ADELAIDE OVAL

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (14:57): My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure. Did the minister know prior to the election that the cost estimate of the Adelaide Oval upgrade had increased?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for Energy) (14:58): I am not sure that prior to the election I knew what the cost estimate was, to be honest; it was not my area of responsibility—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: And for a very good reason. The position, as I understood it, on a matter that I only had peripheral responsibility for, was that we were providing $450 million and the people in cricket and football were going to build a stadium, and if they could not build it for $450 million my understanding at that time was—I am sure it is accurate—that that was their issue. I have to say that I think that fact has got lost a great deal in this debate. As I understand the process, the bottom line was that the stadium people came to government with a proposition. I must say it was 2½ years in the making, not what the Leader of the Opposition said.

Apparently, she was in a bit of disbelief when she was advised that that was actually true. She thought we had pulled it out of the hat because of their great stadium. My understanding was that the people came with the proposal that this amount of money would build them a stadium and our view was that you will get this amount of money, which would be our contribution, and if you need more that is your problem. I have to say what was going on down there never really occupied my mind much because, as far as I was concerned, the exposure of the state was the said $450 million.

There is absolutely no doubt, and it is transparently clear, that that remained the case up until a decision three or four weeks ago to add $85 million to that so that the $450 million would be devoted entirely to the cost of building a stadium, rather than compensating the SACA for infrastructure, or however it was phrased. This remained the case up to that point, and after that point the liability of the state was capped at $535 million. It remains my view that that is where we were and that is where we are. Just so people understand, this is not a building that is being built by the government; it is a structure that will be built with a large—

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: The member for Unley always offers—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: The member for Unley always offers such sparkling and witty interjections. It is no wonder he has the nickname given to him by his colleagues.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No. I have to say that I moved into the member for Unley's electorate and one of the great fringe benefits was getting to vote against him.

Mr Pisoni: It didn't help much!

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It didn't help, but it made me feel better. The bottom line was, as I explained, that so much of this debate is complete nonsense. I point out that these people say it is about getting to the truth. It is not: it is about having a political floorshow. Why didn't they want a political floorshow today? There was a bigger floorshow in town.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: Why didn't you want it yesterday?

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WILLIAMS: Point of order. I think the minister answered the question about three minutes ago and now he is just carrying on and rambling. It is totally irrelevant.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Perhaps if you didn't interject so much, I wouldn't respond.

The SPEAKER: Have you finished answering the question, minister?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I think so.