used.

The other thing I want to say to the Treasurer and to other members is that this presumption that every single person—men and women of all ages—hates the idea of better infrastructure in the Parklands, particularly the grandstand that was proposed, is wrong; it is fatally wrong. If you listen, there is a group of people who, very legitimately, do not want any development in the Parklands. Some of them want the Adelaide Oval bulldozed and the zoo removed. If you talk to that group, great. Go and talk to the younger demographic, go and talk to the people who come to the Clipsal and the twilight racing, and go and talk to others in the seat of Adelaide–we have—and you might just find a different story, and I draw members' attention to The Advertiser polls on this.

Can I make another point to the Treasurer? Is it really up to the seat of Adelaide alone? If the Treasurer's benchmark is that, if any individual member decides that this is a die in the ditch issue for him, the government should immediately abandon what is in the best interests of the whole of the state and follow the wishes of that individual member—if that is the way the government is working now—it is going to be a very rocky 18 months.

We have these debates all the time on our side, and I am sure the government does as well. Do you know what we generally do? At the end of the day, members are mature enough to vote for what is in the best interests of all South Australians, and people make compromises. There are many occasions when individuals on our side would love to oppose a particular measure—and I am looking at the grandfather of the house here. There are many issues in the seat of Stuart that the member for Stuart would like to die in a ditch on, but he is part of a team, and he goes along with it, as we all do.

I just say to the government that it needs to think about the best interests of the whole state. This exposes the government's failings. This bill would have delivered the government exactly what it wanted, which it has now backed away from. This bill exposes that it is the government's decision and the government's alone; and it is the government's failure, and the government's alone. There is no-one else to blame but the Premier, the Treasurer and this government for this whole farrago. The fact that they will not support this bill indicates that they are in a dither and in a mess on the issue and that they got it wrong from start to finish.

Let us test the floor—I see the member for Adelaide coming into the house—let us test the house, and let us see where members sit on this. Let us have the matter decided.

The SPEAKER: Before we take the vote on the second reading, I will make a ruling on the earlier point of order by the member for Fisher. I have examined the bill and note that it does not contain any provisions to impose a tax, rate or impost. Therefore, its introduction conforms to standing order 232.

The house divided on the second reading:

AYES (14)

NOES (29)

PAIRS (2)

Majority of 15 for the noes.

Second reading thus negatived.