ADELAIDE OVAL REDEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (15:40): I rise today to support the redevelopment of the Adelaide Oval upgrade. I do have some reservations with the way in which this upgrade has been portrayed by our government, particularly with the numbers that have been portrayed, with the starting figure at $450 million. Suddenly, we are seeing increased costs, and they seem to be swept under the carpet by this government that seems to have plenty to hide with a project that is going to impact on every South Australian.

Obviously, it has been reported that the timber industry in the South-East is going to have a significant contribution to this Adelaide Oval, but, again, I think that every South Australian—particularly regional South Australians—is going to contribute to a project that will least benefit them. This stadium to date has been based on, I think, systemically a lot of mistruths. We look at the previous minister responsible for the upgrade who has now been taken away from the role of this project, and we now have the Minister for Infrastructure stepping into this stadium issue.

I congratulate the minister because he has had a pretty tough job getting this back on track; and now, with the support of the opposition, I would expect that it be supported—with the scrutiny of the opposition, of course. I think that it is the opposition's role to make sure that this project is scrutinised in every way, shape and form with its huge cost.

The $535 million after all is only for an upgrade. We are not looking at a new stadium. We are looking at something that is going to have significant works done to it. But, again, I look at the upgrade of the western side of the Adelaide Oval, and we look at the friendly game of soccer between Adelaide and New Zealand less than a week ago. It was with disbelief—listening to people on radio and watching people on TV—to see people there who had paid good money to go along to watch a world-standard game being absolutely drenched with rain.

It beggars belief that we have had a significant amount of money, a significant number of engineers' reports and a significant amount of expertise put into an oval upgrade, and we have people paying good money to get wet to watch a world-class event. That is something that I really think needs to be put on the table as one of the high priorities.

It is obvious that it is a cricket venue, and I think that is what needs to be highlighted. The Adelaide Oval has traditionally been a cricket venue. It is there to shade people, traditionally, in hot weather. We see very little rain coming to big events that happen at the Adelaide Oval. One of the big problems was highlighted on the weekend—people watching soccer, getting very, very wet.

Again, I look at the $535 million, and it makes me, as a country member, ask questions. I am a member of the Adelaide Oval. We are looking at a $535 million cost, as I believe it, for an extra 12,000 seats. I have reservations with the parking issues that will impact not only on the people who want to go to this touted world-class venue but also on real estate values—those homes, those properties, that surround the Adelaide Oval.

Suddenly, we have a venue with people jammed into it without adequate parking facilities. I remember going to the cricket as a lad and you would park anywhere, because that is what you did to get close to the venue, to get in there and watch the game. You would just park anywhere. I have grave concerns that real estate values will decline with the invasive traffic that will set upon the people of North Adelaide particularly, the people of Adelaide and those nearby suburbs.

I do acknowledge that Adelaide's population will not sustain two world-class facilities, and I think that has been fairly well supported on both sides here. Again, we look at football and cricket that are going to be almost subsidised by this $535 million upgrade of Adelaide Oval. Why are cricket and football being subsidised when we look at a world game, such as soccer? Where are soccer's subsidies? Where is the funding, where is that financial input? I guess that football and cricket nowadays are a business, they are a big business.

We look at soccer not being subsidised as these two sports are, so what is Adelaide going to become? Is it going to become a two-sport town? That is something that people who are supporters of soccer, people who play soccer, people who travel the world supporting soccer are asking. Again, the disappointment will be if it is a true world-class stadium, is it FIFA compliant? Is it going to attract world-class sporting events? These are some of the issues that this government has to acknowledge when we are looking at the touted world-class facility. Will it be a world-class received arena?

I would like to think that we will see spin-offs. There will be people who will benefit from this facility. There will be businesses within the precinct of Adelaide that will benefit. The people of Adelaide and the businesses right around the CBD of Adelaide will benefit from the spin-offs of people coming into the city, going to one of these sporting events, taking a short walk to take advantage of great restaurants or great bars (whether it be the Casino or other businesses) that will complement this Adelaide Oval.

I would also like to think that every South Australian will benefit from the investment that this government will make on the Adelaide stadium. I do not want to see the Adelaide stadium benefiting the people of Adelaide only; it has to benefit every South Australian. It is a bit like the desal plant. Every South Australian is paying for a desal plant that puts water into Adelaide. It does not take any reliance of take away from the River Murray, yet every South Australian is paying for it, particularly the irrigators on the river who have been denied support by this government in this last water year. They are still paying for the desal plant—the increased costs of the desal plant and the increase uncertainty of water supply to Adelaide—but we do not see any reliance taken off the River Murray, and that is something that is dear to my heart. That is something I will be watching very closely: that the benefits of this huge investment are for every South Australian.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (15:48): I will make a brief contribution. The reality is that this redevelopment is going to happen, therefore I think the sensible, rational thing is to make the outcome the best possible outcome for the people of South Australia. I have to say that building a sporting stadium would not have been my priority. I surveyed the people of my electorate and I had back 400 replies out of 23,000—and I am not arguing that it is statistically valid because to do it properly you would have to use proper statistical methods such as stratified random sampling—but the people who did respond, and I suspect most of them are in the older age group, were not supportive of spending this amount of money on a stadium.

However, I can see the logic in having a stadium in the city. It is a pity that from day one we did not have a bipartisan approach to an agreed site and an agreed facility. As I said, this is what we have and let's make the best of it. Parking is obviously a key issue concerning the City of Adelaide and a lot of people in the wider community. It is hard to know what they will end up looking like, but I hope they do not end up looking like an asphalt jungle or concrete jungle. One would imagine that, if you are going to use parking during winter for a winter game, then clearly the surface would have to be sealed in some way, otherwise it will be four-wheel drives only. My concern is that, in providing the car parking, proper regard must be had to the aesthetics. We must also remember that it is parkland, but you cannot have cars parked there and have shrubbery all over the area; that would be nonsensical.

I have not seen the detailed plans for the car parks, but I trust that in this day and age we will get car parks that are in keeping with what you might call the semi-rustic character of the area, that it is properly landscaped, that it looks attractive, and that we do not end up with asphalt or a concrete slab that looks ugly and out of place.

Another point that I am sure others have made or will make is that it is surprising that the AFL is contributing so little, thus far, to this project, when you read that their media rights were recently signed for something in excess of a billion dollars. We know now that the trend is less on people attending functions and more on the television rights. I do not know whether members saw this, but recently there was a big soccer match up at Gosford, I think it was, where they were asking for or requiring non-attendance because they said that was irrelevant. What they wanted was to televise the game, because that is where the money is. I am surprised the AFL is not putting in more than a figure of $5 million or something like that, which is what I have heard. That is, literally, peanuts.

I think the community has raised the issue of priorities, and I have touched on that briefly. With the new hospital, I think you can say that that is something that is going to be used every day for enhancing quality of life. I love football. I do not barrack for the Crows or Port Power. I barrack for Carlton, and have done since—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: Carlton have been going long before those two new chums on the block.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: I have been supporting Carlton long before the Crows or Port Power were given berths and I do not intend to change now. I love football. I do not often go to the matches. I think the last time I went to an AFL match was probably 10 or 15 years ago, but I do like to watch it and I take an interest in it, and I think sport is a great thing. One of the reasons we have a civilised or semi-civilised society is because people get rid of their frustrations and anger on the sporting field rather than out on the streets or shooting people, as happens in some places.

It is a great game. I think AFL is the greatest game. We know that cricket will be played there as well. Cricket has a lot of cultural aspects to it, some of which have been eroded away, but there is the idea of playing honourably and that sort of thing. I think it is an integral part of our culture. So, we have this project. I think it will add a new dimension to life in Adelaide. I do not see it as a great stimulating factor for shopping. If people are going to the football, I do not see them venturing out afterwards to go shopping. The shops will probably be shut anyway. Depending on what time the matches are scheduled, they might go shopping beforehand. However, it will certainly bring the city to life.

I would still like to see the minister commit to a tram going down past Adelaide Oval and eventually out to North Adelaide. I have mentioned this before. I think, off the top of his head, he gave me a cost of $100 million. I think you could do it a bit cheaper and do it for less than $100 million. It is something that needs to happen in the longer term anyway, but you could shift a lot of patrons with modern trams going past the oval.

I look forward to seeing this project underway. With the planning and provision of the parking, which I guess is the most controversial aspect now, outside of the question of the large amount of money and priorities, I hope that those parking facilities are done in a way that is compatible and attractive so that it does not take away from what is currently a generally very attractive area and that the semi-rustic character is retained.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (15:54): I rise to concur with the previous speeches by my colleagues on this side. I am very comfortable with the position that the Liberal Party has taken with this piece of legislation, and the bottom line is that the government does not need this legislation to go ahead with this. It is a massive development, like the hospital, and it is a lot of money, so let us make sure that we get it right, and that is what the Liberal Party is aiming to do here. It wants to scrutinise, it wants to oversee and it wants the taxpayers to be able to see in an open and transparent way that we are getting value for money. It is important not only to SACA, the AFL and the SANFL but also to every South Australian, because you cannot just build hospitals, you cannot just build prisons and roads. You have to have other facilities for sport and recreation and other activities like that.

I will say right from the start, though, that I sat with some senior members of the Glenelg Football Club at dinner on Saturday night. I said to them, 'What is in this for you?' and they were quite blunt. They said that, unless the Crows and the Power start winning games, not very much at all. It is going to be so dependent on the Crows and the Power to make sure that they add to the whole attraction of that arena. AFL has a huge following but it is only as good as the games that the spectators get to watch.

Consider some of the attendances at some of the recent games. I think they only had 33,000 people at the last Showdown. I remember with Showdowns 1 and 2 that tickets were sold out weeks before. We need to get those clubs back up and going. Good facilities will go part of the way. They have a huge facility at AAMI Stadium and, I understand, the future of that is still a bit up in the air. The SANFL owns that and it is looking to get bigger and better attendances and financial results with the development of Adelaide Oval.

As I said a moment ago, you cannot just build hospitals, prisons and roads—you need to build other things. I say that because our biggest industry is not mining, it is not motor vehicles and it is not even defence: our biggest industry is the experience industry. The experience industry is tourism, performing and visual arts, and sport and recreation, and when you put all three together, the opportunities and the experiences in South Australia are absolutely phenomenal. I am a parochial South Australian. I represent one of the best electorates down the Bay at Glenelg. We have three million visitors a year. I would like to see Adelaide getting a greater share of the tourism dollar, and the experience industry dollar, as well as the rest of the state. I hope that building facilities like this development will go some way towards building that industry.

The experience industry employs about 30,000 people—some part-time and some full-time. If you offer a five-star experience, whether it is watching a top athletic football match or some other event, you will get really good attendances, and people are willing to pay for that experience, not only locals but also people from interstate and overseas. They offer jobs, prosperity and an industry that cannot leave South Australia.

This development is part of that. It is not one that I would have put up there as a top priority. In my opinion, I think it could have been done better. I was obviously looking for a more modern enclosed stadium. The history of Adelaide Oval is a proud, long history (and I will talk about that in a few moments), but we need to make sure that, if we are going to go down this path and not down the alternative path that we have proposed, we get it right. That is why I will be strongly supporting the amendments of the member for Davenport.

Let us look at Adelaide Oval for what it has been and where it has come from. It has a long and proud history. The oval was established in 1871 and it is of local, national and international significance. I am reading from the South Australian Cricket Association submission to the Adelaide Park Lands Bill 2005. Mike Deare was the then CEO of SACA. That has changed but Ian McLachlan is still there. I will read a bit more about the history of SACA so members can appreciate that there is a long history there. The submission says that Adelaide Oval has been a major focus for the development of sport within South Australia since inception, providing a central venue within the Parklands of Adelaide for the games of cricket, football and other sports. The place is of high social significance due to its association with famous sports people and events, and is held in the highest esteem by the community. That is why we need to get this right: because this is an iconic place.

I have been there many, many times as a young bloke watching West Adelaide get done, and watching the Bays. We had some great moments when we actually won some grand finals, and our time is coming again with Glenelg. We need to safeguard the strong association with the Parklands, and that is what is in some of our amendments here.

In addition to sporting events, Adelaide Oval has hosted major civic and entertainment events, displays and celebrations involving several generations of the community at various times. As such, it has strong associations for a wide range of the community and admirably achieves the intent of Colonel William Light's vision that the Parklands would be for the 'healthful recreation of the inhabitants of the city'.

Going back through some of the more memorable moments, it would be interesting to calculate what these pound values are in current dollar terms—I think that would be quite amazing. In 1871, SACA leased 12 acres from the Adelaide City Council, surveyed six acres and completed an oval for £200 in 1872. In 1882, for £3,093 they built what is now known as the George Giffen Stand—it was a new grandstand then. In 1884 they constructed a bicycle track and earth mounds around the oval. The bike track has gone but looking at the layout of the oval they tell me it is quite easy to see how they modelled it on a bike track.

In 1889, for the sum of £2,674, a new grandstand was erected, and it was altered later on. That was known as the Sir Edwin Smith Stand. A switchback railway and toboggan track were built at the southern end—which were later demolished in 1891. Why you would want to build a switchback railway and a toboggan track at the Adelaide Oval—well, it makes what they are doing now look quite sane, but there must have been reasons back then!

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Don't you need snow for tobogganing?

Dr McFETRIDGE: I think you do need snow for tobogganing, minister. However, they built this switchback railway and toboggan track there, and they spent quite a bit of money on it. It was £2,674, as part of the grandstand there. In 1901 the iconic Moreton Bay figs were planted by the Duke of York. It is great to see that those Moreton Bays are still held with the respect and esteem now that would have been thought about when they were first planted in 1901.

In 1911 the scoreboard that we hold with great reverence also was built, at the cost of £1,540. It was constructed to the design of the notable Adelaide architect, F. Kenneth Milne. In 1923 the John Creswell Stand was completed at a cost of £13,327, and then in 1924 the Mostyn Evans Stand was constructed at a cost of £8,137.

In 1930 the Sir Edwin Smith Stand was extended, the George Giffen Stand with additional committee rooms was completed, and the Mostyn Evans Stand with additional seating was upgraded at the cost of £22,946. This is in 1930—I do not know what the dollar value in what I think they call 'net present cost' would be. I am not an economist but I know that it was a lot of money in those days.

To jump ahead—in 1990 the Sir Donald Bradman Stand was completed and opened for $9.5 million. I was driving down North Terrace on Saturday night and the lights were on at Adelaide Oval and they looked quite spectacular—but we remember in 1993 that the city council approved $6 million for the erection of the telescopic light towers, and what a disaster they were.

In 2003 there was the redevelopment of the eastern side of the ground, including two new grandstands, a new corporate entertainment platform, service bunkers, kiosks, bars, merchandise stores, a new gatehouse and ticket house, new gates and the new video screen which were erected at a cost of $22.1 million. So, a lot of money has been spent over the years, a lot of cost. It would be interesting to see what the actual dollar values are today, in looking at where that money has gone. It is interesting to look at the South Australian Cricket Association's submission to the Adelaide Park Lands Bill 2005 in which, on page 10, it said:

From 1993 to 2000 approximately 2,657,000 people have attended various events at the Adelaide Oval, including:

International Cricket;

SANFL Football;

Rugby League;

Various concerts, from Michael Jackson [and] Elton John...

In 2002, there was a Rumba concert there—I did not go to that, and I do not know whether anybody here did. I did go to the Rugby 7s on a lovely, warm night, and it was a great event. Of course, one event that was transferred to the Adelaide Oval I was not very pleased about, but it has come home again, and that was the Bay Sheffield. It was transferred there for a few years, but the Bay Sheffield is back where it belongs, down at the Bay.

The Adelaide Park Lands Bill 2005 was a result of the 'Management of Adelaide's parklands' report, which was put together by the Adelaide Park Lands Management Working Group in January 2003. Page 17 of that report talks about the need to provide legislation to:

...change the laws to block the state government's overriding of proper planning processes by the use of major project status to impose developments in the parklands.

Major project status is not being used here. In the legislation that we are seeing before us today, the government has decided to go down this path, and I just hope that we do get it right.

The part that I am really quite pleased to see as a flow-on from this—and it would have happened with our proposed development down on the rail yards—is that the Riverbank development is to go ahead. In 2004, I spoke in this place about the possibilities and probabilities for the Riverbank development. I had some different ideas as I had been overseas and had a look at various cultural art centres and museums. I visited the Guggenheim offices in New York, and they were very keen to come down and develop a Guggenheim here on the riverbank.

Having visited the National Science and Space Museum in Leicester, England, I believe the next step would have been to develop a modern version of our Investigator Science Centre and build a national science museum—the Andy Thomas Space and Science Museum. Next to that would have been a pet project of Malcolm Buckby and Joan Hall (former members of this place)—that is, a children's museum. If you want to see a very good children's museum, I recommend that you go to the Helen Strong National Museum of Play in Rochester in New York state. You do not have to go there, as you can log on. It is an absolutely fantastic facility. It is not just a museum of play, it is like the Investigator Science Centre on steroids—it is just fantastic. Combining that with a national science and space museum would have given us weatherproof attractions that would have really done something for that precinct.

We have moved on from that, though. I understand some plans were drawn up by Serco—one of the providers of management and construction services—for a three-level development. The bottom level was electrified trains. The next level up was car parking and a complete Riverside development with retail and restaurants—a fantastic development. The next level up was the same level as the Convention Centre, and that would have then allowed the Convention Centre to expand over Morphett Road and then go into the Guggenheim, the national science and space museum and a national museum of play, and then onto a sporting complex down there. In our opinion, that was going to be a state—

Mrs GERAGHTY: Point of order: very interesting, member for Morphett, but I thought we were talking about the oval. You seem to have wandered miles off down the track. Perhaps, at another time, you could share your thoughts with us on those issues.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I am disappointed at my good friend for pulling me up on this because the Riverside development is a crucial part of this whole oval development. It is a part that has been spruiked, and I think that in today's paper there is an article about the Casino and its development: the footbridge will be going across to link Adelaide Oval with the Riverside development.

You can do all of that. It has been around for a while. We are getting a variation on the theme now, and I look forward to seeing that development, rather than just the old rail yards that we have going down along the river. It is very, very important that, if we are going to do this development, we do it properly. Let's make sure that we do spend the $535 million, and that is all it has to be—

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mrs Vlahos): Can I suggest to the member for Morphett that he brings his questioning back to the matter at hand?

Dr McFETRIDGE: $535 million, ma'am—I'm talking about it.

The ACTING SPEAKER: I suspected that you were diverging, perhaps, on the museum section, but could you bring it back to the money?

Dr McFETRIDGE: It is all about money. It is all about the bill; it is all about the developments. You cannot look at Adelaide Oval alone. The government's own vision for Adelaide Oval is to make that part of the whole of the Casino and Riverbank development. It is not in isolation. Go and look on your own flyovers and pictures of what is going on, and the Adelaide Oval is an integral part of the rest of the development.

What we need to do is make sure we get all of that right so that we get best value for money, and $535 million is a lot of money. We need to make sure that that is capped and that is what we are seeking to do. We want the Auditor-General to be able to go in and make sure everything is going as smoothly as we would like it to be and, to enhance that, we also want the Public Works Committee of the parliament to have a good look at this and make sure that everything is open and transparent.

The Liberal Party, in one of our amendments through the member for Davenport, is proposing that rent be paid to the city council, and I think that is a good idea. That will give the city council some opportunity to participate in the provision of what could be a good facility if it is done properly and if it is handled by this government in the way it should have been handled from the word go.

I would have liked to have seen a covered stadium there and I will just quickly finish off by saying that, a few years ago, when I was at the replay of the grand final between Glenelg and Central Districts, they were redoing the western grandstand and so the formal dinner was being held under the Chappell Stands. The tables were laid out, and it was silver service. I was sitting at the very back table, tucked in the back corner. I was in opposition and just the shadow minister for sport and recreation at the time.

It was raining and it was blowing the crabs off the beach—it really was. I was getting soaked right at the very back of those stands. I remember wiping my plate down so that the waiter could put my bread roll on there. This is the concern that I have: 70 per cent of these seats are under cover but, when it pours in Adelaide, it really pours and it blows, so it may not be the stadium that we really should have had and could have had.

Lastly, I would like to finish off by saying: make sure that the cost of this stadium is not reflected in the ticket prices, because if the families cannot come up there and watch footy and cannot attend sporting events, then what is the point of it? If the Crows and Port do not start winning, people may not come but if they are winning, let us make sure that they can afford to get in there to support those football teams, and they can afford to watch the cricket and all the other events that will hopefully be going on at this facility. The Liberal Party is just putting in these safeguards. Let us make it work. It is a lot of money: let us make sure that South Australia is getting value for money on this redevelopment.

Mr BROCK (Frome) (16:13): First, I would like to congratulate the minister on the job he has done so far with getting this up to where it is in this house. However, just going back a bit, both sides of politics at the last general election went to the general public with an oval as part of their program. The Labor Party went through with the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval and the opposition went through with an enclosed stadium. They both went to the public itself with the same thing but at different venues. Both of those would have been in excess of $500 million. The government has now capped it at $535 million.

Ms Chapman: We are. We're going to cap it.

Mr BROCK: You are. We in this house will be capping that at $535 million all up. In relation to the opposition's undercover one, it has been mentioned before that an undercover stadium would have been great. However, there is really an unknown factor on that one there.

I am a great follower of football. I follow the Crows, and the member for Morphett is correct: if the Adelaide Crows and Port Power do not start winning, then we will not have anybody coming to this new facility. I am a great lover of football. I am a great lover of cricket and we do need a great facility to be able to have those sports being played there, to be safe for the players and also have great surrounds and comfort for the paying public because it is the paying public who make or break the sporting venues.

As the member for Fisher has already indicated, this venue will go ahead. The Labor Party won the election. It has the mandate and this will go forward.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

Mr BROCK: They won the election, and they have formed government. They have the opportunity to be able to get this through and, as the member for Finniss has indicated, we need to make certain that we get this right. However, I have done a survey in my electorate. When this first came up, obviously, from a country member's point of view, I got a lot of flack, and I have to stand here today and support my electors out there.

I believe that the redevelopment of the Adelaide Oval (and this has been mentioned on many occasions) would be nice to have, but there are lots of other issues confronting this state, out there in regional parts of South Australia, that really need attention. They need roads and lots of stuff out there. It is like my own home budget—there are lots of things I would like to do but there are priorities I have to maintain, and I have to keep telling my partner Lyn that. The fact is she thinks she is in charge of the household, and she is.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

Mr BROCK: She takes notice of me nothing! However, there are certain things we have to put back into the budget, and we have to plan and program for those things—and I think the Adelaide Oval redevelopment should be one of those things. We should be able to get all our other infrastructure up not only in the city of Adelaide but also in regional South Australia. The priorities must take precedence over lots of issues—not only for the state government but also in our own household. As I said earlier, in relation to the Adelaide Oval redevelopment, we would love to be able to have that oval up and running and also have all the facilities in the country areas completed.

I want to elaborate on a few things in my own electorate of Frome. As I said earlier, I have many rural state-responsible roads that have not been maintained for many years, and both sides need to take responsibility for that because over many, many years they have been allowed to deteriorate. These roads have been neglected, and I will mention a couple of roads.

The Gladstone to Yacca to Clare road—if anyone has travelled on that road, they would know that that road is an absolute disgrace, and that roads leads into the Clare and Gilbert Valleys region. It has just been mentioned that they have increased their interstate and overseas tourism by a fair bit, and it does not gel well with overseas visitors seeing those roads. I would hope they will come back again, but they may not.

The Port Broughton, Bute and Kulpara road is deteriorating so much that the fact is that, when the grain harvest goes through there, they are finding it hard and it is becoming a danger. I will be talking to the minister on Thursday about the main street of Bute. The main street of Bute has now got to the situation where it is lifting and lifting dramatically, and DTEI has classified that problem as a low priority. However, I will be talking to the minister about that on Thursday, together with the local council. Also, in relation to the completion of the Tarlee-Kapunda road, in the first year I was a member of this house, I was fortunate enough to get 2½ kilometres of seal, and in this year's budget, another 2½ kilometres of reconstruction, but that needs to be completed.

There are other uncertainties in regional South Australia with regional health services. I know that the minister has indicated and made public that he will not close any further hospitals in the regions. However, we need the uncertainty to go away that the current services are not only maintained but improved—and that is a cost factor that we need to address. At the same time, I have been trying with the minister to get some extra money for the PAT scheme, which has been the same since 1971.

There have been long delays in replacing a noncompliant diagnostic mammogram machine at the Port Pirie Regional Health Service, and the money that is being spent on the Adelaide Oval could be used to replace that machine, but they keep saying that it is part of a whole of state contract arrangement. That machine has been out of action for 18 months. We also have long delays in the child abuse helpline because of the lack of staff or training in the Families and Communities Service. Again, the money for the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval could have been pushed towards that issue.

There have been long waits for people requesting Housing SA homes. What has happened there is that, over the years, those houses have not been maintained. So, over the last few years, governments have been selling off those homes to bring in more funds. We should be doing it the other way around. There is a waiting list and some people have been on the waiting list for five to 10 years. That is not really responsible government.

There is also a lack of infrastructure out in the regional areas, and I am not only talking about berths but also natural gas pipelines, road infrastructure and rail to accommodate the growing resource opportunities in regional South Australia.

Just recently, as part of its inquiry, the Select Committee on the Grain Handling Industry went to the Mallee area, and a couple of rail lines there have speed and load restrictions. Again, that is hampering the regional areas and processing of grain. It has been a record year this year, and hopefully will be next year, so that is another area that we should be putting this money into.

I want to talk about rural bus services. As soon as the number of passengers comes below the magic number of 10 on a bus, qualified or accountable, the service is cut off. I know of many schools that have been affected. Because their numbers have gone down to nine, the department has ceased the bus service, and I have had to talk to the minister's department on many occasions. To their credit, we have come to a compromise, but we should not have to do those sorts of things. These sorts of things should be maintained in regional South Australia because we deserve exactly the same as in Adelaide.

What I am trying to get around to is that the Adelaide Oval redevelopment is great. I think it is going to be a terrific thing for Adelaide itself and the sporting public. However, there are certain things in regional areas that we need to maintain, improve and give a lot more certainty to. I will be fighting for that as much as I can, and that is my contribution to the Adelaide Oval redevelopment bill.

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen—Leader of the Opposition) (16:21): It is my pleasure to rise to speak in relation to—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: —the Adelaide Oval Redevelopment and Management Bill.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: Of course, the attorney is trying to heckle me from the other side of the—

An honourable member: Former attorney!

Mrs REDMOND: The former attorney, sorry. I got so used to it over such a long period. The former attorney is trying to heckle from the other side of the chamber as though there was some problem but, indeed, if you talk to anyone who was at that meeting you will find that it was, indeed, a very productive meeting and that, unlike on that side of the chamber where you have to ring Don Farrell to find out what your position is going to be on any particular issue, we actually have mature debate and reach a very calm conclusion about what the party room wants to do. That is exactly what we did last night. Indeed, a number of people who have been here for a considerable amount of time have commented that it was about the best party room meeting they have ever been in, so well was it managed in terms of the team and the way we approached this problem.

It is a problem because the solution the government has come to has always been the second-best solution—it may be, indeed, the third-best solution. You may recall, Madam Acting Speaker—you were not here, of course—that football was played at AAMI Stadium and, according to the former treasurer, now police minister, that was the home of football. We started talking about bringing football into the city, and that was something that the public and the football community wanted to see happen. But, as the shadow treasurer outlined earlier today, the football community wanted that by way of a second stadium. That was always their preferred option.

In November 2009 I gave a speech at the Hilton Hotel to a leaders' lunch—there were hundreds of people there—and we showed our vision for what this city could be like if we put a new stadium on the old rail yards site. That was so popular that the government, a few months out from the election, suddenly thought, 'We have got a problem here. We had better do something about this. So, we are going to do something to the Adelaide Oval.'

The Adelaide Oval option was always not the best solution, because it was never going to be a roofed stadium. You need only ask the people who paid $83, $84 or $85 last weekend to go to the soccer at the Adelaide stadium how wet they got at that particular venue while watching the soccer. You need only ask the Socceroos, who apparently have said they are never coming back to play at the Adelaide Oval.

What we proposed, of course, was a FIFA-compliant, retractable roof stadium, but the government said no to that and said, 'We will go to the Adelaide Oval.' My personal opinion is that they stand the risk of destroying what is known around the world as a wonderful iconic venue. But that is what they decided to do. They decided they would do that, having had some years in the meantime of Kevin Foley—sorry, the former treasurer—standing on the other side of this chamber saying, 'The home of football is AAMI Stadium.' Again and again he said it: 'The home of football is AAMI Stadium.' But, suddenly, a few months out from the election they were going to do something to Adelaide Oval and that was going to provide the stadium for football in the city.

Well, of course, they said at the time, '$450 million, not a penny more. Absolutely, $450 million, not a penny more.' And then, after the election—and they won the election—they suddenly said, 'Oh, not a penny more—we actually need $85 million more'—$85 million extra. So, $450 million—

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Point of order. With the deputy leader interjecting, I cannot hear the leader properly.

Mrs REDMOND: The Minister for Infrastructure will do anything to try to stop the flow of debate given that he does not want to hear us repeating for the public of South Australia that there was a solid promise. As usual—

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mrs Vlahos): Leader of the Opposition, would you like to resume your speech?

Mrs REDMOND: —the government told us one thing before the election and then comes out with a completely different thing after the election, but, don't worry about it, it's only $85 million. Of course, the $450 million originally was to include all the car parking and the footbridge. After the election, not only is it $85 million more (after being not a penny more) but it does not include the footbridge (that is only another $40 million, or so) and it does not include the car parking—the car parking, which was always one of the prerequisites for football to move into the city.

So, what are we going to have? We have the government saying that that is what we are now going to have—not more than $450 million, we are now up to $535 million, but we have not figured out yet where the footbridge is to come from (or, indeed, where it is going to be placed) or the car parking. We have 3,400 car parks shy at this stage. The big question and the question that this bill seeks to address is: who is going to control the area?

Under the bill, of course, this all gets basically given to the minister who then gives it straight on to the Stadium Management Authority. Now, the Stadium Management Authority in turn consists of two private sporting bodies: the SACA (the South Australian Cricket Association) and the SANFL (the South Australian football league), because they actually own the AFL licences for Port Adelaide Port Power and the Crows. So, they own those licences.

I read today a report which I found quite interesting. It was actually reported online in TheSydney Morning Herald but it comes from The Age in Melbourne. The Age in Melbourne talks about the AFL and the fact that the AFL wants to help Port survive, and so on, and I quote from this article, which is by Ashley Porter in Adelaide today—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: It has already been refuted by the Casino.

Mrs REDMOND: Not the bit about the Casino; I know that.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: Well, I don't know; I'm just telling you—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: Madam Acting Speaker, it is disorderly for the minister to be interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER: Maybe you should stay on your own speech and ignore their interjections; and could the members on my other side please allow the debate to continue.

Mrs REDMOND: So, again, I quote from this article by Ashley Porter online today from The Sydney Morning Herald:

It means the AFL would become a stakeholder in Adelaide Oval with the newly-formed Stadium Management Authority with SANFL General Manager, Leigh Whicker, as its General Manager. The AFL involvement would certainly further irk a reasonable portion of the SA Cricket Association members.

I have no doubt it would, because their whole agenda in participating in this is, of course, that they want to get rid of the debt they have incurred in building the wonderful new western grandstand—you know, that western grandstand that has got the members' bar and no toilets on that level; that wonderful investment.

That is where we have got to, and that is what this bill is really all about: who is going to manage that precinct? We took the view that, rather than allow this government to continue down the path that it was going down (because if we rejected the bill, I have no doubt that the government was still going to go on with the project), it would simply compulsorily acquire the area and have no accountability, no transparency and no answerability to the people of this state.

I do not see how the government can possibly object to the conditions that we seek to put into this legislation. The amendments that we seek to put in may be generally divided into two different tranches, if you will: one is to allow the Adelaide City Council to maintain control and to meet the requirements that it puts on. It thought that it was negotiating with the government prior to a couple of weeks ago and then suddenly found out that that was not the case at all. It now has agreed to certain things, but it wants certain conditions.

A number of the conditions that we seek to put in simply seek to give the Adelaide City Council the degree of control that they wish to keep. For instance, the council wants to exclude the areas like Light's Vision, the Pennington Gardens West, the Creswell Gardens and also that bit of land down the hill from Light's Vision where there are trees along the edge of the roadway. Furthermore, they want to control through community land management plans the areas that remain outside the Oval itself but within the four streets that bound the area. We think that there is some sensibility in that, rather than handing it over to the government.

We have decided to amend the legislation (or seek to amend the legislation). It will be interesting to see where the government goes with these amendments, but we seek to amend the legislation to accommodate the requirements and wishes of the Adelaide City Council as expressed to us. We think that they are quite reasonable because they maintain the ownership of the area ultimately with the existing situation, not handing it over holus-bolus to the government, particularly to the minister.

However, more importantly, we seek to bind the government to the commitments that they have made with respect to this oval. They have said they can do this; they are not going to spend a penny more than $535 million. They have already spent some setting up the Stadium Management Authority; they have not finished the design. Indeed, when we met with the Stadium Management Authority, we specifically asked: how much is this new beaut thing that they have shown us going to cost? The answer was: 'We don't know how much it is going to cost, but what we will guarantee is that we are not going to go over $535 million. If it is not what we are showing you, well we are going to downgrade what we are going to produce.'

It may well be that the public who have voted in favour of this—particularly the SACA members and so on who have voted in favour of it—will find that they have been sold a pup because this thing is going to be scoped down, just like the Royal Adelaide Hospital, to keep within the budget. Do we trust this government in terms of staying within the $535 million? Why would you when before the election they said not a penny more than $450 million, and that was to include the car parking and the footbridge? So, we are well in excess of what they formally promised.

We said, okay, let's put in the legislation and, furthermore, let's put in provision for there to be accountability, both through Public Works Committee—because this matter should always, in my view, have gone to the Public Works Committee, if you read the legislation regarding what should be referred to that committee. We have always thought that should be there, but the only way to make sure this government actually does what it says it will do, we believe, is to put it into legislation.

Furthermore, we think it should have the Auditor-General able to keep an eye on this process because I have a feeling that this process is by no means done in terms of where this government is going to try to wheedle around how much money they spend and where—a bit like the Royal Adelaide Hospital. One of the things they did was take $6 million out of the health budget to build a tram stop. They were going to have a train station underneath but then they decided against that, so they took $6 million from the health budget. We cannot afford $1.174 million to fund the Keith, Ardrossan, Moonta and Glenelg hospitals but we can afford $6 million for a tram stop out of the health budget.

We believe it is necessary to put into this legislation the imperatives that the government apparently has already said they agree to. This is what they said they want. This is what they have said they are going to do. Indeed, where we have said that we want to establish a sinking fund, that is not something we have made up. The Stadium Management Authority at the briefing actually said they would be having a sinking fund, so we want to make sure that they do have that sinking fund. I do not see where the government can actually object to any of the things that we are suggesting because what we are suggesting is simply putting into legislation what they have said they are going to do, because we know that this government cannot be trusted when it comes to providing anything in this state.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: No, you can't be trusted with regard to anything. The former attorney is absolutely right when he says that this government simply can't be trusted in relation to anything really; that is absolutely correct. As I began by saying, the opposition took the view—and you may try to beat up all sorts of things, but the reality is that we had an extremely good party room meeting last night. We did not have any difficulty with each other.

An honourable member: Why do you keep talking about it?

Mrs REDMOND: Because the government keeps trying to beat it up as though there is some sort of problem.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: She protesteth too much.

Mrs REDMOND: No, not at all. You talk to anyone who was at the meeting and you will find that it was absolutely—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: You think people are talking to you; people are talking to us. The public sector has turned. People out in the community have turned. No-one trusts this government any more. It is for that reason that we decided that the only way to go forward with this was to say that we will pass this legislation, but subject to certain conditions, which we say are the conditions that the government has already said that they are going to be binding themselves to anyway. It is just that we cannot trust them; we will put it into the legislation. That way they will be accountable to the parliament, to the Auditor-General and to a range of other people, including the Adelaide City Council, so that we have proper care, control and management, and that we have transparency and accountability, because this is a vast amount of money being spent to fund football and cricket in this state. It is time that this government was held to account over this issue, like so many others. With those few words, I will conclude my remarks.

Mr PEGLER (Mount Gambier) (16:36): I would like to say, first of all, that I think some of the people in the regions find it a bit hard to understand why we would be spending this sort of money on an oval when some of our services, such as health services, the PAT scheme, mental health services, housing shortages, etc., are deficient. However, you must also bear in mind that any government has to have a balance between what it spends on social services and what it spends on infrastructure.

That balance right throughout the history of governments throughout the world has always had to be there, and it is the governments that have built the infrastructure at the right time that have made sure that their communities live a good life. If you look right throughout the world at the various infrastructure that has been built, no doubt they were all built at times when the money was not there. However, if we leave this go for another 10 years, it will cost a heap more dough and those social needs will still be there.

I must say that both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party prior to the election did promise that they would be bringing football back to the city centre, the Labor Party through the Adelaide Oval redevelopment and the Liberal Party with a new site. Personally, I support the Adelaide Oval redevelopment, in that it will cost less money and it will bring football back to the city centre for sure. It is quite unfortunate that people in the South-East have linked both the forestry sale and the Adelaide Oval redevelopment together. I think they are both completely divorced of each other and, whilst I do not support the forestry sale, I do support bringing football back to the city centre.

I think the great benefits will be that people will be able to walk to the football from the city centre and you will encourage a lot more people from the regions to come to Adelaide to go to the football. Also, for interstate visitors coming to Adelaide to go to the football this will be much more akin to what they do in Melbourne, where you can stay in the city centre, walk to Etihad or the MCG and walk back to the city centre. The city centre is a much nicer place to be than coming to Adelaide and having to get transport right out to AAMI Stadium. It just does not feel part of the ambience of the city.

I certainly support the fact that the Adelaide Oval redevelopment will be happening. I am encouraged by the fact that it will bring people into the city and that it will bring Adelaide up to the standard that some of our other capital cities have, so I will be supporting this bill.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (16:40): I rise to speak on the Adelaide Oval Redevelopment and Management Bill 2011 and indicate, as other speakers have, that I will be supporting the bill. In essence, this is a bill to facilitate a program brokered and signed off between the government and elite sport in South Australia to secure premises in the city for the presentation of that sport. There are a number of winners in that exercise: those who are members of the clubs that are being supported and those who derive an income from them; and those who both now and in the future will have the capacity to enjoy that sport at the new facility that is proposed at Adelaide Oval.

There are always winners and losers. The losers, of course, are the taxpayers now and in the future who will not participate in or enjoy the benefit of any revenue stream from this facility, and they are a great number. Many of them live in regional South Australia, and it is not surprising to me to hear today that there are cries from representatives of those regions who are currently exhausted with complaint to the government about the lack of service and support that they have in regional South Australia. Those plaintive cries have gone unheard and it is concerning that we have a decision of the government to progress this project, perhaps even to announce it, back in late 2009, which I think was an attempt to avert what was an excellent proposal by the opposition as we went into an election.

It seems to me that the government at that stage was suddenly born again. It went from having a $100 million project to inject into AAMI Stadium—and that was going to be the home of football and developed for that purpose—but after the opposition made an announcement, the government seemed to be born again and decided that it was going to development its own idea.

In any event, the idea is before us. The legislation is outlined here for the parliament's approval. As has been said, it is not actually necessary for the government to have legislation if, in fact, it presents a proposal subject to all the same rules. This aspect of the proposal, though, is puzzling to me and, I am sure, to a number of others; that is, why, when government members heard of the opposition's proposal to amend the legislation, did they not go out and make an immediate public statement to welcome these initiatives and say, 'We apologise to the people of South Australia for either refusing or failing to develop this bill properly,' and making sure that the bill was in order before they brought it to the parliament, demanding that we deal with it all in a hurry?

The areas of reform which have been outlined in detail by the lead speakers on this, and I will not repeat them, are essentially to restore in the process of this development—a $535 million taxpayer development—all the normal planning processes that currently apply to any other major development of this kind in this state. To avoid that raises the question: does minister Rau have any confidence in his own planning processes in this state? Is the law or the governance that is already there adequate or not? If it is not, why is it not being applied in this situation? Why has the government not welcomed this level of capacity to be able to properly proceed with developments? It seems to take the Julia Gillard approach, that is, stuff the proper processes of planning, we are going to move in, whatever it is, a shed in a school or anything else, under the control of the minister, and we have seen what complete stuff-ups that precipitates. It puzzles me that not only did they attempt to avoid it, but even when we suggested it is necessary to be there they are hiding in the cave.

The next point is in relation to having proper scrutiny with the Auditor-General and the Public Works process. What is wrong with those processes? What is wrong with the Auditor-General's process? It is a level of accountability for all other major projects in the state, as is the Public Works. Why are we having to avoid this? Nobody has given any explanation for that.

We need an explanation as to why they have stripped this particular project of any scrutiny whatsoever. Here we are near the end of the day and we still have not even had a welcoming statement by the government to say, 'What a great idea. We are sorry we were too dumb to pick that up in the first place,' or, 'We shouldn't have tried to sneak it through, but having been alerted to it we will get it right and we will accommodate those amendments.'

Then we have the whole question of it being for free. Why is it that the taxpayer has to pay for all this? We have only heard from Demetriou and the other players out there—and there has been a lot of public comment about that. I am not here to argue about who should be making those other contributions, but when it was decided by this government to give the National Wine Centre to the University of Adelaide so that it could use it, provided it gave other universities some access to its facilities and have the benefit of all that income, did it give it over for free? No, it required that it pay rent—a multimillion-dollar piece of infrastructure in this state handed over to the University of Adelaide with a rental stream obligation.

Why is this any different? I think the government needs to explain that to us. SACA alone currently pays $25,000 a year to the Adelaide City Council. Why is there not a little bit—not millions of dollars but nothing? The government needs to provide an explanation. Again, I would have thought we would welcome a revenue stream for that.

The cap is for obvious reasons; that is, in 9½ years the government has demonstrated, over and over again, that it cannot be trusted with money. If it says that it is not going to spend a penny more, then we need to put it in the legislation. We have had yet another disaster of fiscal mismanagement exposed today with the proposed hospital build, which demonstrates the need to have some security of a legislative cap.

The provision for any revenue stream to be invested back for the benefit of taxpayers goes with that. The opposition will move amendments regarding the protection of various places of heritage and importance, including the natural heritage of trees and the like, which have been identified. It has not escaped my attention, as I am sure it has the member for—where is he, Port Adelaide?

An honourable member: At the moment, this week.

Ms CHAPMAN: I know, 'the fossil', yes. When the Premier was in opposition, he described the Parklands in South Australia as, 'Parkland isn't cheap land, it's priceless.' They are the words of the now Premier. He made ministerial statements and contributed to the Parklands structure that we have dealt with in this parliament over the last nine years. He said it was important that we protect the Parklands, yet this piece of legislation seeks to avoid all the protections that have been set up under that legislation.

That demonstrates complete abandonment by a Premier who has pretended to South Australia that he gives a fig (in particular, a fig tree) about the Parklands, yet is prepared to circumvent that. No demonstrable argument has been presented to us as to why the Adelaide City Council should be removed from having responsibility for managing these areas. It has done it for 100 years. It has made provision for the facility and access to these Parklands over a long period of time. They have asked for some, I think, reasonable amendments so that they might preserve their management and governance of this area of responsibility.

If the government has some secret information that suggests that they are incapable or unreliable, or simply should not be left with this responsibility, then let's hear it. But, at this stage, we have had all the sounds of silence from the government about why they should be able to have complete control of $535 million, when other public monies are not given that benefit, which is then handed over to a minister to give to a proprietary company entity which has no accountability to this parliament and no accountability back to the people of South Australia.

I think that their refusal to even identify this is an insult to this parliament, and an insult to the very people out there who are going to be paying for this in generations to come. So, I say to the government: the silence is deafening in their failure to embrace what I think are reasonable reforms which have been outlined today, at length.

Let me say this: the Premier has form when it comes to stating one thing and doing another. We have had the mirage in the desert and now, of course, we have the Roxby Downs redevelopment, which is going to be the saviour of the state. Our parkland is not cheap, it is priceless, and then we have, 'Ignore all the legislation, we are going to do what we like, when we like and with what money we like, and bugger the rest.'

We have had the Minister for Police (the former treasurer) who went through the exercise of making an announcement which was obviously throwing all the taxpayers into the deep end. There was no explanation, nor any attempt to get any money from anywhere else. I think it is the only stadium in Australia that has all taxpayer money and no other private or invested stakeholder funds.

I suppose that he is the one who had the responsible portfolio, as treasurer, but he forgot about meetings, he wasn't quite sure about what meetings he had, and he was unsure about the money. He got sacked, of course, from that role, so he is probably irrelevant in the scheme of things—'the fossil from the Port'. I think he may as well disappear and fill out a few more job applications. He is probably irrelevant, so I do not need to worry about him, but minister Conlon we do have to worry about.

Minister Conlon is the person, under this legislation, who is to be the grand Caesar of the whole auditorium and the whole development. He is going to have control of the lot, and the SMA are going to report to him. He is the one, as he says, who is going to have all the power under this piece of legislation. Clearly, he is, but he has an obligation and the opportunity—mostly the obligation—to protect the taxpayers of South Australia, and this bill and the way it is currently drafted utterly rejects that level of responsibility.

For someone who has been in this parliament for so long, who has understood the important accountability procedures of the Auditor-General, Public Works and other aspects, and has demanded them in other projects when in opposition, it is just unconscionable that he should even attempt to present such a piece of legislation.

The other two in which I am very disappointed are these: Minister Caica—where is he when you need him? He is the Minister for Environment and Conservation, for goodness' sake. He has completely disappeared on this subject and we have not heard a squeak out of him. Obviously, he does not give a fig about the fig tree or anything else. He is supposed to be our minister for heritage.

Then, of course, we have the Treasurer himself. He is the one who is going to be handing over $535 million to the other minister, who is then going to hand it over to someone else, who is going to develop it for a private interest. Yet, the Treasurer himself has to come into this parliament every day and be accountable for every other dollar that he allocates in budgets for the purposes of infrastructure to this state. If it is over $4 million, it has to go to Public Works, and if it to any other public entity, it has to go through the audit process.

So, the Treasurer has to stay under scrutiny, but this bill is going to hand over $535 million—that he has to go out and borrow because he hasn't got it, remember. So, he has to go and borrow it, he has to go and suck up to somebody to get the money, then hand it over to minister Conlon, and then it goes off the radar as far as any accountability is concerned.

Finally, we have the Deputy Premier and minister for planning. What is it that is so defective about our legal protection under planning, our provision under the Development Act and the capacity or responsibility of DAC or anyone else in the structure of planning that is so hopeless, that is so incompetent, that we cannot use it for this project? Where is the Deputy Premier on this, as the minister for planning? What is wrong with his legislative framework? What is wrong with that governance? What is wrong with that planning procedure that we should so alienate just this project from it?

Even the government, while saying the desal plant was a PPP, said, 'Well, even though we don't have to go to Public Works, we will anyway. We're going to show how transparent we are and we're going to hand that over and we're going to do it.' We have not had quite the same open, honest, accountable approach with the Royal Adelaide Hospital, of course. We still have not seen that contract. Mind you, we still have not seen the contract for the desal plant, but at least the process has gone through Public Works. There has been no offer for Public Works' scrutiny for the Royal Adelaide Hospital and none either for this, so I do wonder where our minister for planning is.

The legal structure that is being established here in some way would keep some link with the people of South Australia, but as Attorney-General, the minister is completely silent as well. All the senior people of this cabinet have utterly failed the people of South Australia in the bill that they have presented us. They have had plenty of time to develop it and draw it up, but all of them have utterly failed South Australia. If they do not accept the opposition's proposed reinvestment of scrutiny to protect the people of South Australia, they will have not only ignored the opportunity to do so but also failed the people of South Australia in not doing so.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon) (16:56): I am in favour of top-level football at Adelaide Oval. I have the fondest memories of top-level football of the 1960s and 1970s at the Adelaide Oval. I attended my first grand final there in 1965 when, notoriously, Port Adelaide defeated Sturt by five points.

The Hon. M.J. Wright: Three.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Three, was it? Under a goal.

Mr Pengilly: What happened the next year?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The next year, Sturt prevailed easily.

Mr Pengilly: 66,000 people.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: 66,000 people. That's right.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: My first grand finals were '71 and '72 and we got flogged by Barrie Robran.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes, that's right. The Minister for Transport interjects that Port Adelaide was flogged by Barrie Robran. I should add that in the 1971 grand final, Port Adelaide, with that traditional lack of guts and determination, failed to score a goal to half-time. Then in 1972, they were beaten by even more.

The Hon. K.O. Foley: But then we had the Woodpeckers.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes, and I have happy memories of—

The Hon. K.O. Foley: Do you remember the Woodpeckers?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes, I remember the Woodpeckers, the Minister for Police. I do remember the Woodpeckers because it was a great year—1973—when Woodville won the Reserves grand final at Adelaide Oval, and Glenelg, in the greatest grand final ever played in the history of the SANFL—the last grand final at Adelaide Oval—prevailed over North Adelaide with that magnificent mark by Graham Cornes.

I am all in favour of the top-level football of today—AFL football—coming back to Adelaide Oval, but I am only in favour of it at a certain price. I think it will be good for the whole of the central business district that AFL football be played at Adelaide Oval. I think one of the great virtues of Adelaide as a city is that most people who live in Greater Adelaide use the central business district at one time or another. The return of football to Adelaide Oval will mean that an even greater proportion of people who live in Greater Adelaide will use Adelaide city and that is a good thing because I have been to cities in the world where people who live quite close to the central business district have, nevertheless, never visited it.

An example that springs to mind is Liverpool, which has a lovely CBD. But people who live in Bootle or Birkenhead, or even many people who live in Kirkdale, almost up alongside the CBD, have never been to the Liverpool CBD; they have never found a reason to go there. So, I do not like that segmentation in some cities in the world. I think it is a tremendous thing for Adelaide that nearly everyone in the Adelaide metropolitan area would have a reason, at some time during the year, to use the Adelaide central business district.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Indeed. So, I am a supporter of this proposal.

An honourable member: In soccer terms.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: It just means Real Madrid; that's what it means. So, I am in favour of it at the stated price of $535 million, which is, of course, a very, very large sum of money. I am glad that the Liberal Party is now aware of my motion in the parliamentary Labor Party and seeks to place it in legislation. It is very flattering.

The problem I have had with some aspects of the Adelaide Oval proposal is the attitude of its supporters, the big end of town—the measures they were prepared to take to make sure that this proposal got up. I am a supporter of AFL football at Adelaide Oval, but I find the News Limited coverage of the topic comical. News Limited, by which I mean the Sunday Mail, Adelaidenow and The Advertiser, has a policy that all of us must support AFL football at Adelaide Oval and, if we do not, we need to be hounded out of public life—and I will give an example. If go back to just before the last election, the now Deputy Leader of the Opposition (the member for MacKillop) came out and stated, quite truthfully, that the parliamentary Liberal Party had not made a binding budget decision to support a city stadium. It supported a city stadium on principle, but it had not set aside money in its budget projection, should it come to—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Well, he may, as the Minister for Transport said, have said it more bluntly. The response of News Limited was to publish an online poll, where the member for MacKillop was named, and what he had said was summarised in the poll. Then you had the choice (and forgive me if I do not get this exactly correct) of saying that he was an idiot, moron, wally or git, and there was nowhere to click to say that you actually supported him or thought that he was a good fellow, which was the option I was looking for at the time.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: And the difficulty is?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The Minister for Transport says, 'And the difficulty is?' But it is just an illustration of how we are not well served by News Limited in its coverage of civic affairs in this state. In fact, I wrote a letter to the Sunday Mail just recently, which was not published, so I will share it with you all. I said:

Last week, the Sunday Mail published 'sources have told the Sunday Mail' that 'Up to 60 p.c. of SACA members have given their support to the Adelaide Oval redevelopment through their proxy votes.' If this report had been true, which it wasn't, SACA would have been falling at least 15 percentage points short of its 75 p.c. target and the redevelopment would now be dead. The headline placed on this story in the edition I bought was 'Resounding yes vote for oval'—

Megan Lloyd claims that the heading was 'Big yes vote for oval'; be that as it may—

The headline misrepresented the story underneath, which was telling us that the yes vote was failing. In my opinion, the headline was just more of the News Limited boosterism that plagues its reporting of civic affairs in our State.

That the headline turned out to be true and the story false had nothing to do with ethical or competent journalism. If a story predicts such-and-such will not happen and the headline says it will happen, one is bound to be right. There are many reasons why I buy the Sunday Mail and The Advertiser (such as the death notices, the footy scores and the weather, which editorial management has not yet taken to distorting), but I do not buy them for competent and accurate reporting of the civic life of the state. With every story on civic affairs, the reader must interpret the story through the prism of News Limited's commercial interest and the personal likes and dislikes of editorial management.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Thank you for agreeing with me, member for Finniss. I read out an earlier letter which Megan Lloyd refused to publish in the Sunday Mail when she had been on the Spin Cycle saying, 'How dare the caucus, the parliamentary Labor Party, put a cap on the spending on a city stadium. How dare they? Who are they to put on a cap?', and then she canvassed with another News Limited employee the need for the taxpayer to spend up to $1 billion on a city stadium.

Let me turn to the Adelaide City Council. The first thing to say about the Adelaide City Council is that it is the last of the rotten boroughs. It is like a rotten borough in England circa the 1830s, or perhaps before the Reform Act. The Adelaide City Council lives off the rate revenue of the Central Business District—off the businesses that are carried on in the City of Adelaide. It lives off Rundle Mall, David Jones and Woolworths, and all the many enterprises that occur in the CBD and North Adelaide. It gives the residents of the CBD and North Adelaide an enormous rate reduction based on the 'terrible inconvenience' of living in the CBD. Then, of course, these people who benefit from this rate rebate elect the councillors and they prevail, in any election, over the business interest in the CBD.

Mr Hamilton-Smith interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes. So we have, in a sense, householders in North Adelaide determining the policy of the Adelaide City Council. What happens in the context of Adelaide Oval is that some householders in North Adelaide see top level football and cricket and large crowds at Adelaide Oval as diminishing their residential amenity. That is all they look at. So, of course, the Adelaide City Council is going to try to give the Adelaide Oval proposal the death of a thousand cuts. Councillor Moran has not even started to think of all the things that she can do to obstruct this Adelaide Oval proposal.

So, the Parliamentary Liberal Party is saying, 'Why don't you do what the Adelaide City Council says? Why don't you go through their normal processes?' If we do that with this Adelaide Oval proposal, it is sure and certain to fail.

Mr Marshall: Down with democracy!

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: No, I am afraid I must interrupt the member for Norwood there. Thank you for your contribution during my contribution. But the Adelaide City Council is anything but democratic. It is the opposite of democracy.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Norwood, according to the piece of paper in front of me, you have already been warned once, is that correct?

Mr Marshall: I am not aware of it.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, you have been. Yes, you are. You were warned during question time.

An honourable member interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! And, I have to admit, never having had the opportunity to do so, I wouldn't mind throwing you out. I can see that it upsets the member for Finniss. It does; it upsets him. I am not going to because there is a special system by which you are given chances. But, member for Norwood, you do seem to interject an awful lot. That's all. Carry on, member for Croydon.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: So, remember, this is not just the Adelaide City Council that closed Barton Road. It is the council that considered closing War Memorial Drive and it is the council one of whose long-term plans is to close Jeffcott Road. We have councillor Moran saying that we could not build the new Royal Adelaide Hospital on the rail yards because the rail yards were Parklands. So, at some point, presumably, councillor Moran wants to rip up the railway tracks and to prevent trains from coming into Adelaide because they are travelling over parkland.

Ms Thompson: It brings in the great unwashed!

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: It brings in the great unwashed, as the member for Reynell rightly says. I do think that we must be wary in this Adelaide Oval debate of being dictated to by over-mighty subjects, such as the News Limited management and the Adelaide City Council. We must act in the interests of taxpayers and the whole of South Australia, and that means standing up to News Limited; it means standing up to vested interests like the Adelaide City Council.

The Leader of the Opposition and the member for Bragg cried crocodile tears about some parkland being used for parking and how terrible it would be if people parked on parkland. Clearly, the Leader of the Opposition has no memories of the great grand finals leading up to and including 1973, because you had 65,000, 66,000 people coming to Adelaide. Where do you think they parked? They parked on Pinky Flat. They parked on the lawns north of Adelaide Oval. My own father used to sneak a park in St Mark's College or in some pub car park.

Ms Thompson: And they caught the train and the trams.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: And they caught the train and the tram and the buses that used to gather in Victor Richardson Drive. Remember this: this government, the Rann Labor government, is in the process of returning the whole of the EWS depot opposite the police barracks to parkland. We are actually walking the walk on Parklands' preservation and extension.

The Hon. J.M. Rankine: But that's in the west.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Of course, as the member for Wright interjects, it is in the west, in the western suburbs, so it does not matter. So, no-one who matters notices it. It is not the way that Adelaide City councillors go home, or it is not the way that News Limited executives go home.

Mr Pengilly: They can't get through Barton Terrace West, you see.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Watch this space, member for Finniss, watch this space. Yes, I am a supporter of AFL football at Adelaide Oval. I am not a supporter of it at any price. But I welcome the fact that the parliamentary Liberal Party has come on board for the proposal, because it means making irrelevant those people in the other house who would have obstructed this meritorious proposal.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (17:13): I am never quite sure whether it is a good idea to follow the member for Croydon, but there were some issues there with which I actually agree with him. The die was cast well and truly on 18 March last year when the government won the majority of seats in the house, though it did not win the majority of the vote.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Still hurts?

Mr PENGILLY: Yes, it does hurt. Yes, absolutely. However, the reality also is that a decision has been made to get on with Adelaide Oval. Let me also add that last night—and I pick up on what the leader said in her speech—was one of the best meetings of the parliamentary Liberal team that I have attended in my five-odd years here. Despite the best efforts of the press to garner some sort of nonsense about what went on, it was very balanced, and I pay tribute to all my colleagues who took part in that discussion.

Obviously the Liberal Party is going to support this legislation and get on with it, and I sincerely hope that Adelaide Oval as an AFL venue will be a great venue and will contribute significantly to the wellbeing of South Australians. However, in saying that, let me also add that in my electorate I have received copious, numerous and regular comments from my constituents that they are totally opposed to the expenditure of $535 million on this project. In fairness, there are also some members of my electorate who support it; that is no surprise.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: No, they are not actually. That is no surprise to anybody. We need to remember that this project is only going to benefit 1 to 2 per cent of the South Australian population who attend this venue for whatever sport they choose. It is also of great concern—and it has been raised by members on both sides, as I recall—that currently, with the way the Port Adelaide Power and the Adelaide Crows are going, it is a struggle to get too many people to football at all. It is a major concern, and I blame a lot of that on the current hierarchy of the AFL.

I think that when Wayne Jackson was there it was a much more amenable and fair organisation. I think it is totally biased towards Victorian sides. It was a deliberate strategy. Mr Demetriou was put in place to carry that out. If you can remember a few years ago, they were squealing like stuck pigs because they thought they were not going to have any sides in the finals and they have turned that right around, so perhaps they are a bit smarter than we are.

I hope that out of this there will be considerable funds coming back through SACA, SANFL and the Stadium Management Authority to country sport. I think that is a really critical issue. I know that right across South Australia, but indeed across my electorate, the junior sports that are played—whether it be at Encounter Bay, Victor Harbor, Port Elliot, Yankalilla or Kangaroo Island; it does not matter where—are all desperately in need of additional funding and promotion. It is imperative that this be put in place to provide country junior cricketers and junior footballers (or whatever) with more money to help them develop themselves. There is no greater training for a young child than to be involved actively in a well-run football, netball, tennis or cricket club where they learn some disciplines, and it has worked time and time again.

One of the major concerns that I have is simply the cost of attending AFL football. It is getting beyond the ordinary working-class family to be able to attend. It is getting to become a horrendous cost. If you run through at the moment where we are—and there was quite a bit of discussion on the media this morning about the increases in council rates—we have water rising alarmingly, we have power costs going through the roof, we have the price of fuel relatively high even though it did drop a bit last week. The cost of living is so high. I was rather bemused to read in the paper on the weekend, with the picture of the Treasurer and his family, that they are claiming to have a $400 a week grocery bill, that he knows how tough it is. Well, on $240,000 or $250,000 a year, I have had a bit of trouble swallowing that one, I have to tell you.

The opposition wants this project limited to $535 million, and we will pursue that. I hope the government does come to some sort of an arrangement with the opposition, whether in this house or another place. On that matter, I am pleased that the project is going to Public Works Committee; I think that is an ideal situation. It will allow the project to be sussed out in that committee and, should there be any attempt to try to hijack that hearing and make it much shorter than it should be or any other such stupid action, the government will pay the price on that one. It is important that it is going there—indeed, the hospital should be coming there as well, but that is another story.

It is vitally important that this project is scrutinised and that South Australian taxpayers get accountability; that is a major issue for this side of the house. So, once again it is up to the government to agree, either in this place or when it goes to another place. I am sure it will happen up there whether they like it or not. I reluctantly support this legislation. I heard what the member for Frome had to say earlier. He said a lot of the things that I could translate immediately to my own electorate, as could other country members, I am sure. However, I will support it, because that decision has been made by the Liberal Party and we need to get on with it. As I said, I want it to be a highly successful venue and I want it to be successful for decades to come, but we will wait and see on that. It is a lot of money.

Sport is almost the most important community activity in rural and regional areas, but it is poorly invested in. I say again, sports clubs in electorates need that inflow of money. The SMA is set up as a non-profit proprietary limited company. I would hope that the profits are invested in rural and regional sport. It is a great opportunity for country sport to be better funded. This Rann Labor government, and whether it be a Rau Labor government, a Snelling Labor government or a Weatherill Labor government—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Conlon.

Mr PENGILLY: Or a Conlon Labor government—I don't think so, and it definitely will not be a Fox Labor government. This government has a totally shambolic record with respect to building projects. You only have to look at what has happened with the desalination plant. It has blowout after blowout. It could not organise a good chook raffle or a Liberal Party function, quite frankly. That is a great reason for the Auditor-General to have oversight over this project. The Auditor-General told the Public Works Committee that he cannot have oversight of the hospital, and that is totally unacceptable. However, that is history as well. The project going through Public Works will ensure that the parliament as a body is kept informed.

Adelaide City Council took a bit of a pasting from the member for Croydon a few minutes ago. It is interesting that Adelaide City Council seems to be the convenient whipping boy over all of this. I do understand, to some extent, the hiccups that may have occurred had this gone through the ACC planning process, so I am very pleased that it is going to the Development Assessment Commission. I believe that it will give it proper oversight, adjudicate on what category it is, make a determination on that, go through the proper processes and come out, no doubt, with an approval. However, it may well put conditions on it.

As I said, the Adelaide City Council took a flogging here a few minutes ago. I noted that, earlier in the afternoon, there were quite a number of them in the upper gallery, but they are not there now. The member for Adelaide, no doubt, will pick up on that when she has her two bob's worth on this motion. However, just at the moment I believe that the planning side of it needs special attention. It is critical that it does go through the proper planning process and that that takes its course. The heritage nature of the ground, the scoreboard and the fig trees have all been mentioned.

This is still very much going to be a B-grade stadium. You only had to hear what members who went to the soccer over the weekend had to say, where they got wet sitting in particularly good seats. I do not think that is the right outcome for the place. Quite frankly, it is a joke, and I think we run the risk of having a joke of a stadium in South Australia because it is not going to be as good as it should be. However, we are supporting the project. I say again that we do hope that it is successful. The decision was made to get behind it and push forward with it, but I place on the record once again the fact that I do think that we could use money in other places, quite frankly.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (17:24): It is my great pleasure also to make a contribution to the Adelaide Oval Redevelopment and Management Bill 2011, and it is really hard to consider where to start. The attitude in this place is rather interesting. The contribution by the member for Port Adelaide earlier today was one of the better speeches I have heard. While I did not agree with everything that he said, I appreciated the manner in which he put it, where he actually put some things into historical perspective as he understood it, and other issues, too. It demonstrates to me that, with this confrontational attitude that seemingly exists within the parliament all the time, when you try to take the politics out of it and talk about real issues, you can have a dialogue that is going to get a good result.

I will declare from the very start that I am a bit of a sports tragic. I would love to have been much better at sport than I turned out to be. I have one uncle who won six Mail Medals. He played a few games of league footy until he got a knee injury. I was a pale shadow of him, but I did love the game. I was lucky enough to play in a couple of A grade grand finals at centre half forward—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: I could kick with both feet, minister. I had some skills but not all that I needed.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: No, both feet. I played cricket until I was 42 and I loved that game also. I have the odd game, but these days it is limited to the opportunity of the media vs the parliament game. One of my greatest sporting pleasures was to play on Adelaide Oval No 2 three years ago in a match against the media. I did so because I have always been very much a fan of Sir Donald Bradman, and to have had the opportunity to play on an oval so close to where so many of his exploits were witnessed by thousands of Australians and South Australians gave me a great sense of pride.

It is interesting to reflect on sport and the importance that it plays in South Australia's psyche, and it is a particularly important one. We are very proud when our football teams do well, when our basketball team does well, when our cricket team does well, when our netball teams do well, lacrosse, hockey, all of those sports, because we are a community that takes up a vast number of sporting opportunities, and it is appropriate, indeed, that the government and the parliament work to provide the best possible sporting opportunities and facilities that we can.

That is why the debate has occurred over the last three years—since Martin Hamilton-Smith, as leader of the opposition at the time put his vision forward about an Adelaide CBD sporting facility, and there was the committal of that as part of a major speech from Isobel Redmond as Leader of the Opposition in November 2009 with the opposition's vision for riverside west development, for a covered stadium with a 50,000 capacity, $750 million, and underground car parking opportunities, as part of a revitalisation of that whole part of Adelaide, and to open it up for the people instead of it being a wasteland as it had been for decades and decades.

It brought the debate into the public realm, and anybody who has had a radio or watched a television or read a newspaper in the last two years would be very aware of the effort that the media has put into promoting the debate about sporting facilities in the city.

I take on board the member for Port Adelaide's earlier comments, when he talked about the opportunity for Adelaide to be a vibrant city within the next five years. I translate that also into the hope that all of South Australia's regional communities become vibrant communities too, and it is important that we provide the forum for that to occur. That is where government decisions and government policy, and opposition decisions and policy, really come to the fore.

It is important that we have the absolute best level of sporting facilities. We recognise in the main that only the elite sports people will play in those ones but it creates an ambition opportunity for all of us, and that is what I am driven by. I want every young sporting person, male or female, to strive to be the absolute best that they can, and if they do well in sport they will do well in life. I believe that there is a strong connection between the two.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Fair view, it's true. It creates an attitude, and communities work hard at providing sporting facilities. The Adelaide Oval and the South Australian Cricket Association has worked hard for over 100 years to have the absolute best facility there. The decision created in the early seventies when the SANFL decided to build a stadium at West Lakes, then called Football Park, and then AAMI Stadium, was one they made in the fullness of what they wanted to do for football too. But, indeed, the merger to come back is the best one.

Both parties prior to the 2010 election wanted to create that opportunity. We certainly espoused our vision firmly in November 2009. Within about three weeks the government was there with all the media opportunities in early December to again talk about Adelaide Oval and what they were intending to do, and that is the opportunity that is provided to government that oppositions do not have. We can talk about visions but we cannot talk about the real dollars being available straightaway, and to pull those people in, because we do not have that chance. It was important, though, that the debate started to occur and it meant that it was an opportunity for Adelaide Oval or a central stadium to get the recognition that it needed.

Like a lot of members who will speak on this bill, I recognise that there are many competing demands for the $16 billion that currently makes up the state's budget. Certainly, regional people want to see a lot of money expended in their area and metropolitan people want to see money expended close to them, too. You could argue that only a relatively small number of the population will get the benefit of any facility that is built, but in essence the opportunity is there for any person to have access to it.

That is why governments, historically, have invested in a range of social infrastructure—because they want to see that opportunities exist for people no matter what their interests are. You could argue that art galleries, museums and libraries are all an example of this social infrastructure, and sporting facilities should be equally so.

History records the fact that the government has had several changes of perspective on this. Three years ago I think the budget papers showed—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: What about you?

Mr GRIFFITHS: True. Three years ago the budget papers showed a $100 million commitment to an upgraded AMI Stadium, and some $10 million or thereabouts of that was expended on some projects there. After we made our preliminary announcements, the SANFL did some review work into a stadium in a CBD location. I believe that was $643 million. That did not go very far and then the government managed to pull people in.

The debate has been held around the community. The SACA vote was an important effort to ensure that there was a definitive statement made by a collection of people. You could argue whether it was the SACA vote or the vote in March last year that determined the result—but it was March last year's vote. Clearly, that was the defining moment for it.

In relation to the SACA vote, it really surprised me that only about 50 per cent of SACA members chose to take up that opportunity to express their position, and 80.3 per cent of the vote or thereabouts voted in support of the motion. Media comments prior to that Monday seemed to indicate that it was going to be a big struggle, so there must have been a lot of people right at the end who put in proxies or made the effort to vote, and that turned it around a bit. It really showed that the majority wanted it.

You could argue that only half voted but the reality that confronted us during detailed discussions in the Liberal Party room last night (and it was a very robust debate, a good three hours) was that the majority stood and put their position on various aspects of the legislation under consideration as proposed by the government.

It was one of the best meetings I have ever been involved with because we came out with an agreed position in that we thought public accountability was the key thing, and it came down to what had been committed by the government as part of its proposal to the people and what it was going to be held to account on. That is what the amendments outlined by the member for Davenport in his shadow ministerial responsibility were and the position of the party to support the bill, which comes with a lot of reservations—I am sure people would understand what it comes down to.

There will be no easy answer to this. The opposition intends to move quite vigorously on these amendments. I hope that minister Conlon, in his consideration, acknowledges that these amendments are worthwhile. They are made to ensure that public accountability is there and to ensure that scrutiny is available, because that is what should happen when you are expending this level of funds.

Budgets are tight. We have an increasing debt level which is going to create an enormous interest impost upon the public purse for many years to come. In many infrastructure projects that are being funded to a large degree by level of debt borrowings, accountability must be in place. That is why we want to ensure that the Auditor-General's office is involved in the review of expenditure on this project. It cannot expect to suddenly go through $535 million without ensuring that the outcome as to commitments that have been given is the best possible one.

When the tender prices come in (in October or November, I believe) I will be interested to see how closely they align to the financial capacity that exists. When opposition members had their briefing from the Stadium Management Authority the question was posed, 'What do you do if it is more than $535 million?' The answer was basically that they have to scale back the project to make it fit within the dollars.

I strongly support the idea that the responsibility for determining the appropriateness of a development should be transferred to the Development Assessment Commission. I am uncomfortable with a minister having the level of responsibility proposed by this bill, because it makes the minister of the day the all-powerful, all-seeing one—the autocrat who has total control—and that is not a situation I like to see in place. Again, involving the Development Assessment Commission, who are experts in this field and who will base their decision upon what the development plan says—and because it is a sporting precinct already, I see that as being no problem—they will ensure that the outcome is the right one. The difficult job will then be to match the dollars versus what the project needs are and to make it all fit. Getting that right is not going to be easy.

The Auditor-General's review does have some precedent. I am advised by the Hon. Rob Lucas that this level of involvement has occurred in other projects. I think it is a good one. There has been a lot of debate as to whether this project and the RAH will go to Public Works. As I understand it, the government has committed to a Public Works review which involves three-monthly updates—and the minister might want to correct me on that. That is a really good outcome and I hope that that allows parliament to be involved in the process on a continuing basis. The Auditor-General's involvement allows the people of South Australia to have some confidence that a completely independent person is reviewing the process. In addition, the opposition is going to move an amendment to put in place a cap on expenditure. This all comes back to public accountability.

We can all stand up and talk for hours about the debate that occurred prior to the election regarding what our proposal was going to cost, what the government's proposal was going to cost, and whether the member for Port Adelaide had a conversation with Leigh Whicker five weeks before the election in which he was updated on what the additional costs would be above the $450 million. We know the end result of that and the fact that the minister is no longer responsible for the project and a variety of other things. It comes down to the public wanting to ensure that this cap is met. They were promised $450 million and not a cent more on one occasion. It is important that these constraints are put in place to ensure that we get some outcomes.

I just want to talk about some other issues that are associated with this. I am pleased that the Stadium Management Authority also recognises the importance of country support for footy in the city. There are thousands and thousands of people from regional South Australia who love going to Crows and Port Power games, and long may they have the opportunity to do so. I do recognise that the public transport options that exist within a CBD location are a vast improvement on the West Lakes facility—there is no doubt about that. The system is designed to bring people into the city.

I hope that there will be key parking areas for people catching public transport from the north, south or east of the city so that they do not all have to drive into the city and try to find car parks—and the minister nods in agreement. I know the SMA is focused on that too. I am not sure whether the Tea Tree Plaza option that I was told about by the SMA is necessarily a solution for people coming more directly from the north, but they will work through that.

People want to support footy, they want to support cricket, they want to make sure that our teams are successful, and they want to ensure that they have the best possible opportunity to go to a stadium that complies with all their expectations. We are an increasingly demanding community who want to see the absolute best everywhere. Now, the minister knows better than I, but even from an outside perspective so many demands come in all the time that you just shake your head and wonder how the hell you can actually meet all these priority demands when you do not have the dollars.

No matter how successful the economy is, as a society, we will never provide everybody with what they need all the time. It is the difficulty of determining priorities which makes the job of a minister very hard and, indeed, that of a treasurer very difficult. I hope one day to have an opportunity to be involved in that at some level.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes, true. That is about the challenge. Members will talk about the fact that sport is fighting for its survival at the moment—footy more so than any other. We are a very fickle lot. We like to see success continually, and when that is not there, we suddenly get very upset. Port Power's Dean Brogan was quoted as saying, 'Don't jump on the bandwagon when we are doing well again, support us now while we are challenged.' Adelaide Crows supporters need to have that same attitude, instead of talking about sacking the coach.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: True, I know. There will be amendments moved by the opposition. There will be lots of questions raised in the committee stage. There will be very pertinent points and we will put forward our position quite passionately. I am hopeful that the minister will recognise the worthiness of some of these amendments, and I am sure that, when it reaches the upper house, a lot of effort will be put in to ensure that our amendments are supported, because we need to make it right.

I acknowledged after the election, 'Okay, the result has gone the way I didn't want it to but the result has gone that way.' When we had the party debate, I spoke relatively early in the piece and put forward my case about my level of frustration at things said before and after the election and the result, but the fact is that, as a society, we have to be prepared to move on.

I would love to see half a billion dollars devoted to a hell of a lot of projects around the place, but a priority was determined by both major political parties going into the election that the key points for them were going to be the Royal Adelaide Hospital and a central sporting facility and the result occurred, so let's make it happen.

The minister will have a lot of interesting challenges over the construction period, no doubt about that. Time demands will be placed on him because no doubt he wants to ensure that the official opening occurs as close as possible to before the 2014 election.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: There's no chance of that, no matter what we do. I wouldn't worry.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The minister confirms that there is no chance of an opening before the 2014 election 'no matter what we do, don't worry'. Building companies have been known to—'Hurry up a bit, boys, we want to make sure we get this finished on time. We want to have a nice opening.'

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: It could be like the Northern Expressway opening. You had about three of those, I reckon.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: That's right, yes: a lot of money goes into it. Our building industry is going to be challenged to make all this happen with the things that are occurring at once, but there are going to be some economic spin-offs. I have some concerns about the impact on the West Lakes area. The economic modelling that we have been shown talks about a great spin-off opportunity for the CBD area. What is it going to do to West Lakes? There will need to be some support for them there, also.

The fact that both parties wanted to bring major sport into the CBD on nearly a weekly basis is an example of the fact that they recognise the importance of the city of Adelaide as an economic driver for our whole state. It provides an entertainment forum and a recreational forum, and it means that people come to the city and actually get to enjoy a far greater degree of what the great aspects of the city of Adelaide truly are.

Many other contributions are going to be made. Government accountability is an important issue for the opposition. I am particularly attracted by the fact that there will be an expectation of some level of rental as part of this legislation from the amendments put by the opposition and indeed that those funds are to be devoted to the Recreation and Sport Fund because I know, with only about $6.5 million per year and there being so many competing demands, we need a lot more money going to rec and sport around all of South Australia.

I am a little bit interested in, and I will ask some questions of the minister during the committee stage about, the 400 car parks that are intended to be created under the corporate section on the eastern grandstand and the access point for that. Is that coming through the alignment of Victor Richardson Drive or is there another intention to take it through some parkland area? How is that going to get there?

A lot of detailed questions will be put to the minister in the committee stage, but it is only designed to ensure that the outcome of the project is the best that it can be. I would have loved it to have been a brand new stadium with a covered roof to provide the absolute best of facilities for the sporting spectator in South Australia, but the government has decided to go ahead with this project. The responsibility of the parliament is to ensure the absolute best outcome from it.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. P.F. Conlon.