ADELAIDE OVAL REDEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 18 May 2011.)

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (11:02): I indicate that I am the lead speaker for the opposition on this matter. We are here to debate the legislation in the Adelaide Oval Redevelopment and Management Bill 2011. To assist the house, and for those who have an interest in this matter, I might outline the opposition's position early in the debate so those who are interested in that can then go about their business. I will then go through a process, over an hour or two, explaining some background to that position. I know the government ministers here are more interested in our position than the detail necessarily behind it.

The opposition will facilitate the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval. The reality is that the government does not need this legislation to build the project. If it really wanted to build the project, there is a whole range of processes it could go through to actually build this project. We all know that the government was in negotiations with football about a compulsory acquisition option. The government has never denied that and that is just an illustration that there are other options available to the government to deliver this project.

So, the question for the opposition was not about whether this legislation was going to guarantee the project proceeding or not. For the opposition, it was about how the project would proceed and, therefore, the accountability measures around this particular process. The opposition will facilitate the development of Adelaide Oval, based on some accountability measures being placed around the process. The reason we need the accountability measures around this particular process is because you simply cannot trust this government.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: How did I know you were going to say that?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The member for Croydon asks: how did he know we were going to say that? It is because the member for Croydon was part of the cabinet, of course, that sat there and misled the public for the whole of the last campaign about this particular matter. So, it would be no surprise to the member for Croydon that we might bring up the misleading of the public for the whole of the last campaign, which, of course, saw the demise of the then treasurer now Minister for Defence over that very issue.

Even the member for Croydon so distrusted his new cabinet that he could not get to the party room quick enough to put a cap, by motion, of $535 million on his own cabinet, because not even the member for Croydon trusts his own cabinet. As soon as he went to the backbench the member for Croydon said, 'Crikey, we can't trust this mob, we better put a cap in'—$535 million. The member for Croydon will be pleased to know that the opposition agrees with him, and we are going to move a cap of $535 million.

The member for Croydon will be interested to know this, and I am really glad that he interjected, in Melbourne's The Age today—this is why we need a legislated cap—there is a report which states:

The AFL will be expected to contribute financially to the project—

that is, the Adelaide Oval project—

but certainly not to the extent of the shortfall required, widely estimated at more than $200 million.

This is in The Age today.

The Hon. K.O. Foley: That's your number.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: We didn't speak to The Age; it's not our number. It continues:

The state government's $535 million pledge includes wiping off the SA Cricket Association's $85 million debt.

So, we agree with the member for Croydon: you cannot trust the cabinet, and the member for Croydon nods. He has been asked to be quiet by the minister. The minister has gone over to the member for Croydon and said, 'Michael, it's budget week'—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I rise on a point of order. What I said to the member for Croydon was, 'This is a brave face on a white flag.'

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Davenport will sit down. Order! This is ridiculous. The Minister for Transport will behave and the members on my left, all of you will behave.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So, Madam Speaker—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Madam Speaker, the member for Croydon is waving the white flag. The Liberal Party will facilitate this project by putting some accountability measures around it. The reality is that—and the government knows this, football knows this, cricket knows this, the Stadium Management Authority knows this, and indeed the Adelaide City Council knows this—the government could proceed with this project if it wanted to.

The measures that the opposition will be seeking are as follows: that the legislation cap the state contribution to $535 million; that the Auditor-General be given powers to audit the project on a regular basis; that the normal planning process applies and that the project also be considered by the parliament's Public Works Committee. In fairness to the government, I received a phone call on Friday or the weekend, I cannot remember, it was leading up to yesterday's meeting, saying that the government intended to take it to the Public Works Committee.

After consulting the Adelaide City Council, we will introduce conditions to leave Light's Vision, Pennington Gardens and Creswell Gardens under the care and control of the council, with the licence areas covering the proposed car parking to the north of the oval and over Adelaide Oval No. 2 subject to a community land management plan to be agreed with the council.

There are some other matters that we are also seeking that did not go out in last night's media statement. These include that the legislation require the Stadium Management Authority to pay rent, and that the rent be small amounts for the first three years: $250,000, $500,000 and $1 million, and then reviewed every three years by the Treasurer. I understand that SACA already pays rent to the city council of about $25,000 a year, and we see no reason why a small rental or licence fee cannot go back to the taxpayer on the basis of this particular development.

The other issue is that the legislation also requires that a sinking fund be established; that the Auditor-General oversee the sinking fund and recommend the amounts required to be placed in the fund; and that the Treasurer has the final say on how much the SMA must put into the sinking fund. This will ensure that there is some oversight that the required amount of money is put aside for the maintenance and protection of the building.

I have already mentioned Colonel Light's Vision and Pennington Gardens. Another issue that the council quite rightly raises is that this legislation vests the land in the minister forever. The council argues that there should be a cut-off point so that parliament has to reconsider the question at some time down the track. The council is suggesting an unconditional lease to the minister for an 80-year period, and that is the position the opposition is adopting. It is an unconditional lease, the only condition being 80 years, so that in 80 years' time the parliament needs to reconsider the question.

What we are trying to do with these particular measures is to bring in a proper planning process to protect the Parklands. Under this bill the minister becomes the development authority. The minister can put there whatever the minister wants. The reality is that this state government said it would never use major project status for developments in the Parklands. This particular process is worse than the major project status that the government said it would never use. So all we are doing is asking the government to keep its word.

Mike Rann and others went out with hand on heart saying that when there is development in the Parklands they would not override proper planning processes. It will be no surprise to the government that we intend to hold it to that promise. We are going to demand the normal planning process. This was announced in December 2009, so the government has already had nearly 18 months to do that planning process if it wanted to, so there is no reason that this should unduly delay the project or unduly add costs to the project. If the government was serious about it, it has had 18 months to start and go through that planning process.

The reality is that Mike Rann as Premier and this government went out and said that it would never use major project status to override the proper planning processes for the Parklands. This process is actually worse than the major project status. This gives minister Conlon, the minister of the day, total power to do whatever development the government wants up until 2015. Why would anyone sign off on that process? There need to be, in our view, proper planning processes.

The former treasurer is here and he might recall that in the 2002 election the then opposition and now government made great play about the Auditor-General's role and power in the Hindmarsh Stadium inquiry. The government adopted a policy that it would change the legislation so that the Auditor-General had the power of audit over publicly-funded projects, specifically quoting the need in the Hindmarsh Stadium inquiry.

The Hon. K.O. Foley: And you botched that!

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: No; you withdrew the legislation. The reality is that if it is good enough for your policy for the Hindmarsh Stadium inquiry it is good enough for Adelaide Oval.

The reality is that the state is about to contribute $535 million to this project and it is only proper that the Auditor-General has the power of oversight and reporting back to the parliament on a regular basis. Why would a government be scared of having the Auditor-General oversee this process? We do not see that as an issue. The opposition thinks that the Auditor-General should have oversight not only of this project but, indeed, of other projects that should generally be within the Public Finance and Audit Act.

They are the key issues as far as the opposition is concerned: the normal planning process; the Auditor-General given powers to audit; legislation requiring rent; Public Works Committee scrutiny; a sinking fund to be established, with the Treasurer having a final say on how much is put into the sinking fund; Colonel Light's Vision, Pennington Gardens and Creswell Gardens remain under the care and control of the council; the licensed areas be subject to a community land management plan; the legislation have an unconditional lease to the council for up to 80 years; and, of course, the protection of the fig trees.

If the government agrees to these particular provisions, what that will do is bring the proper accountability processes to the project. There will be a proper planning process, there will be proper financial oversight and there will be a financial cap for protection of the taxpayers on how much they can spend. There will be a proper plan put in place for the management of protection of the Parklands and then, down the track, the parliament will have the opportunity to revisit the question in 80 years' time as to how this particular project is working and how they reinvest down the track.

They are the conditions in principle that the opposition will be seeking to amend. If the government intends to put this legislation through today, then the amendments will not be here. We finished our party position only last night at about a quarter to 10. I have not had the opportunity—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Quarter to 10?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Well, we did not start until seven on this particular topic, so—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Three hours?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Two hours. It was a great debate.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The reality is, you see, we like to talk to each other.

Mr Williams: We don't ring up Don Farrell and say, 'What do we do?'

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: That is right; we do not announce and defend: we actually sit down and talk it through. We do not ring up Don Farrell and say, 'Don, what should we do here?' We actually sat down and talked it through. They are the key principles that the Liberal Party will be seeking to amend and, on that basis, we would then facilitate the project of the Adelaide Oval.

I just want to go back now and track, if you like, this project and the development over some time, because it is has been an interesting debate over a number of years, and there is a series of things that the parliament needs to think about and I think the state needs to think about, generally. The reality is that the Liberal Party still thinks that a two-stadium policy was and is the right policy for the state, but we accept the fact that we cannot deliver that from opposition, and we accept the fact the government can proceed with this particular development without the legislation. So, we are left with the choice: do we let it go through without any accountability measures, or do we put accountability measures in? We have decided to put accountability measures in.

I just want to talk through why I think this is not necessarily the best result for the state. We accept the fact that is going to be delivered on the state, but the reality is, if you speak to the industry, what are we getting at Adelaide Oval? We are getting a 50,000-seat stadium in the open parkland, with the only car parking infrastructure underground being 400 car parks. So, you are essentially getting an un-roofed stadium—

The Hon. K.O. Foley: Yes, like the MCG.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: —$535 million with 400 car parks underneath. For that project, we are spending around $535 million—$85 million of which, of course, goes to SACA's debt. All the industry advice is: if you wanted to build a stand-alone stadium with only 400 car parks and without a roof, then it would be around that mark. What we are doing in South Australia is we are going long term to a one-stadium strategy.

The Hon. K.O. Foley: Yes.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: 'Yes,' said the former treasurer. The one-stadium strategy. Every other state in Australia has a two-stadium strategy—every other state in Australia. Western Australia has two, Victoria has many, Sydney has two, Queensland has two—

The Hon. K.O. Foley: Bigger populations.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: —and even Tasmania has two.

Mrs Redmond: Not a bigger population!

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: No interjection about a bigger population there from the former treasurer. The reality is even Tasmania has two.

The Hon. K.O. Foley: Two separate cities.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Two separate cities? Fine, but they are still using two facilities. The reality is that, long term, we will be the only mainland state in Australia with one main stadium, if you like. The reality is that we accept the fact that the government is going to deliver that. As I say, all we can really do is put the accountability measures around it.

There is a whole range of issues that goes to the background of this particular stadium. I just want to touch on some of those issues. What we are really getting for our money is that a lot of the industry tells us that the government would have been better to go to the Liberal Party plan of a two-stadium policy, because it thinks, long term, that is going to be where the needs of the state will be.

It was interesting when the Liberal Party met with the SANFL 2006 and in 2008. I met with them as leader in May 2006 and received a submission from the then SANFL CEO, Leigh Whicker. The advice to me as the then leader was that—I remember the figure well—he said, 'Iain, we have a net asset position of $128 million. Why would we want to give that up and move anywhere else?' The conflict between cricket and football programming ultimately meant that the state was best served by two stadiums.

Then, when the member for Waite took over as leader he also had a meeting with the SANFL in December 2008. In December 2008, the SANFL gave the opposition this presentation, where they say that the SANFL's position was that the state needed two stadiums. It went through a whole range of things to consider. It talked about the locality and the potential for development at West Lakes, but on the issue of two stadiums SANFL's position was very clear, and that was that the state needed two stadiums because of the conflict between cricket and football.

So, as late as December 2008, the SANFL's position was that the state needed two stadiums. In fact, they even went as far as putting out a press release saying: 'Whatever you do don't spend $1 million on a stadium. Spend $250 million down at Football Park and that will be the state's saviour.' I will read from a press release from 14 March 2008, where the Adelaide Crows, AAMI Stadium, the SANFL and Port Power put out a press release entitled 'A world-class stadium for Adelaide: the logical solution.' It states:

Debate over the need for a world-class stadium near the Adelaide CBD is heightened by Adelaide's bid to host the 2018 World Cup.

It is believed that such a development will cost in excess of $1 billion...

The South Australian National Football League, Adelaide and Port Adelaide Football Clubs recognise the priorities facing Governments with regard to important public infrastructure in the areas such as health, transport and education, quite apart from spending in the vicinity of $1 billion on the sports stadium.

The SANFL, [Adelaide Football Club and Port Adelaide Football Club] believe that an upgrade of AAMI Stadium together with first-class transport infrastructure at a collective investment in the vicinity of $250 million is the most logical solution...

So, in 2008, the SANFL's position was that they wanted to have a two-stadium strategy. In this particular document, which is the document presented to the opposition in 2008, the SANFL's position was that football and cricket required two major a stadiums due to coincident international and domestic programming. Therefore, a two-stadium policy is essential. They go on and name all the two stadiums in every state, whether that be Subiaco and the WACCA, the MCG and Telstra Dome (as it was then known), the SCG, the Sydney Football Stadium and the ANZ Stadium and, in Queensland of course, there is Suncorp Stadium, the GABBA and now the Gold Coast. They also pointed out the requirements of the rectangular sports—soccer and rugby.

The background to this is that a two-stadium policy was the advice from the codes. The Liberal Party adopted that policy of a two-stadium strategy and argued for football in the city, and the government has come to the conclusion that it needs football in the city. I know that other members will speak about the background to the argument about football in the city, so I will not go into great detail about that, other than to say that the opposition argued for football in the city.

The government was spooked by that argument; it had already committed to developing AAMI Stadium. When the government committed money to AAMI Stadium, it had the big footage of them all walking arm-in-arm down Football Park saying, 'This is the future of football. This is going to be a world-class stadium; this is where it can all happen.' Of course, that has all changed now, because the reality was that the opposition's policy about bringing football to the city changed the public debate. The government panicked and had to find somewhere else, ultimately.

We know that football went to the government and to the Premier and said, 'Look, for around $650 million, we can build a stadium down behind Adelaide High School. We could build a stadium there.' The Premier essentially said that he was not interested, because it was too much like the Liberals' plan. You cannot possibly a adopt a good idea, so we have gone to this process then of going to Adelaide Oval and that is where we are. Right up until December 2009, football in South Australia had argued for a two-stadium policy, and that is why the opposition went out and argued for a two-stadium policy, because we believed the advice of the codes at the time.

The tragedy with this particular project is that, if you look at the announcements of new stadiums around the world, they are multisport stadiums. The Western Australian Carpenter government even announced a redevelopment of a new oval in Western Australia, with 60,000 seats with the capacity to go to 70,000 and, in its announcement (which was ultimately put on hold but has not been totally cancelled, so it is still under consideration), it talked about the need to have slide seating for the rectangular sports so that you could play soccer, rugby, etc., at the one stadium.

You only had to be at Adelaide Oval on the weekend to see there were only 1,000 fewer people watching the soccer at Adelaide Oval than there were down at Football Park watching Port Power. There were only 1,000 fewer, which says something about the popularity of soccer.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: You can't count.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The minister says that I can't count, but in the media reports, one was 22,000, and one was 21,000: 22 take 21—that is 1,000. Let me put it that way: according to media reports, there were just over 22,000 down at Footy Park and 21,000 at the soccer.

Mrs Redmond: Even that was before everyone went home because they got wet.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: That's right. On the weekend you have this game of soccer. The spectators are a long way from the ground. The ground gets soaked. The Socceroos are reported as saying they were upset with the quality of the playing surface—so it is good for cricket, not necessarily for ball sports in the wet—and then of course all the crowd got wet. What we are saying in regard to this project is that, in 20 years' time that will be exactly the same, because there will be no roof on this.

As we say, we think there are issues with this particular project, but we accept the fact that we cannot deliver a roofed stand-alone stadium from opposition. Football and cricket say that, to wait for the outcome of the 2014 election and, if this side is successful, then to build, their financial issues are such that that is a time too far. They have agreed to the government's process. Football signed off, Port Power signed off, the Crows have signed off, cricket has signed off and the council has signed off with some conditions

The opposition accepts the fact that we cannot deliver our project from opposition, so we are going to facilitate this project by putting some accountability measures around it. We have had a number of discussions with the Adelaide City Council. I thank the council officers, staff and elected members for their communications and meetings over time. It is fair to say that the council is concerned about exactly the same issues as the opposition, and that is how you actually make sure the planning process delivers a project that is in keeping with the park-like setting, that makes it a functional facility without ruining the Parklands and keeps the ambience that we all love around Adelaide Oval in place without unduly restricting the operations of the day-to-day events that are going to be held at Adelaide Oval.

That is why we are proposing various amendments because we accept the fact that Adelaide citizens love their Parklands dearly. They certainly want them used in a modern facility, but they also want them used in a sustainable way that protects them long term. That is why Rachel Sanderson, as the member for Adelaide, has done a great job advocating on behalf of her electorate for the protection of the Parklands and her local citizens because we know how important they are to the citizens of Adelaide and the citizens of South Australia more generally.

There are some issues that go more broadly to the question about where you see the future of sport in 50, 60, 70 or 80 years' time in relation to this project. The reason I have concerns about a single-stadium strategy is that I come from this personal position: I can remember when cricket was played over five days in long white pants. During my lifetime we have seen cricket go to coloured uniforms, we have seen night cricket, we have had cricket go to 50-over games, we have gone to Twenty20 games, and now we have gone to private teams owning cricket in India—the IPL—and millionaires playing the game with privately owned teams.

So the issue I have with a single stadium is that I think there are two levels of football, and I made this point very strongly to football because I am not convinced this is necessarily in football's long-term interest. I think there is the AFL and there is the SANFL. Where will football be in 50 years' time? No-one knows, but by having a single stadium for the elite level you effectively hamstring its development. We do not know whether there is going to be a night-time summer competition, which I think would be extraordinarily popular. You could have a Twenty20 version of football played twilights, Friday nights, etc. You could well have privately owned teams. The West Coast Eagles was a privately owned team, I understand, when they first started. Dr Edelsten was involved in Sydney.

As more money comes into the sport, who knows where football will end up? We do know one thing: under this proposal we are hamstringing the sport to one venue, but their sport has made that decision. Football has made that decision, that whatever happens over the next 20, 30 or 40 years in the development of their sport, they can manage it on one oval. I am not convinced I would have made that decision had I been running football, but just as the opposition listened to the sports when we argued for a two-stadium strategy, we accept the fact that they are running football and not the opposition. They will obviously make the decisions they see in relation to the best interests of their particular sport.

There has been some comment about the Stadium Management Authority being a company and who may end up running the Stadium Management Authority. The house needs to understand this very point. The Stadium Management Authority is a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee—it is a Pty limited company—four directors by cricket, four directors by football. If football wanted to appoint the AFL to run as their four directors, they could do that today. If cricket wanted to nominate the Australian Cricket Board as their four directors, they could do that today. In fact, if cricket wanted to nominate the AFL, they could do that today. They do not have to be members of SACA or members of the SANFL—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: I can see that happening.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: No. The minister says, 'I can see that happening.' I do not think cricket are about to appoint football; I accept that, minister. What I am saying, though, is that because the directors can change, and there is no government control over who the directors can be, who will actually end up managing the SMA in 10, 15, or 20 years is anyone's guess. The minister may want to consider whether he wants any oversight as to who might be appointed as a director because the SMA is, in effect, managing this process on behalf of the taxpayer. It is managing it on behalf of the sport, but it is also managing it on behalf of the taxpayer.

Another issue that has arisen is this whole debate about what will happen with the football licences. Nearly 12 months ago, I raised with football that it was obvious to me that one option was to try to sell the licences. What the SANFL could do would be to get the SMA in place as management of the facility, then sell its licences—whether that be back to the clubs themselves or offload them to the AFL—and then, ultimately, just be a stadium manager and let the AFL or the clubs take the risk on the performance of the teams, rather than the SANFL clubs take that risk.

The government is proposing to let them rezone all the land around the current AAMI Stadium and run trams down there in 2018, at a cost of around $220 million; after football leaves, it is going to run trams to Football Park and let them redevelop it, and that money will go into a future fund for the SANFL. There were cheaper ways for a future fund to be established if the government had wanted be involved in that but, ultimately, that is the model being adopted. Where do you see football in 20 years' time? I suspect that you will see the AFL teams as free agents and the SANFL as, essentially, a stadium manager of the oval in conjunction with cricket, and that a trust fund will be set up to support the eight or nine South Australian National Football League clubs.

I should declare (as I have already done in my register of interests) that I am a member of the Sturt Football Club, not in a decision-making capacity or on any of the committees but as a member and as one of the vice presidents, where you pay a sum to be invited to even more expensive lunches and dinners. I also have a lad who plays for Sturt, so I do declare that interest. Sturt is a member of the SANFL, and I know that other members are members of various clubs. I raise the issue of my personal concern that down the track there will be a restriction on football and on how it can possibly develop the game. You never know what the next opportunity is, coming around the corner.

I remember 1974, when the first grand final was played at Football Park and Sturt beat Glenelg; Robbie Barton came on in the last quarter and provided an extra run, and we got across the line against the Bays. Jack Oatey was coach and, after the premiership win, he spoke about the need for a national competition. Oatey outlined his view that football would end up having a national competition involving teams from other states. He said he was not smart enough to work it out, but even in the 1970s, as Football Park was being developed, the thinking in some of the more forward thinking of the football community was to develop a national competition. My point is that we are locking this in for 80 years, and who knows where football will be in 80 years? One thing is for sure: ultimately, they will be constrained to one venue.

Another issue that cricket needs to think about is that football will, I think, end up having a series of licences of 20, 20, 20 and 20 to make up the 80-year licence configuration. If football leaves after 20 years, and cricket is left with a 50,000-seat stadium for cricket crowds, has the business case been done regarding whether cricket can sustain that? I am not sure whether cricket has looked at whether it can sustain that particular expenditure if football walks away at the 20-year mark.

The reason the 20-year mark is important is that the SANFL intends to redevelop Football Park at about that 20-year mark; that will be the crucial decision time in that particular process. Once that decision is taken, it is all over; we are locked in, if you like, for the 80 years. So, this is not a small decision the codes have taken. We are locking ourselves in here for 80 years. The stadium is being built to a 50-year life cycle, as I understand it. So, we are locked in as a state for that 50 to 80-year period.

The SMA put out an economic report by the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies. I in no way criticise the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies, which was asked to produce a report, based on certain assumptions and, based on the assumptions it was given, it did produce a report. The reality is that the report itself states that there is no cost-benefit analysis—and no cost benefit analysis has been done for this project; it is essentially driven by the needs of politics and the needs of the sports. There has been no cost-benefit analysis for this project.

There has also been no business case that the opposition has seen presented publicly. Football and cricket may well have gone and done their assumptions, which we understand they have. They have developed their business case, and they have come out and made certain announcements, but certainly the opposition has not been able to go behind those announcements to look at all the assumptions to see whether they are valid.

I know there has been some public concern about, for instance, the level of attendances for both Port Power and Crows that are assumed in the economic study. The economic study assumed that we were going to have the Rugby Sevens here forever; the Rugby Sevens did not last four weeks, after the announcement of this, they have gone. So, there are some issues with the economic model, as we speak. There is not even a guarantee that the soccer games in the business case are guaranteed to be played, given the reported comments by the Socceroos after the last game there this week. So, the economic case has not been revealed.

The other point I want to make—and this comes back to the rental issue—is this: if you believe SACA, the business case for SACA says that it is going to get a $9 million a year uplift and, if you believe football, it is going to get, from memory, an $8 million uplift. I have no reason to doubt those figures: why would the sports propose false figures and the boards would have to sign off on them? So, I am confident those figures are around the mark, in the parameters of the advice those boards have been given.

But the question comes: what has never been revealed is how much money the SMA is going to make out of catering. The $8 million uplift comes from the football activity and the $9 million uplift for cricket comes from the cricket activity, but there is, from memory, an 800 or 1,000-person dining facility being placed there, in one of Adelaide's premier viewing spots. So, you are going to have a huge catering division, which will compete, of course, with the publicly-funded Convention Centre and the Festival Theatre, and other convention and dining premises in the state—and that is a 24/7 operation, in effect, in that it operates outside of cricket and football events. So, there is a huge catering profit to be made, and that figure has never been made public.

We are saying that football gets its $8 million and cricket gets its $9 million a year, how much does the SMA get out of its catering? That is why we say that a small rental back to the taxpayer is not unwarranted. We are, after all, paying the whole of the $535 million, and we are, after all, paying the $26 million a year in interest. If you work it out roughly, it is sort of 5 per cent; it is about $20 million to $25 million a year interest. So, if they are making $9 million and $8 million a year plus (it is a $17 million a year uplift plus), why should the taxpayer not be asking for a small licence fee back? I accept that it may not be a commercial rent, but I see no reason why there should not be some ask back from the SMA to the taxpayer based on those figures.

The other issue is that the government has not put any criteria around what the codes may do with their money. So, if cricket makes $9 million a year, then cricket says it is going to spend it on community cricket, there is no process around how we are going to actually check or guarantee that. Does there need to be? I am not sure. The same with football: they say they are going to spend their money on community football and supporting the SANFL clubs. I think the clubs will certainly claim a lot of the money.

There are a lot of issues in the background of this particular issue, and the opposition has not landed in this position without giving it a lot of thought. The problems we have with the government's bill as it stands is that it simply gives the government carte blanche to do what it wants on the site between 2011 and the end of 2015. It is essentially a bill that says, 'Trust the government to develop this nicely. We won't trash the Parklands and we will end up with a nice development.'

When the government was in opposition and introduced its own amendments to the parklands act, it made it crystal clear that its position was that a government should never have those powers. We agree with the government on that aspect and that is why we argue for the proper planning process, because you will get a balanced outcome out of the proper planning process.

To be clear, this is the same process that delivered the Development Assessment Commission approval for the Victoria Park corporate facility for racing and the Clipsal 500. That went through the Development Assessment Commission and was approved, and then the government did not proceed with it. The planning process worked; it was politics that got in the way.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: We couldn't get a lease.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Ultimately, the development approval was done. You backed out of it because Jane Lomax-Smith—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: We backed out of it because the council wouldn't give us a lease!

Ms Chapman: Come on!

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Ultimately, you backed out of it because Jane Lomax-Smith told you she would lose her seat. The other example is the western grandstand at Adelaide Oval itself. The western grandstand at Adelaide Oval essentially went through that process, so SACA and the government have been running around saying, 'Isn't the western grandstand great?' Certainly, the South Australian public have warmly embraced it. The planning process delivered that, and that is why we see no issue with that process.

There are some issues we will be asking in committee, just to get clarification on a few issues around how this will exactly work. If the government intends to put this to the full vote tonight, then obviously we are not going to have any amendments here today and we will do them in the other place. If they adjourn it, then we will obviously try to get our amendments done as quickly as we can, but given that it is budget week, I am not sure how we will go. We will give priority to getting the amendments done so this house can consider them. That is ultimately a matter for the government.

Even as late as yesterday we were still receiving messages from the city council (and that is not a criticism of the council) about their particular position. We could only take it to the party room last night, so I do not think anyone really expected us to walk in here today with our amendments already drafted, given the lateness of the hour that we finished last night.

Under this bill, the existing lease to SACA is extinguished without compensation. Under the bill, a new lease will (I am speaking now about what the government is proposing) be given to the SMA for up to 80 years, subject to the rights of SACA and the SANFL, which have been set out in licences granted by the minister. Essentially, they will have unrestricted exclusive use of the oval for certain periods of the year: SACA from 8 October to 14 March inclusive; the SANFL from 15 March to 7 October. I understand the advice from the offices was that, if there is a dispute between the codes as to the overlap, ultimately it is the minister who becomes the umpire, if you like.

In regard to the licence area, I have mentioned previously the requirement for licensing of certain areas for car parking and I do not intend to go through that again. I reinforce that this bill gives the minister the power to do any development the minister wants without any scrutiny at all. The exception is public scrutiny, but there would be no scrutiny against development plans or whatever. That is why we are opposed to it. It simply puts too much power in one person's hands, in my view.

In relation to Adelaide Oval No. 2, my understanding from the officers' briefing is that there is a proposal to bring half of the Clem Hill Stand down to Adelaide Oval No. 2 and it will be erected there, and then, I suspect, some change rooms and toilet facilities will be put under the stand. That is the reason the Adelaide City Council wants that area licensed differently. It wants the licensed area split into at least two—the northern car park area and the Adelaide Oval No. 2 area, the Adelaide Oval No. 2 area being licensed differently because it needs to allow for sporting infrastructure, whereas the northern car park, in the council's view (and we accept this), should not allow sporting infrastructure, as such. That is why the council wants the area split into two licensed areas.

Under the government's proposal, of course, all the construction buildings are authorised to go on site, which would be nothing unusual. Under the government's bill there is no interaction with the Adelaide Park Lands Management Strategy under the Adelaide Park Lands Act 2005. That simply does not apply. The management plans under part 2 of the Local Government Act simply do not apply, and I understand that council rates will not be charged on this particular facility, either.

In regard to the reason the opposition has reached its position on the accountability measures, I want to talk for a little bit about, for instance, the Auditor-General's powers. The Auditor-General is reported in the media in May this year as saying to the Public Works Committee, 'Not being a public authority and a public finance, it is not auditable by the Auditor-General.' During the 2002 election campaign the government made a lot about its plan for an honest and open government which, on reflection, is a bit laughable.

Labor's plan for lifting standards of honesty and accountability in government said that 'a good government does not fear scrutiny or openness' and that Labor made commitments to 'amend the Public Finance and Audit Act to ensure proper, effective auditing of government finances, including all types of government contracts and dealings with the private sector'. It went on to say it will enhance the powers of the Auditor-General to ensure that the Auditor-General has sufficient legislative authority to investigate all of the contracts and dealings with the private sector, including the words 'it is vital for the Auditor-General to have the ability to scrutinise, properly and rigorously, public funded projects'.

The reason we will move those amendments is that the government went to the public saying that is what it was going to do and it believed the Auditor-General should have these powers over publicly funded projects. So that is exactly what the opposition is going to demand of the government. We are going to hold it to its promise.

On the issue of the Parklands, I want to reinforce what the government's position has been in the past. In 2001 the then Labor opposition released a plan called Labor's Plan to Save the Parklands. In releasing that plan, the opposition leader Mr Rann said, 'The proposals include blocking state government from imposing developments on the Parklands.' They were going to block proposals for the state government to impose developments on the Parklands. He said, 'Adelaide's parklands help make our city special but, too often, they have been seen just as land to be built on, as open space.' They go on to say in the policy:

Blocking state governments from overriding proper planning processes by using major project status and imposing developments in the Parklands.

Again, in Labor's plan to save open spaces in our Parklands, the policy said:

Labor recognises that Parklands don't belong to the state or the city council, they belong to the people and to the future generations and they intend to change the law to block state governments overriding proper planning processes by use of major project status to impose developments on the Parklands.

We are saying, 'Okay, if that's your policy, that's what you told the South Australian public, then we agree with you; we're going to hold you to it.' The process under this bill is worse, in our view, than major project status.

I do not need to hold the house much longer. I know that a lot of my colleagues wish to speak on the views from their various electorates on this matter. The reality is that the opposition believed in a two-stadium policy. I want to talk about one little issue: the issue the media have run for some time about plan B; where is plan B. Football told us that they could not talk to us about plan Bs because they had signed legal agreements with the government to negotiate in good faith to deliver the government's project. That was the advice from football. There were lots of options for plan Bs for football, in particular (because cricket will always stay at Adelaide Oval), to be talked about now that the rail yards hospital is going on what was our original site.

At the end of the day, football's advice to us was that they were not prepared to negotiate with us because they were negotiating in good faith with the government and therefore a development of different options then became more difficult. I would have loved the opportunity personally—and this is not the Liberal Party position; it would be wrong to suggest it is—to talk to football, and indeed the council, about whether the right place for an inner city stadium, if there were to be a two-stadium site, would not have been at the end of West Terrace, essentially adjacent to Adelaide High School just near Sir Donald Bradman Drive.

You could then run the tram down West Terrace, pick up netball and athletics, Keswick Railway Station and Adelaide Airport. So you would go down West Terrace, Sir Donald Bradman Drive, pick up athletics, netball, Keswick Railway Station and the airport. The government already has $220 million in the budget to take trams to football. You could flick that budget over to there and stage it over some years, and out of that stadium they could have then flooded into the Gouger Street end with all the restaurants, cafes, etc., and you would have a sporting precinct down the western side of the city and the cultural precinct around the northern side of the city.

I think it would have been a good discussion to have with the sports, but football locked into negotiating in good faith. If they fell over for some reason they would have been happy to come back. It is clear it is not going to fall over. All those opportunities are now gone and we are now locked into this single stadium strategy. I thank football and cricket and their officers for their negotiations, comments and discussions over many months on this issue, and the minister's officers for their briefing the other day—we appreciate that. With those few words, the opposition will facilitate this project, subject to various conditions.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:00): When I came in here, when the member for Davenport started his comments, the former treasurer asked me across the chamber whether I got rolled in the party room last night. For the information of the house, I do not mind divulging what I said to the party room last night, and it was not that different from what the member for Davenport just told the house, that is, that this piece of legislation is not essential to deliver the project.

My comments to my colleagues in the party room were that, if I could stop this project, I would do whatever I could, but this is not a way of stopping the project, and so—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Oh, yes it is.

Mr WILLIAMS: 'Oh, yes it is,' says the minister, but I do not believe that is the case. I will put to the house some of the things that I said in the party room last night and the reasons why I think this is a very poor project for South Australia that will hamstring the development of sport in South Australia for many years to come, if not a couple of generations, and that is a great disappointment.

The member for Davenport, I think, has put a very cogent argument against the project; he has put why the project has ended where it is rather than where it should be. He has actually put on the record the politics that have gone on. The Liberal Party has been responsible at the end of the day for getting football into the city. The last three leaders of the Liberal Party, at least, have been arguing with football that they should be back in the city. The member for Davenport, when he was leader of the Liberal Party, approached the SANFL and argued that football should be back in the city.

The member for Waite, when he was the leader, approached football and argued that football should be back in the city; and the current leader has been arguing consistently that football should be back in the city. We are committed to having football back in the city as a party. We thought that made sense. It would not surprise me—and I do not know because I have not asked him the question—if a previous leader, Rob Kerin (the former member for Frome), might have approached football. However, we consistently were told by football that their home was at AAMI Stadium.

As recently as only a few months ago, when I spoke to them, senior people in football were lamenting that they were going to end up at Adelaide Oval. There is a whole host of people in football who still are not sold on the merits of this project. The reality is that this project is not the best thing for football in this state, and I think that anyone who understands football and understands where the Australian Rules code is heading accepts that.

If anyone thinks that playing football over the next 40 to 50, maybe 80 years (because we are talking about 80-year leases), in an uncovered stadium at Adelaide Oval, where a significant number of the seats are far removed from the action (because of the way in which the stadium is constructed), is the way that the modern football spectator is going to be watching football in Australia in the next 20 years they are kidding themselves. That is just not the way the reality is going to be.

I happened to be at the soccer on Sunday, and, notwithstanding what the minister tried to claim by way of interjection, there were about 22,000 people at Adelaide Oval on Saturday night.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: Well, the official figure was well over 21,000. I can attest to that because I was a guest of the Australian Soccer Federation, the Australian football association. I was actually in the committee room, and I was allocated a seat. I can tell members that it was five rows in front of the committee room, so it is well up into the stand, and in that row you got wet under what they call the 'drip line'. I know who the drips are in this debate and they are not sitting on this side of the house.

If you go to football at Adelaide Oval, I think that you stand more than a 30 per cent chance of getting wet if the weather is inclement, and I think that was proved last Sunday. For people to claim that the vast majority of the seats will be out of the rain is a nonsense. It was sad. I was saddened to read confirmation of what I observed. The soccer players were slipping badly on the ground and they were literally tearing up the oval as they ran around the oval. I see reports that players are saying they would refuse to play at Adelaide Oval again. I am somewhat disturbed by that. I do not suspect that that is an insurmountable problem, but it is certainly a problem at Adelaide Oval at the moment.

I want to talk about a couple of things in my electorate, which I think are possibly a direct result of this decision by this government at this time. The Keith hospital: it is very difficult for me to go into the township of Keith and say to the people of Keith, 'We need a new football oval, we need a new redevelopment at Adelaide Oval,' when the government cannot even fund a couple of hundred thousand dollars to keep the doors of that hospital open. That is what is happening at Keith. The hospital is under severe threat of closure, yet this government is saying that we can spend hundreds of millions of dollars redeveloping the Adelaide Oval, and I will come to the cost in a minute.

People in the southern part of my electorate are being told that the state has to sell our forests. You can go into Mount Gambier and talk to a man, a woman and a child. They fully believe that they are paying for the Adelaide Oval, that the forests are being sold, that jobs have been threatened, and that the South-East has been sacrificed to provide a redeveloped Adelaide Oval. It does not matter what this government says: the people of the South-East are being dealt with very poorly at the moment. I totally support them in this and totally agree with them: they cannot see why this government is hell-bent on threatening their livelihoods and their communities while spending upwards of $600 million on this project.

That is one of the reasons why I argued last night—and I agree with the point that we should put a financial cap on this development to cap the taxpayers' contribution—in the party room that that cap should have been the $450 million because that is the amount that the government can claim it has a mandate for. It cannot claim that it has a mandate for any more than that because the Premier himself said $450 million of taxpayers' money, 'not one cent more'. That is what the Premier told the people of South Australia before the last election, but we all know that the Premier struggles from time to time with the truth.

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: Well, that is what he told the people of South Australia. I cannot answer why the Premier says one thing one day solemnly and makes a promise and then does something else the next day. I cannot answer for that. But that is what he told the people of South Australia. The then treasurer told the people of South Australia—I am not sure whether it was on 18 or 19 March but it was either the day or two days before the March 20 election last year—'We've got experts who have been working on this for a long time and we've got the numbers locked down and we know what it is, and it is $450 million.'

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: I just said, if you were listening, the former treasurer. I said the former treasurer. Go and read Hansard. Go and clean your ears out. You are wandering around here taking no notice, not listening, and then making inane comments. Go and read the Hansard; I said the former treasurer.

An honourable member interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That includes you, minister.

Mr WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I said, the former treasurer solemnly said, and I reckon it was on Radio FIVEaa a day or two before the election—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: I never said he was, you fool. I never said he was.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I was there before you.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: 'Fool' is just unparliamentary.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: He needs to contain himself.

Mr Williams interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for MacKillop will sit down. Your point of order was, minister?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: 'Fool' is unparliamentary. I would ask the honourable member to withdraw it.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would that be similar to 'buffoon'?

An honourable member interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I see. Member for MacKillop, it would appear that the minister is offended by 'fool'. It is indeed unparliamentary. I am sure that, because you are gracious, you will withdraw it immediately.

Mr WILLIAMS: I will withdraw immediately, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will not reflect on the minister in such terms if he stops behaving—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, there are no conditions.

Mr WILLIAMS: —the way he has been behaving.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for MacKillop, there are no conditions applied to that point of order.

Mr WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I unconditionally withdraw from calling the minister a fool. The reality is this government has no mandate to spend one cent more than $450 million. Notwithstanding that—

The Hon. K.O. Foley: Then why are you putting $535 million in the bill?

Mr WILLIAMS: There is another one in the room, madam. There is another one who does not listen and makes inane comments when members are trying to explain the reasons for what they are doing and voting for certain things. For the sake of the former treasurer, I point out that I argued in the party room that we should be capping this at $450 million, because you promised the people of South Australia that that's what it was going to cost. You are the one who has the problem with the truth, not me. I do not have a problem with the truth, but a lot of people on that side struggle with it. They struggle with it every day.

The Hon. K.O. Foley: Nasty.

Mr WILLIAMS: Oh, very nasty—at least I'm honest, and that is something that this state could do with a fair bit of. I am delighted that the Liberal Party is going to move—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Were you honest at the cellar door that day?

Mr WILLIAMS: Madam, the minister is making a comment, which he has made at some stage before. I personally have no idea what he is talking about. I have no idea what he is talking about, but I ask the minister that, if he has got something to say, go out on the front steps of parliament and say it. No? You don't have the guts to.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: What is it you want me to say out there?

Mr WILLIAMS: I don't know. I have no idea what you are talking about.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Well, what are you talking about then?

Mr WILLIAMS: You keep saying this. You keep saying something about 'on the steps of the cellar door somewhere'. I have no idea what you are talking about, minister. Go out there and say it. You are the one who keeps raising this issue.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: I'll talk about the steps of the cellar door outside?

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes, go on, go and do it. You are not going to intimidate me with more untruths, minister. Madam Deputy Speaker—

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The honourable member—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could you sit down please, member for MacKillop.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: —has suggested that I have told untruths. He is not allowed to do that except by substantive motion.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: How was he insinuating that you have told untruths?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: He just said that I was telling untruths; that's what he said.

Mr WILLIAMS: I never said that.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: What did you say then?

Mr WILLIAMS: I said I am not going to be intimidated by you insinuating, using untruths.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: 'By your untruths.'

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for MacKillop, sit down. Member for MacKillop, I realise that this is a debate of some passion and some enthusiasm, but let us stay within the bounds of what is parliamentary.

Mr WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I simply make the point, if the minister has something to say about me—and he is trying to intimidate me—go outside and say it.

Mrs Geraghty: He's not trying to intimidate you.

Mr WILLIAMS: He is, Robyn, and you know he is. He is a typical coward, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will get on with my comments. I would be a lot happier if this parliament restricted this government to $450 million of taxpayer spend on this particular project. I would be a lot happier. That is what it promised to the people of South Australia. If it ever got a mandate, that is what it got the mandate for, yet today it wants to spend $535 million, and that does not include parts of the project which were in the original $450 million price tag, things like a footbridge over the river and car parking.

So, the government has been telling porkies from day one on this and will continue to, and if there is not a cap in legislation I will guarantee that the government will spend more and more money on this project, because it knows, and we know, that this government is incapable of delivering a project within budget. The reality is this government just has not been able to deliver a project within budget.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for MacKillop, I would like to make one particular point. You are inferring, and have been inferring for some minutes, that individuals and indeed governments are lying. You know that that is unparliamentary, and I would ask you to refrain from doing so. I am sure that your use of language is so extraordinary that you do not have to go down that path.

Mr WILLIAMS: Thank you for your direction, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not remember using the word 'lie' at all.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Inference. I think the word 'porky' is generally understood to refer to a lie or a small pig.

Mr WILLIAMS: I apologise to the house, but I do not know how else to explain that a minister or a premier says, '$450 million and not one penny more' and then, after the election, it is revealed that it is $535 million. I—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for MacKillop, order! First of all, you are not here to argue with me. I am in the chair and what I say goes. Secondly, if you do not understand the difference between inference and plain speaking, I cannot help you. Carry on.

Mr WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will make it quite plain: I am not inferring that members of the government said one thing one day and did something else the next day. I am not inferring that at all; that is fact. That is what they did. They said not one penny more. They probably said not one cent more than $450 million one day and the next day they revealed that it was $535 million. I am not inferring anything; it is fact. I do not have to live with it. It is not on my conscience, and that is a blessing I have that is not shared by too many people on the opposite side. It is not on my conscience.

The problem that we have in South Australia is that we will be locked—and this is not plan B, this is plan C—into plan C, a third rate option for the city and the people of this state, for a long, long time. It is not as though we are going to spend $535 million on the redevelopment of the Adelaide Oval over the next few years and then, in five or six years, turn around and build a decent stadium. That is not going to happen. This is going to lock the public of South Australia into that stadium for a long time—I would say 30 or 40 years. That is the lifespan these developments usually have. That is about the life that AAMI Stadium will have had by the time football moves out of there and into the city. That is about the time that we will be locked into this stupid decision.

When I was at the soccer on the weekend, I was talking to some officials from New Zealand. They are cricket followers, too, and they said what a wonderful place the Adelaide Oval is, a beautiful, picturesque stadium, with ambience, etc. I said, 'But it's going to be redeveloped and they're going to do this and this, and it's going to cost $535 million.' This chap, who is pretty high up in soccer in New Zealand, looked at me with this incredulous look on his face and said, 'But you could get a real stadium for that.' And he is right.

This is the pity. We are selling out football. We are selling out one of the iconic cricket stadiums in the world—which will never be the same again—and we are going to get a half-baked car park in the Parklands for the princely sum of $535 million. It disappoints me greatly and it infuriates my constituents. They believe they have been sacrificed for this, and I happen to agree with them.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (12:19): This is a matter of passion and enthusiasm for me as well—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: And stupidity for him.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: —and I would love to see a brand new sports stadium—

Mr WILLIAMS: Point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If saying somebody is a fool is unparliamentary, I think accusing somebody of stupidity must be unparliamentary also. The minister just referred to my speech as being one of stupidity.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do apologise. Unfortunately, member for MacKillop, I didn't hear it because I was listening to your colleague.

Mr WILLIAMS: I am sure the minister won't claim that he didn't say it.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: My reply is no because, despite the egregious insults from the other side, I am entirely honest and I did say it. I apologise. I was inflamed by the moment but I withdraw. He is entitled to make whatever speeches he wishes.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, minister. Sorry, member for Stuart.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: That is okay. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I say, I feel passionate and enthusiastic about this issue as well on behalf of the people of Stuart. I think it would be absolutely fantastic; it would be absolutely tremendous to have a brand-new sports stadium.

I think it would be even better to have two sports stadiums in the City of Adelaide. It would be tremendous. I have a stronger sporting background than anybody else currently in parliament. I value these potential facilities. I understand how useful they would be for the development of sport: for cricket, for football, for grassroots sport.

The reality is, though, we just cannot afford it. It is no different to any other things that we would like to have in our lives personally—our family budgets, our business budgets, our social lives. It does not matter how good it is. If you cannot afford it, you cannot afford it and that is the bottom line with this project. The reason we cannot afford it is that we are spending too much money on a brand-new Royal Adelaide Hospital off site. That is the reason we cannot afford it.

The government has no mandate to upgrade Adelaide Oval—no mandate whatsoever. It is not in the last budget—presumably we will learn a bit about it this week—and it certainly was not an election promise—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Yes, it was.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: —to spend $535 million. It was an election promise to spend $450 million. So, there is no mandate to do what the government says it wants to do either.

The people of Stuart, overwhelmingly, do not support this development—not because they do not want it, but because they cannot afford it and they would like to see the money spent in other ways throughout rural, remote and outback South Australia. However, the reality is that the government will proceed with this project. Whether the people of Stuart or any other people want this to happen, the government will proceed with this project.

The fact is, as the shadow treasurer has very, very well outlined, the Liberal Party's position is to provide some accountability, to provide some control measures and, most importantly, to put amendments forward that put sensible, rational control of the project in line with what the government has already said that it would do.

Capping the taxpayers' contribution to this project at $535 million is extremely important. It is very important because the government said, leading up to the election, that it would only spend $450 million on this project and not a cent more. Now, it says, '$535 million and not a cent more.' We cannot just trust that promise, so we want to put that promise into the legislation. I think it is very fair to hold the government to its latest and current promise and say that we want that in the legislation. I think that, if the government is not prepared to accept that being in the legislation, it opens up a whole can of worms about exactly why not.

Giving the Auditor-General regular oversight of the project is extremely important. Giving the normal planning authorities oversight of the project is very, very important. Allowing council to retain control over some of its assets, which it has managed for the last 100 years or more, is a very, very important control.

Putting some rent into the project, rather than just handing over all this money and upgrading the Adelaide Oval, is very, very important, and particularly important to me as our proposal is that the rent would go towards grassroots sport throughout the state. I think that is very, very important as well. Protecting some trees and quite a few other measures of accountability that the shadow treasurer, the member for Adelaide and the rest of the Liberal Party have developed together to control this project, to control the government and to hold it accountable are very, very important.

The economic case that I have seen put together for this project, I think, is fairly thin. I think it is fairly thin because the people who put the economic case together based that case on assumptions given to them which I do not think are very robust. I understand it was done by them in a hurry and I understand that it does not make the whole case wrong, but I think the reality is not nearly as favourable as that case would have it.

I think the attendance assumptions can be called into question. I think that, considering the economic benefit to the City of Adelaide by comparing the current extremely low attendances at football at AAMI Stadium and working from the lowest case that we now have and assuming that the very best case that we can imagine will eventuate, is not appropriate. I also think that, as the economic case itself points out, it is very important to restate that the overall economic case applied to this project does not consider the fact that the economic benefit currently enjoyed by the western suburbs and greater metropolitan Adelaide by what happens at the moment at AAMI Stadium is not taken away from the build-up that is claimed to come from the Adelaide Oval.

One of the very easy and simple snapshots that can be taken out of this economic case that supports the upgrade of the Adelaide Oval, and which I think most people can understand, one of the wash-ups is that this upgrade will create 405 new jobs. Now, 405 new jobs would be good. I would prefer that they were in regional South Australia, but 405 new jobs in metropolitan Adelaide is very good for our state as well. But if you want to spend $535 million to create 405 jobs, they are pretty expensive jobs, well in excess of $1 million per job. I call into question how usefully that money is being spent and whether claiming that 405 new jobs at a price of $535 million of taxpayers' money is really money well spent.

The issues with regard to football and cricket are fairly well known. Cricket is asset rich, cash poor, and certainly debt burdened. Football is in all sorts of strife, financially and performance-wise, at the moment, and we all hope that both of those will improve. Whether you are a Crows supporter or a Port Power supporter, or just a football supporter in general, you would certainly like the teams' performance to improve, but the reality is that as well as playing badly they are in a dreadful financial situation, and football (the SANFL) has made it very clear that it will not survive, in its opinion, without this stadium upgrade. It sees this as the way forward and its salvation.

I think that, in reality, if you looked into their hearts, they would not honestly say that the Adelaide Oval upgrade will save them. I think they probably would say that the Adelaide Oval upgrade might save them, and it will certainly buy them some more time. I do not think that anybody who knows anything about business or sport, or football specifically, could really put their hand on their heart and say that this upgrade will save football.

We do not reach the current capacity levels at AAMI Stadium (38,000 people) and I doubt very much that we will reach the new capacity level of about 50,000 people at the soon to be upgraded (it seems) Adelaide Oval, except for the very high profile games, which at the moment, unfortunately, neither Port nor the Crows are playing in anything like high profile games.

I heard the president of the Geelong Football Club speaking on the ABC morning sports program last Saturday morning, and he had a very interesting insight, certainly something that I had not heard. He was being asked about the Geelong stadium. He was being asked, 'But surely you would like to have a bigger stadium at Geelong? Surely you would consider a much bigger stadium at Geelong, or surely you would like to shift to Melbourne CBD for all of your matches?'

He said, 'Look, there are two, maybe three, AFL teams that we always do want to play against at the MCG because we want that capacity, and of course that is good, but really for the rest of our games we are happy to play at Geelong. We love playing at Geelong. We like our home ground advantage.' He was pressed to say, 'But surely you want more seats?' His answer was, 'We would actually really like to increase our capacity at Geelong'—for quite a few years now one of the most successful and powerful football teams in the AFL—'football stadium to about 40,000 people. That would be great.'

The commentator said, 'Forty thousand, surely that's not enough?' He said, 'Let me tell you something: when seats at our home stadium are a bit hard to get, people want to be members of our club. If we had surplus capacity, it would hurt our membership, because they just know that if they want to come to one, two or three games a year, they can roll along whenever they like, buy a ticket on that Saturday, Sunday or Friday (whatever it is) and get in. When seats are a bit hard to get, they pay up; they become members; they give us their money so that they can secure a seat at our smaller stadium whenever they like.' It certainly was not lost on me that perhaps that sort of business acumen might be helpful for Port and the Crows just at the moment when they are in a diabolical situation.

Another thing that occurs to me is that, with regard to the football situation—because, as we all know from seeing the media in the past week or so, Port is in a dreadful situation, the Crows are not in a tremendous situation, and the AFL has come in to give Port a bit of a lifeline—one of the big issues that the SANFL wants to avoid is having to surrender either one of its licences to the AFL. Understandably, the SANFL's responsibility—and a big part of its work—is to try to retain those licences. It is the South Australian National Football League. It wants to retain those licences—and I respect that—and it is very fearful that, if it cannot do it, then the AFL will just take those licences away and it will have no choice but to surrender them.

I think the AFL is getting an absolutely outstanding deal from this stadium upgrade. The AFL is going to get a tremendous deal, because if it took those licences now, either one or both—who knows—it would get the football teams in all sorts of difficulty. If it can just dribble some funds into Port Power to help them through until it can then get the Port Power licence, plus a brand-new stadium, plus access to its brand-new stadium, then I think the AFL is being very smart about this and has really hoodwinked quite a few people in this situation. I see the AFL as throwing a lifeline to the SANFL so that the SANFL will not sink and drown straightaway, but I would not mind betting that it will, shortly after this stadium is completed, acquire those licences.

I can understand why the SANFL wants to fight and I can understand why it wants to do whatever it can do to keep its head above water, but I am not optimistic that it will see them through in the long run. In the long run it will come from success on the field. You do not need a big stadium to get success on the field: what you need are good players, good coaches and some money. I understand that you need to have a successful club, whether it comes through the example of the Geelong Football Club that I mentioned before, which deliberately keeps its stadium just a little bit smaller and making tickets a little bit harder to find.

One of the big issues facing football (and many other sports at the moment) is the cost of tickets. Every day and every week we hear about the price of electricity, water, groceries—the price of all sorts of things going up—and taxes going crazy. Everything is going up for the average householder. Whether it is a family with kids, one or two people, two flatmates wanting to go to the footy or grandparents wanting to take grand kids, it does not matter, the cost of living is going up every single day, and going to the football is not cheap. That is hurting attendances enormously, maybe just as much as performance.

I am sure if the teams were performing very well perhaps the public might find some more money to get there. However, the cost of tickets is a big issue, and I guarantee you that they will not be any cheaper at the new Adelaide Oval. They will not be any cheaper at all at the new Adelaide Oval. I think it will be harder for a family to attend the football—whether they are for Port or the Crows—at the new Adelaide Oval cost-wise than it currently is at AAMI Stadium.

Another interesting thing that the SANFL has said quite publicly is that it costs it about $2 million per year to run AAMI Stadium. That is just the cost of operation of AAMI Stadium. So guess what? It would be possible for the government to give the SANFL $100 million over the next 50 years and take care of that issue—take care of that very genuine, very big cost issue that the SANFL faces—and save $435 million of taxpayers' money. That would help out football—help it in the way that it asks and in the way that it identifies it as a very important issue—and yet save $435 million of taxpayers' money for all sorts of other issues.

Another issue I would like to just point out: I cannot, for the life of me, understand why the government has not asked for some share of the proceeds of the divestment, the sale or the redevelopment of the current AAMI Stadium after the teams move down here. I understand there will be SANFL use, and I understand there are ideas, at this stage—nothing concrete—for all sorts of ways that the SANFL might make some money out of AAMI Stadium after the two AFL teams have transitioned into the heart of Adelaide. Well, we are going to give $535 million of taxpayers' money to this cash-strapped organisation to help it survive. Why are we not asking it to contribute back some of the money that it will make, back towards the taxpayer?

Madam Deputy Speaker, as you know, I fight every day that I come down here to Adelaide, to parliament, for regional South Australia—$535 million would go an enormously long way. As I said, the people of Stuart overwhelmingly do not support this proposal, not because they do not want Adelaide or South Australia to have an upgraded stadium, and not because they have any sort of sour grapes or do not see how nice it might be, but because they see the shortfall in spending throughout regional South Australia.

Imagine $535 million, or a significant share of it, being spent on regional sport, regional health, regional disability services (which are extremely underfunded), regional police, education, roads—the list goes on, growing rather than shrinking. The PIRSA offices—how about just not having to sell the South-East forests? How about just not having to sell the forward rotations of wood in the South-East forests? What would that mean to the people of the South-East if this did not go ahead?

For the towns in the electorate that I represent in Stuart—whether they be the large regional city of Port Augusta, or the larger towns of Kapunda, Jamestown, Peterborough, Burra and Eudunda, all the way through to the very small communities like Farrell Flat, Mount Mary, Lyndhurst or Blinman—a small, small share of this money would go a long, long way in any of those services in regional South Australia.

I do acknowledge that the government is going to put $5 million towards a sports upgrade in Port Augusta, but I would like to highlight that that was not going to be forthcoming if it had not been to match a Liberal Party election promise heading to the last election, because we do take regional development, whatever the program happens to be—whether it is health, whether it is sport, whether it is disabilities—very seriously.

I would like to just conclude by once again saying I do believe that an upgraded Adelaide Oval or, more ideally, two sport stadiums in the heart of Adelaide, would be lovely—they really would be good, and I do not pretend that they would not—but the reality is that we just cannot afford them. We know that the government is going to progress down this path whether or not we can afford it. It is heading down this path and it has made this decision, so the Liberal Party's position is that we want to put accountability constraints into the legislation.

We want to ensure that we do not have the '$450 million and not a cent more' which then goes to '$535 million, not a cent more,' and next year we find out it is '$600 million, not a cent more.' We want to hold the government accountable to its current existing promises, the commitments that it has made today. We want the Auditor-General to have oversight, we want the normal planning approvals to be in place, and we want the government to do what it has said it will do. We want the government to be held accountable. We cannot stop it from progressing with this plan, but we want to put some genuine scrutiny, some genuine oversight and some genuine accountability on behalf of the people of South Australia into this legislation.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY (Port Adelaide—Minister for Defence Industries, Minister for Police, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Motor Sport, Minister Assisting the Premier with the Olympic Dam Expansion Project) (12:39): I just want to make a few comments. I do not intend—nor is it appropriate for me—to comment on the individual amendments; my colleague will do that as the responsible minister, but this is a debate where I would like to put a few things on the record. I will attempt not to be provocative in my comments about contributions that we have had from other members opposite, over the course of today, and previously.

I think, in a few short years, this city will be transformed forever. For the very first time in our city's history we will become an attraction for people living in other parts of Australia to come and see—and, more importantly, to experience—the activity, the amenity and the enjoyment that is the City of Adelaide. If we think forward, just in five years' time, at the opening of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital, of the expansion of the Convention Centre, hopefully with the upgrade of the Adelaide Casino, the bridge across the river and, of course, the Adelaide Oval upgrade, we will have for the very first time in this state's history a centrepiece in our capital city that is of world-class standing.

What that will do for commerce, be it in O'Connell Street, be it in Rundle Street, be it in the mall, be it wherever in the precincts of the CBD: we will have night football, we will have weekend football, we will have people staying in the city, and will have a vibrancy that we have never experienced before. That is why I am very proud of this project and, of the many things that I have been involved with and responsible for in this parliament and my time in government, nothing will give me greater satisfaction than being a champion for this project from day one.

The debate has been at times nonsensical and hysterical but, if we break away the politics, the reality is that a city the size of Adelaide, a state the size of South Australia, has to utilise its assets and its capital outlays in the most productive way possible. That is why a two-stadium solution has not worked; that is, you had Adelaide Oval that has not been developed over time to its full potential, and none of us could say that Adelaide Oval is an asset that is utilised. I mean, five days a year, or seven days a year with a couple of one-dayers, is hardly an engine room of activity at Adelaide Oval.

Football Park was built for very good reasons by the SANFL, the great Max Basheer and Don Brebner and others at the time for, I guess, the disappointing reason that they could not come to an agreement to live at the Adelaide Oval cooperatively with cricket. I am a West Lakes person. I have lived by, near or around that stadium all my life. I was there at the very first dig that occurred for that stadium.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: For the '77 grand final.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: For the '77 grand final there, when you used to sit on concrete, before they even put the aluminium seats in. I live opposite it now. My life has been around that particular stadium. It is a great area, but the reality is that it is for many South Australians and many visitors logistically difficult to get to.

The idea of a stadium in the CBD would always be a far greater attraction to people. It would be easier for people to get to. With the amount of expenditure by my colleague who is supervising this project and doing a great job with it, with the electrification of our rail, with the urban development plans that we have and with light rail in the city, it will be an easier, safer and better way to access a football match. So, there is no argument about, in my view, the need for a city stadium.

The debate developed into a brawl between whether we should have a stand-alone stadium or an upgraded Adelaide Oval. I have always strongly felt that an upgraded Adelaide Oval is a far superior option than a stand-alone stadium. The truth is—and my colleagues across the chamber will disagree with this vehemently—a stand-alone stadium would cost well in excess of $1 billion, particularly a covered stadium. On one hand, members opposite are saying $535 million is too much to be spending on a stadium, but on the other hand they were prepared to commit their government, should they have won, to a $1 billion-plus covered stadium.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: RAH on site.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Look, I'm trying to be constructive. If you want to interject I'll come back and fire up. That was a position that my opponents—our opponents—put, and they are entitled to do that. However, the problem is that cricket would not play there. There is also the fact that the AFL said they would not play there, but let us assume they did: you would have 22 games a year. The operating costs of a brand-new stadium are exorbitant. You only have to look at Etihad. I have seen some of the operating costs of these stadiums, and I think it cost Etihad $2 million a year just to deal with the issues of the cost of the retractable roof and maintenance of the oval itself. With 22 games a year, these stadiums are inefficient. They are cost burdens, quite apart from whether or not we had a physical location.

I want to pay tribute to a number of key people in this process. One who I think has been unfairly maligned by many opposite (and one or two on my side) is Andrew Demetriou whose vision for this has been outstanding. For much criticism that he may receive, which I think is unwarranted, his philosophy and that of the AFL is that we need to have football stadia in the centre of a population, in the centre of a city, for all the reasons that I outlined before. He understands the product that he has to sell through TV rights and through sponsorships and the quality of the stadium—how it presents on television, the facilities that it offers to the media and, importantly, bums on seats—and we can get a crowd that will, to a large extent, populate these grandstands.

Adelaide Oval delivers all those objectives of the AFL and they have been absolutely resolute in championing the argument for Adelaide Oval, and it is not about an AFL takeover, not about Andrew Demetriou trying to get his way, but it is common sense. I think if we were to rub out everything we have here in the city now and we were building the city again and we said, 'Where would we want to build a multipurpose stadium?', I could not think of a site better than the Adelaide Oval, with such a short walk to the CBD, a short walk up to North Adelaide, in the middle of the Parklands and so close to public transport. I do not think you could find a better site, certainly not where the hospital is being built, in my opinion.

Importantly, we are dealing with this issue of asset utilisation. Ian McLachlan—and again I want to pay tribute to Ian—is a conservative, but he was really the one who started all this in discussions that he had with Andrew Demetriou before I was brought into the loop, and Ian's point was this issue of asset utilisation. Members opposite and, I am sure, some on my side say 'Let's have two stadiums,' and as the member for Stuart said, it would be great to have a lot of things in this world, but we in this state, whether we like it or not, do not have a population or an economy strong enough and large enough to sustain two very expensive pieces of infrastructure.

In years gone by (and both sides of politics have made this mistake, and again the member for Stuart could understand this), we have tended to give—call them 'Taj Mahals'—pristine assets for individual sports when perhaps we should have been a lot smarter. I could not think of any better sport than basketball. We built the Entertainment Centre, but basketball wanted unfettered access to its own stadium—that is my memory—and I am sure the concert organisers did not want bloody basketballers running around, so what we did as a government, and it was a Labor government, was build whatever we ended up calling it—the Clipsal and the Dome.

Then netball, of course, wanted its own facility. It did not want to share with basketballers, so a Liberal government built a stand-alone facility for netball. The reality is that all those three assets are expensive to maintain and the reality is that there was not enough money in our economy and in our sports to sustain those three entities. We have had to spend a lot of public money on each of those assets over the years when sensible policy about asset utilisation would have said, 'Build one Entertainment Centre and make the sports coexist.' With Football Park, we are going to get great asset utilisation, and what I have liked about this debate—and this is not a cheap shot at the opposition; it is just a fact—is that a lot of people were opposed to this.

The SANFL was bitterly opposed to the Adelaide Oval project. Leigh Whicker was opposed to the Adelaide Oval project. Rod Payze was opposed to the Adelaide Oval project. I could not find too many people at the time who were all that keen on it but, in the end open minds, objective analysis, and people prepared to consider the merits of the argument, one by one started to realise that this was the best option.

I want to pay great tribute to Leigh Whicker again. Leigh has lived and breathed this project for 2½ years. He has worked enormously long hours, juggling his role as the head of the SANFL—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: —yes—and the head of the SMA, but, when presented with the great opportunities of a developed Adelaide Oval, Leigh quickly became an incredibly crucial and enthusiastic supporter. He came from a position of outright opposition initially, but he had and does have the great ability to actually stand back, look, consider and be persuaded of the merits.

Over time, the SANFL Commission, which was opposed to it, came around because it is a good, sensible thing to do. You have had Alexander Downer say it, you have had Christopher Pyne say it, and you have now had John Olsen, as the chairman and having played a very crucial role, say it—and I think his role should be acknowledged and appreciated as well. This has been a very tortuous process, but I think when that stadium is opened even some of the harshest critics from those opposite, perhaps the deputy leader (who knows, he could be deputy premier), will look back over time and realise that this actually is a great outcome for the state.

It will be a beautiful design, it will be a unique design, it will not be the traditional oval where it is just built in by massive concrete grandstands. It will maintain a character, an open-ended northern end, the Moreton Bay fig trees, the uniqueness of the grandstand design—those features will be there. It will be a unique oval. It will not be a second-rate oval. It will not be a second-best option. It will be an outstanding addition not just to Adelaide but to the ability of our nation to host world-class sporting events, whatever the sport may be.

As to Port Power and the Crows, there is no question that Port Power is in serious strife but, equally, the Crows are not travelling as well financially as they would like. Why is that? Well, it is about the quality of their football—that is undeniable—and it could also be about the fact that we do have as big a population as Perth or WA and that it is harder for us to provide the necessary financial support across business and the population to support the two clubs at this point.

What we do know—and there has been extensive work undertaken—is that we will get more people to both Port Power and Crows games because it is closer. If you live at Happy Valley, Aberfoyle Park, Gawler, or Norwood, it will be more attractive for you to travel into the city to watch that sport. People who have become used to Football Park, some of my friends, have said 'Oh, crikey, we are going to have to hike up to the city.' Well, it is only a 20-minute drive, and that is not going to be an impediment—although I must say to my colleague the transport minister that one of my constituents said, 'Listen, we used to give free bus trips to people from Adelaide down to West Lakes. Can you give us free bus trips from West Lakes into the city?' I said, 'I doubt that.'

We will see better crowds. I accept the argument of the member for Stuart that this is not a panacea, that this is not a silver bullet and that this will not be the saviour of our clubs in total, but it will make a significant improvement to the operations of those clubs. My colleague the Minister for Transport, who has stepped in (as he should) as infrastructure minister to manage this project, has done an outstanding job in negotiating with desperate—oops, I meant disparate—groups, including Adelaide City Council, for example, which I think has shown a degree of maturity and an ability to see the benefits of this for the wider city and state, and which has acted very well, very nobly.

I have to say that I have never risen to my feet in this place and been remotely complimentary about the Adelaide City Council; however, having gone through the fiasco that was the Victoria Park stadium, I think Peter Smith, the mayor Stephen Yarwood, and the councillors in general have, from what I can observe—and I think my colleague has demonstrated it in the outcomes we have achieved—shown a preparedness to engage and work constructively while still representing the core interests of their constituents. I thank them for doing what I thought was an almost impossible task; that is, to bring the Adelaide City Council with us on this journey. The Minister for Infrastructure should be applauded and commended for his ability to do that.

I want to come back to the theme I have been talking about, and have to say that I have been incredibly tempted to go on the political attack when listening to the deputy leader and the member for Stuart, and, indeed, my long-time friend the shadow treasurer. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and a view, and the truth of the matter is that there are probably 69 different views about what is right or wrong on this issue—whether or not we should spend the money, whether it should be new, closed, roofed, or whatever. The reality is that it is happening, and I think all of us will reflect whatever role we may have played.

The truth is that members opposite did play a role in this whole debate about whether or not we should rebuild, re-energise, the City of Adelaide, and it would be churlish of me not to mention the former leader the member for Waite, and the front bench of the time, who did champion a riverbank development. It was different to what we wanted to do but, in fact, we are in government. That is what happens, you win and lose elections. We won the election and have seized the moment to make sure that we leave a long-term legacy of benefit to this city and this state.

The Royal Adelaide Hospital will be one of the most magnificent investments of public money that this nation has ever invested in and the precinct, with the vibrancy that will come with football in the city, will make us a destination. No longer will people come to Adelaide and the best they can do is feed a few ducks and go for a jaunt on Popeye; there will actually be serious activity. We will have a Federation Square, we will have a Darling Harbour, we will have a Riverbank as they do in Brisbane. We will have our precinct, and we will be a better city for it and a better state. All South Australians will benefit from this. We only have to look at the people who come to the cricket from various parts of country South Australia, to the test matches and the one-day matches. This is an asset for all the state.

I want to conclude by saying that Ian McLachlan in particular, a visionary, can rest easy tonight and be proud of his work. Andrew Demetriou, who some see as a hard man of business and sport, is, again, a great visionary, a great leader and a great advocate for the advancement of Australian Rules football. I want to mention my colleague Pat Conlon, John Olsen, and importantly Leigh Whicker, who probably thought, for many a day, that this moment would never arrive. From once being a critic, he went on to be one of the most forceful advocates for this. Let us also remember that for Leigh Whicker it came at personal anguish and personal cost; the great friendship between Leigh Whicker and Max Basheer was long and well regarded. I can understand Mr Basheer's concerns and disappointments, but it just shows how committed Leigh Whicker was, and is.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Pederick.

[Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00]