ADELAIDE OVAL

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (14:40): My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure. Minister, which position do you hold on the need for legislation on the Adelaide Oval redevelopment: your position of two weeks ago when you said you did not need legislation or your position today that you do need legislation? Which one is it?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (14:40): Member for Goyder, I am quite happy to answer any question on Adelaide Oval at some length, but I need to point out that the member for Goyder's question is based on an erroneous estimation of the facts. I do warn him about taking his factual basis from radio reports.

Mr Williams interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for MacKillop, you haven't got the floor.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: The member for MacKillop fails to find me credible: the only man in the history of Westminster parliament to be installed by hissy fit rather than democracy. He believes I lack credibility. We have the former leader of the opposition who got—what was it?—seven votes; we have this bloke who got three votes; he got to be deputy leader, and I lack credibility?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: His credibility is sound everywhere, particularly in Darwin, not quite as good in Penola.

Mr PEDERICK: Point of order, Madam Speaker: relevance, 128. The question was clearly about Adelaide Oval.

The SPEAKER: Then I think your member should stop interjecting across the floor.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It is no doubt that the question in my mind is based upon something said by those two inveterate campaigners against Adelaide Oval, David Bevan and Matthew Abraham. It was fascinating to see Mr Howe, who did at least have the decency to put the cue in the rack, when he did put the cue in the rack, go on their program and thank him for being the only people that supported him.

In fact, I was on that radio program pointing out that I would be bringing legislation to the parliament for Adelaide Oval. They said something along the lines that, 'if you are going to take the precinct off the Adelaide City Council'. I said, 'I do not believe it will be necessary to legislate to do that.' Can I advise those on the other side that, as recently as last night, the council has not decided its position on what I have asked them to do and that is to agree to allow us to license some car parking there.

They may find that amusing, but what I find is that this far down the track with legislation to be before the house that I will introduce this afternoon, this far down the track what we know is this: 80 per cent of SACA members want this to happen, all of football want it to happen, the Adelaide City Council wants football at Adelaide Oval. As of last night, regardless of what one councillor says, they are still considering the proposition put to them, which is why I said I did not think we would need legislation to take anything from them, and that option is still open to us.

What I will be doing is licensing sports to have some car parking on the oval, and it is not a matter I have made a secret of that they would need to have car parking there. Will you recognise on that side of the house that the Adelaide City Council has a far more intelligent and progressive view than the opposition has on this project? Will you go with John Howard, John Olsen, Rob Kerin, Alexander Downer, Christopher Pyne—and, of course, that giant of the Liberal Party, Jamie Briggs, at the behest of the Leader of the Opposition, as I understand it, who came out against it because they had to get some Liberal that was not them to oppose it, even if no-one has heard of him—but will you go with John Howard, Alexander Downer, Rob Kerin, John Olsen? Will you go with all of those people? Will you go with the Adelaide City Council which wants football at Adelaide Oval? Will you go with the people of South Australia? Will you go with your former leader Martin Hamilton-Smith?

Mr MARSHALL: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

The SPEAKER: There is a point of order. The member for Norwood.

Mr MARSHALL: Standing order 98: debate. The minister is clearly debating the fact. He always wants to tell us that the opposition is trying to delay the project.

The SPEAKER: Order! You are now debating the point of order. Sit down.

Mr MARSHALL: The simple fact of the matter is he hasn't even brought the legislation—

The SPEAKER: Sit down. Minister, have you finished your answer?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No. What I will say is that I told that radio program that I would need legislation. I told this house that I would need legislation. I brought that legislation. We have put our cards on the table. We have been as good as our word. We have kept all of our undertakings. Now, please tell us what you are going to do. Please tell the people of South Australia what you are going to do. And will you stop that demented fellow at the back annoying me?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! There will be no quarrels across the floor.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I am glad there are no schoolchildren in here today—there are some. Member for Florey.