House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Cheltenham Park CHELTENHAM PARK Mr WILLIAMS House of Assembly MacKillop CHELTENHAM PARK Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (14:42): I was so enthralled by the last answer. The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting: Mr WILLIAMS House of Assembly Mr WILLIAMS: Thank you, Patrick. My question happens to be for the Minister for Infrastructure. Has the Cheltenham Park Racecourse sale been completed and, if so, who now owns it? Have the planning conditions imposed by the government on proposed change of land use been complied with? The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly Elder Minister for Transport Minister for Infrastructure Minister for Energy The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for Energy) (14:42): Can I just point out to the member for MacKillop that we do not own, and have never owned, Cheltenham racecourse. Ms Chapman interjecting: The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Okay, thank you. It would be pleasant to get through seven seconds without an interjection from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. So, the reason I point that out to the member for MacKillop is that the matters of the actual sale are not under the control of the government. They are, to this extent, because this is a government of the highest possible standards: the SAJC— The Hon. I.F. Evans House of Assembly The Hon. I.F. Evans: Tell Tom Easling that. The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I understand that website of the member for whatever it is—the honourable former leader of the opposition—may not be as inaccurate as it seems at present, given a little time, given the effluxion of time. His current website, which has him sitting up there, may not be as inaccurate as it seems at present. The SAJC came to see us about selling Cheltenham for a variety of reasons, despite the fact that they thought the world would be terrific when their friends, the Liberal Party, sold the TAB. Remember they did not actually used to talk to us, the SAJC, in the old days when we were in opposition. They did not like us at all because their friends in the Liberal Party had sold the TAB and that was going to solve all their problems. Do people remember this? That is just a little history. They came to see us a little while later saying, 'Look, we weren't right about that. Racing is pretty much buggered and we need to sell Cheltenham if we are going to have any prize money, if we are going to do any upgrades anywhere.' We get all this smear and innuendo from the other side, so let's make sure we understand the history of this matter. They came to see us. We were the government. They were very disappointed that their friends had been elected out because, of course, they were on the record as supporting the entire sale of Cheltenham—no strings attached—as an industrial estate; and that is what they think of the people of Port Adelaide, of course. I do not have it with me but I think that Angus Redford was your person at the time. I will go and find his statement; I will find it for you. They came to see us— Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. CONLON: —wanting to sell Cheltenham. One of the things that was obvious to us was that they were not going to race at Cheltenham. That was a decision they controlled, not us—they controlled. They did want to race at Victoria Park—and we know what happened there—and at Morphettville. We said to them, 'Look, we have some reservations about simply giving you a windfall on the sale of the racecourse. We may not be as good to you as your previous friends, but we have reservations about that.' We said, 'We'll have a look at it, but there will be some strict conditions attached.' The first condition we attached was that, given that there was not much useable open space for the community as it was at Cheltenham, they would have instead, I think from memory, their 12½ per cent legal obligation that there would be a minimum 30 per cent open space. They did squeal at that; they thought that was very unfair to them. I said, 'Well, you know, you keep racing there then.' Subsequently, through a contribution from us, we increased that open space requirement to 40 per cent, and we still think it a very good outcome for the local community. What we did say to them, having seen what went on in the past with the sale of Cheltenham, was, 'Look, your internal governance is for you, but the other thing we require you to do is that, if you go to a sale process with this, there will be the same sorts of conditions that we would apply as a government, even though it is not us; it is the same sort of probity,' which is what happened. I do have it here. The article from the Independent Weekly states: Opposition shadow racing minister, Angus Redford— No, sorry, it is not this one. This was their attitude: The future of Cheltenham is entirely a matter for the SAJC. There were no strings attached—'Go do whatever you want.' Mr Williams interjecting: The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. CONLON: That is right; they can do anything they want—no 30 per cent open space. And, remember, Iain Evans did criticise us for the imposition of open space on their friends at the SAJC. He is on the record. It is in the Hansard. That is what we did, and we imposed conditions upon how they did it. What we did not do is impose conditions on how they subsequently developed the land with their private sector partner, if that is what it was. We are not party to that, but my understanding of it is that they have a relationship with parties in the private sector for the development of that land. I am not privy to just how it works and how much they get at any time because what we did was to protect the community interest down there, and what they do with the private sector is, in fact, their legal relationship with the private sector. In short, the current status of that is between them and, I think, A.V. Jennings, from memory, I do not know. I have got to say that my understanding is that A.V. Jennings has done a lot of work down there, or is acting upon the understanding that it is going to develop the land, and that is my understanding, too. I do note that someone had some sort of legal challenge there. I am not going to give an opinion on that. The Hon. M.J. Atkinson House of Assembly The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: I wonder where it's funded? The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I wonder where it is funded. But that is the long and short of it. The SAJC, your very good friends who supported you throughout when you were selling the TAB because it was going to save them forever—and it did not, of course, because you sold it for about one year's takings— An honourable member interjecting: The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Yes, we should never forget how great they were, this mob. The big difference between us and them is that, as the shadow spokesman for them said, they can do anything they want with it. They don't care. Well, we did care. We made sure that, when the SAJC got a windfall out of the sale of Cheltenham, there was a dividend for the community as well. That was the extent of our interest. With respect to the current status of the legal relationship between the SAJC and its private sector partner, I suggest that Mitch Williams gets on the phone and asks one of his friends at the SAJC.