Bills

ASER (Restructure) (Facilitation of Riverbank Development) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 13 April 2016.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:02): I rise to speak to the ASER (Restructure) (Facilitation of Riverbank Development) Amendment Bill 2016 and, in doing so, confirm from the outset that the opposition does not agree with this bill being progressed at this stage. That is not to say that we object to there being development on the riverbank. Whilst we could extensively discuss what we think may be better aspects of a development, the government has chosen a certain composition of developments within this site and we are not here to debate that.

So, whilst we may have done it differently, we support there being development and would agree to progressing the bill in the event that there had been full disclosure of the documentation we consider necessary to advance the progress. In short, they are three things: first, the contract known as the development agreement entered into between Walker Corporation and the government; secondly, the particulars of the proposed announcement by the Premier of a new art gallery which is to be detailed in the near future; and thirdly, the correspondence between Mr Walker and the former minister for planning and urban development which has been the subject of a freedom of information application directed to be issued by the Ombudsman, appealed in the District Court and withdrawn last week. There are also outstanding freedom of information applications in respect of the documentation, including any drafts of the contract, which, for the purposes of this debate, has been referred to as the Development Agreement by the government.

The effect of this bill, introduced by the minister on 13 April 2016, is to amend the ASER (Restructure) Act 1997. Essentially, this is necessary to formalise arrangements, or variations to arrangements, of the management of the Festival Plaza site, which accommodates the Railway Station, the Intercontinental Hotel, the Casino, the Festival Theatre and the Convention Centre, and allows for individual leases and shared management of the facilities and services thereto.

Commitment to the redevelopment was announced by the government prior to the 2014 state election, and then in March 2015 it was announced that an agreement had been reached with the state government and Walker Corporation to contribute $180 million and $430 million respectively to a development. Ultimately, the terms of that were confirmed in a development agreement signed by Walker Corporation on or about 26 May, but I will come back to that in a moment. In any event, it was only in recent weeks.

In addition, according to a ministerial statement, a second agreement has been signed with SkyCity, which has a proposed development adjacent to its existing casino facilities. The threshold question is whether in the terms of these agreements access to common areas, roadways, service facilities, etc. has been considered. Frankly, given that so much of the ASER area, which is delineated in the principal act and covers the tenants, as I have referred to them, could be covered by contractual arrangements, the need to continue to provide this under statutory entitlement has been considered by us.

It is fair to say that although the Riverside building was previously owned by the government and is now in the private hands of a German superannuation fund consortium, the Intercontinental is private and the SkyCity has private tenancy, the rest of the operations in the current precinct are all government owned or controlled. The extended area that is proposed under the legislation to become a Riverbank act covers all areas of which the tenants are government owned or controlled.

Essentially, this bill will allow not only for increasing this site to a greater map, to principally accommodate the SkyCity development, but also for temporary suspension of all the ancillary property rights to allow works to proceed. It also provides for the restructuring of leases and ancillary property rights to the area following the completion of the project, all of which are accepted as being necessary to progress the development, and, finally, as I say, renames the act the 'Riverbank act' because it will take in a much larger area of ultimate consideration in precinct master planning and the like.

The position of the opposition, however, not to agree to progress this bill, although listed this week in advance for consideration today as the first item of business this week, is one which requires the parliament to consider legislation in the dark. Whilst we accept development needs to be considered, although the form is different from what we perhaps may have progressed and announced at the last election, we accept that an amendment to the statute is necessary to facilitate it. However, we should not be expected to make those determinations and consider the issues without a full disclosure of the government's proposals.

In our view, it diminishes democracy and undermines particularly the role of parliament without that full disclosure—particularly the commercial terms included in the contract—to either the Public Works Committee or any other statutory body of the parliament, or to the parliament itself. Secondly, it is absolutely disrespectful to the people of South Australia. We are talking about the development of an asset owned by the people of South Australia, of which some $180 million is to be invested by the people of South Australia, which will ultimately be granting a very substantial 70-year lease for a commercial development by a third party, namely Walker Corporation.

Thirdly, it utterly destroys the trust in the government, particularly the responsible minister. For the government to even ask the parliament to progress this matter in the absence of this material is also, I suggest, completely inconsistent with the government's obligation under its own Disclosure of Government Contracts obligations, as published in PC027 in December 2005. In significant contracts, which are those as defined in this memorandum, the information should be listed as set out: dates of parties, contract dates, commencement times, consideration exchanged and the like, and:

…as well as a PDF version of the entire contract. In cases where parts of the contract are not available electronically, these parts of the contract can be disclosed separately on request.

Certainly, there is a provision for disclosure, which is at the discretion of the chief executive, and covers what I would suggest to be the usual disclosure exemptions for private information, general business, commercial-in-confidence, intellectual property, trade secrets, etc. Remember, we are being asked here to progress this matter without there being any disclosure of the contract, other than a briefing that was provided eight or so days ago by the government representatives and a representative from the Crown Solicitor's Office, at which a number of questions were asked regarding the differences in the key performance features of the development agreement, and at about 7pm last night, finally, the provision of a summary of those key variations.

The document, I might mention, is headed 'Subject to legal professional privilege'. I do not therefore intend to read from it. I do not want there to be any suggestion that we are in any way impeding, or breaching, any alleged privilege. This is a document provided, as I say, from the government and purports to provide, as we have requested at least, a list of the material supporting the oral briefing provided by the government. The explanatory memoranda that came with it by email suggested that the state was in no way waiving the legal professional privilege provided in the summary document, so I do not intend to refer to it.

It also raises questions though about having provided the summary of what ostensibly was presented at that briefing as information that was disclosable sufficient to highlight the differences between the terms of agreement pursuant to the Premier's announcement in March 2015 and what has transpired in May 2016 in the current development agreement. It certainly puts a cloud over what the actual situation is for us. It really only compounds the felony, if I can describe it in those terms, of the government's decision to exclude appropriate information from the parliament not just to the opposition but to all members of parliament who ultimately need to consider these matters. So that is the position that we take.

I refer now to the very brief history of the negotiations in respect of this matter to date and critical events that have occurred. Firstly, members might recall that the Festival Plaza Precinct project had been first floated in 2010 when the government appointed late that year a Riverbank stakeholders reference group chaired by Mr Rod Hook, who was then the chief executive of the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure. They were charged with the responsibility to coordinate the development of a master plan. In the next year, in 2011, after various professional bodies had been tendered and contracted to draft master plan principles, by late that year a final master plan was published.

In 2012, after an expression of interest process, Walker Corporation, a Sydney development company, had been granted the exclusive right to submit a proposal for development. This is not an uncommon practice these days. Probably it is fair to say that that enables there to be a balance between people having an opportunity to put forward a proposal without the full expense, the very substantial expense for most of these big projects, of a full tender process. It eliminates you early if your ideas or proposals are simply not going to cut it. It enables the serious players, or at least one of them, to be identified and then to go through the more rigorous processes of tendering for work.

In 2013, in the middle of that year, the Premier released the Greater Riverbank Implementation Plan to create the grand central park and precinct. He confirmed the government had received plans from Walker Corporation for redevelopment of Festival Plaza and was considering them. We then had a picnic event where everyone was given a free drink and sausages and hamburgers and whatever, and you could go down to the Riverbank and put a Post-it note on a board to put forward your ideas about what you think should happen. Remember that this is some extensive period post the exclusivity period that had been granted to Walker Corporation.

Nevertheless, by July, then minister Rau announced a Ministerial Riverbank Health and Entertainment Areas DPA to amend the Adelaide (City) Development Plan, and by the end of that year submissions had been received. Ultimately, on 11 February 2014, Premier Weatherill and minister Koutsantonis, who was at the time responsible, announced that a car park would be developed by Walker Corporation. There was no mention whatsoever of office or retail buildings. Minister Koutsantonis was quoted at the time as saying:

We have ruled out the development of any office towers on the Plaza because we want to ensure it remains a place for arts, culture, tourism and entertainment.

That was the information the public was to receive and digest on the eve of the election. A few days later, regulations were issued—I would have to say one day outside the caretaker period for the establishment of the Riverbank Authority, and the appointment of Mr Andrew McEvoy. Of course, a month later we had the state election.

It soon became clear, in fact, that the Riverbank Authority, whilst it was promoted as being an important supervisor of projects and the like in the Riverbank area, its responsibility was whittled down to a role in the master planning on the old Royal Adelaide Hospital site and at least a preliminary contribution to the master plan in respect of the Festival Plaza area, but it soon got sidelined. It is an authority which has regulatory power, over which Mr McEvoy presides. He lives interstate and comes here for regular meetings. He provides an annual report to the parliament. I think his budget is about $670,000.

From my perspective, when I read his annual report, it looks very clear that he and his board are the coordinator of events and they consider ideas from time to time and give advice to the government about what could be dealt with. The sorts of things they did in the 2014-15 financial year include the early consideration of ideas at the Festival Plaza, which is the subject property we are considering; the Royal Adelaide Hospital site master plan, as I have said; the branding website and events; and their biggest objective for 2015-16 was to look at what events they could have in this precinct and what other pop-up opportunities there might be.

I think that tells us that they are not in charge of this plan. They really are quite independent of the actual management of this project. It became clearer from briefings that we were provided with subsequently that Mr John Hanlon, Chief Executive of Renewal SA, and his predecessor, Fred Hansen, had a role in respect to this. In particular, Mr Richard McLachlan, of Renewal SA, had a role in the general management of the development of this project. I am going to come back to them shortly. As a board, the Riverbank Authority was pretty much irrelevant to the pointy end of the pencil when it came to this development, and it came under the Renewal SA supervision, as I have said.

Interestingly, on 13 March 2014 the Premier announced the Festival Plaza Precinct Project, with the Walker Corporation. As I have said, they had been the successful applicant to bid for this opportunity, several years before, and in 2015 he announced the principal terms of that agreement. Interestingly, only a few days before, on 5 March, approval by the DAC of the Walker Corporation's Buckland Park project was published in the Government Gazette. In any event, let's move on. Obviously, we as members of the parliament are interested, as we have the responsibility to be, in becoming informed about the detail of this project, and that information was forthcoming in a summary way via the provision of a briefing by Mr Hanlon and other representatives.

In short, the government announced that it had agreed to a $610 million proposal—$180 million from the government and $430 million from Walker Corporation. The government's contribution was $90 million to the Adelaide Festival Centre upgrade, $30 million to the Adelaide Festival Centre car park and $60 million to public realm and surrounds. The Walker Corporation was to contribute $95 million to a car park and was given the right to build a new commercial office building and retail development, and it had an obligation to upgrade the plaza to the value of $40 million.

The governance was identified as being under the Riverbank Authority with Renewal SA. We now know that in fact Renewal SA had the oversight of this project in real terms. The Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure of course retained a role specifically in the oversight of the building program, the staging of all development activity, and the management of approvals and the like. Arts SA (for whom minister Snelling is responsible), the Crown Solicitor (for whom Mr Rau is responsible) and Renewal SA (for whom Mr Mullighan is responsible) were to detail the commercial terms of agreement and the development agreements and of course manage the legislation, some of which is before us today.

Essentially, the ingredients, as announced by the Premier, were to be for the building of a car park, as I have said. There had to be the security of 400 car park spaces available to the state government, some of which, as we know, are to be available to the parliament and to the Festival Theatre and other arts events attendees. The retail property and office building, which had to have a commitment to at least 10,000 square metres (that is, almost a quarter of a square metre area) had been approved and had to be offered to interstate and overseas tenants. The ground and first floor options were to be provided to the government on a first right of refusal basis.

The government announced that there would be no precommitment of any of the office space provided by the government, and that has been the position of the government ever since when questioned about it. There was to be provision of a 70-year lease by the state government to the Walker Corporation to occupy this area. If they are going to have a commercial and retail opportunity there, then obviously that is consistent with that. As I say, there was to be the melding of moneys for the development of certain activities in the precinct. That is what was announced.

There were some obligations, finally, by the government to Walker Corporation to commit to the construction of a car park within 12 months and the office and retail components within five years. That is what we started with back then, when the Premier announced this final FPPP. In the absence of information being provided, I referred a number of questions for consideration to the Auditor-General on 28 April last year.

I appreciate that in his 2014-15 annual report there is no specific reference by him to investigating any matter. I should place on the record that the Auditor-General is accountable to the parliament, can act under the direction of the Treasurer of the government, but is in no way obliged to act upon any request of any other party, including any other member of parliament. So, I do not mean by saying that there is nothing in his report that in any way he had declined to review this as a result of my request, but I make the point that, whilst that was near the end of the financial year, I am looking forward with interest, given the events that have occurred since, to his annual report for 2015-16 which we will not receive until later this year.

The other way which is really only left open to us in the parliament, because if we ask questions and we do not get any answers or we ask for briefings and we get sanitised and skeletal information we resort to this process, is to issue a freedom of information request. After this announcement on 30 March, I also lodged a freedom of information application seeking any correspondence between the Walker Corporation and the agency. In this case, it is the Minister for Planning, minister Rau, at the time who was also housing and urban development. It is fair to say that that process took nearly 18 months to resolve.

An application was requested for that information. It went through the usual process of rejection by the agency and the chief executive, who was Mr John Hanlon. Ultimately, the Ombudsman on review determined on 29 March of this year, so a year later, that the agency's determination should be reversed and that the one document which had been identified, that is a letter from Mr Lang Walker of Walker Corporation to the minister, should be produced.

The Walker Corporation had been represented throughout this request process and review process by a legal firm in Sydney and had been given very substantial extra time to put submissions to the Ombudsman. However, he made it clear in his determination that the document is not deserving of the protection claimed by Walker Corporation and it should be released. In response to that, Walker Corporation instituted proceedings on 27 April in the District Court of South Australia to seek to overturn the determination of the Ombudsman and the consequential keeping of that document secret.

Remember that by this stage the government had announced a year before that it had entered into an arrangement—not yet legal documents and contracts but an arrangement—with this entity, namely, Walker Corporation, to be responsible not only for the construction and build and development of a major redevelopment in the plaza precinct but also to commit to very substantial public money and Walker Corporation funds.

However, they said, 'No, we want this document kept secret.' They lodged their appeal and last Friday, just to complete the circle on this, without any explanation Walker Corporation withdrew their application against me and against the Attorney-General because he remained a party at the time to be in possession of the document in question. Remember that this is a letter from Walker Corporation to Mr Rau. At this stage, we have not seen it yet because, notwithstanding the withdrawal of those proceedings, that is the lodgement of a notice of discontinuance in the District Court last week, we have not yet seen the document.

Again, even past the May signing of a development agreement, we still have no document. It is still apparently a secret as far as the Walker Corporation is concerned. They have abandoned their District Court proceedings, and yet we still have not had from the government, which is in possession of this document, either a copy or a facsimile transmission of it, or an email, of course, in electronic form. It heightens the concern.

Finally, over this period, some other important things have happened. Firstly, remember that Renewal SA is responsible for this project in a material and day-to-day way together with the Department of Transport, and they have also been responsible for the management of other projects. They are a relatively new entity. They are only a few years old. So far, they have been financially a basket case. I think that is the best you could describe them as. There are two events that really heighten concern to me, which travel over the same period for which this agency has had responsibility for the plaza development.

I refer to a relatively recent disclosure, that is, the admission by Renewal SA in March this year to a parliamentary committee, in particular the Economic and Finance Committee (it was February, actually, when the evidence was given), that in respect of another project that they were responsible for—that is, the development, tenancy and occupancy of the Tonsley site, another major development and very expensive asset owned by and under the control of the government, under the joint management of Renewal SA and the Department of State Development—the contract documents, when asked for by the Auditor-General, could not be located.

As was described at the time, that was a staggering lapse on behalf of Renewal SA. How can you have multimillion dollar contracts and you cannot even find the contract? I do not know what the filing system is at Renewal SA, but it makes you worry, does it not? Apparently, when the Auditor-General asked to see this contract, it could not be found. I find that very, very concerning. Mr Vince Tarzia, who is the member for Hartley in this parliament, sits on that committee. He described it, when he said, 'Why, in light of Gillman, is administration transparency still an ongoing wound?' It is certainly staggering to appreciate how the compliance with the production of a multimillion dollar contract to that precinct should just be missing.

That was a more recent one. Certainly, my concern had been raised when there had been the inquiry into the Gillman land sale. This was an inquiry, apart from multiple legal proceedings surrounding it as a result of the government's proposed sale and development of land at Gillman for their now infamous oil and gas hub, that had been announced in 2013, again just before the 2014 state election. Suffice to say, after millions have been spent on that prospective opportunity given exclusively to Adelaide Capital Partners, South Australia has not seen one job out of it—except lawyers, of course, who probably made a fortune—and not one dollar.

However, I am not here to talk about Gillman. That project, on its own, I think, made crystal clear how incompetent the government has been in its capacity to manage assets and money on behalf of South Australia. Commissioner Bruce Lander QC, who is the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption, undertook an inquiry under the Ombudsman Act, as though he were the Ombudsman, to investigate that land deal. He provided a report on 14 October 2015, which was tabled.

In that report, which of course is very lengthy, he made a number of findings about the sale of that land at Gillman and the conduct of various ministers. Ultimately, he made findings of maladministration in respect of both the former chief executive, Mr Fred Hansen, and Mr Michael Buchan, who had a senior financial position in Renewal SA. One has now scuttled back to Portland and been replaced by Mr Hanlon, and the latter is still there, operating in a very senior role in that agency.

However, I am not here to discuss Gillman. In this report, Commissioner Lander made a number of findings in respect of evidence given by Mr Richard McLachlan. He was then the general manager employed by the urban renewal authority, Renewal SA. He provided an affidavit in the hearings in relation to the Gillman inquiry. I think it is fair to say that he was called to be cross-examined (or questioned, I think is the best description) by Mr Lander or his counsel as to the conduct of the minister in charge at the time, who was minister Koutsantonis, in respect of the Gillman deal.

I also want to make very clear that Commissioner Lander made a finding that Mr Richard McLachlan had no involvement in the Gillman transaction. He was completely cauterised from involvement in that project and, furthermore, he was found to be a credible witness. His evidence was accepted and I think he was described as having given evidence with candour, etc. This is no personal reflection on Mr McLachlan but, at page 153 of the Gillman report, the following is recorded:

During this period Mr McLachlan was responsible for activities in relation to the Riverbank Precinct, the Festival Centre Plaza and Car Park Project, the Port Adelaide Renewal Project and growth area infrastructure negotiations which were, as he described them, high profile and of interest to Minister Koutsantonis.

The commissioner makes further comments on page 155, after traversing certain language of minister Koutsantonis, which I will not be making comment on. I think the report spoke for itself, and his conduct, the expletives used and the evidence supporting that are all recorded in the report. However, on page 155, the commissioner finds:

He—

meaning Mr McLachlan—

said…[that] there were two occasions where the advice that he gave Minister Koutsantonis was not positive. The first was when he told the Minister that a project could be completed in a particular time but later had to amend the time [of the contract] to report to market and the Minister said: 'Well, you have [effing] let me down'.

He then goes on to say:

On the second occasion Mr McLachlan said that he wrote to the Walker Corporation which was concerned with the Festival Centre Plaza and Car Park project and was told in a subsequent telephone conversation with Mr Walker that he did not appreciate Mr McLachlan's advice but it did not matter much because Mr Walker said he had spoken to Mr Hooker and Minister Koutsantonis and that Mr Walker would not be dealing with him in the future. Mr McLachlan said that without being told he was removed from responsibility for that project.

I think that is an extraordinary finding, and I suggest to the parliament that they have a good look at this when they are considering this bill. We have someone who has been found by Commissioner Lander to be a witness of good repute. His evidence has been accepted and he has told the commissioner, almost ancillary to the issue of the Gillman project but in relation to the conduct of minister Koutsantonis, that at least on one of the occasions he has delivered bad news to the minister he was taken off the project inexplicably—a very important project, one we are now having to consider before we advance legislative restructure to accommodate.

He goes on to say, and I should say this is referring to bad advice or what has been described as not positive advice (the bad news rather than the good news):

…that if Minister Koutsantonis was given advice a common reaction of the Minster was expressions such as 'this is just [effed]' or 'how the [eff] do I get myself out of this situation?'

That raises a number of concerns. Whilst the Festival Plaza Precinct project was not the subject of the inquiry I have just referred to, a witness of good repute has been taken off the project when a minister and/or a prospective contracting party or private agency, namely, Walker Corporation, with the government has been executed.

We have a situation this year where the agency that is responsible for the management of this development has been under the microscope a number of times. There is further waiting for this year's events—namely, the progression and culmination of agreements being signed, which hopefully Renewal SA have not lost, as they did in the Tonsley project, and will be able to produce for examination to the Auditor-General if he seeks to inspect the same. Hopefully, we will be able to have access to information such as a letter that has been the subject of freedom of information and has not been produced to anyone else.

I might say that I am a little curious as to how you could have a letter to a government minister from a third party, who ultimately became a contracting party with the government, and there appears to be no response. At no time in the investigation or assessment of the freedom of information applications and reviews had there been any disclosure by the government or any response. There was not even an email acknowledgement to say, 'Thank you very much, Mr Walker,' or whoever the representative signature was from. 'We have acknowledged receipt of your letter and it will be sent to the minister for attention,' or whatever.

There was no disclosure of any response at all. I find that curious in itself. It may be that the minister received this mystery letter and put it in the bin for all we know, but he has a copy of it at the very least. It is in his possession and we want to see it. There is no legal impediment to us seeing it, and I certainly want to see it before we agree to progress this bill. The other matter is the agreement between SkyCity and the government, which is apparently now signed. It relates to an expansion of their $300 million or $350 million development, I think, from memory, that they proposed to progress. Suffice to say, for the record, we have not seen a copy of that either. Again, it is the subject of further requests.

The material differences, as best as can be explained, are significant. We are not in a position to scrutinise those, but it is fair to say that on the information provided there have been some variations to the number of car parks. They went from 1,400, as originally announced, to 1,560. Apparently SkyCity does not need 1,000 car parks anymore; they are happy to have 750. That provides some flexibility for the Walker Corporation as to what they do with them, either for short-term tenancy or sale. We do not have the particulars of that.

One thing which does concern me, and which has at least been admitted, is that there is no penalty to the Walker Corporation if it fails to secure any interstate or overseas tenants for the quarter of the space of its commercial and retail development. That is a little concerning. I am sure most governments would like to encourage those who invest in their public land that, if there is a condition that they provide or introduce new parties or companies as tenants into a city precinct, they are going to do two things: firstly, to hopefully advance the state by introducing a new player into South Australia; and, secondly, not exacerbate the commercial tenancy glut as a result of cannibalising tenants out of other buildings, thus causing even greater hardship for investors in existing commercial tenancies or retail.

The terms are otherwise consistent with some of the announcements, although I just place on the record one aspect which I find very concerning. It is not the difference between what was announced by the Premier in March 2015 across to May 2016, but what had been offered for those parties who wanted to contribute in an expression of interest in that early process back in 2011. You might recall that back then there had been a provision for a height limit of up to six storeys for buildings. After the exclusivity deal had been signed, and consistent with the final determination culminating in the Walker Corporation agreement as announced early last year, he was able to build a 24-storey commercial and retail building.

Obviously, there had been development plan amendments to facilitate that, and the government said, 'Look, we think that is reasonable.' I think minister Rau made statements at the time that this was going to be consistent with the skyline along North Terrace. For whatever reason, he is now legally able to do that, and he has done so. But it is a far cry from what had been offered as an opportunity for development, or to submit an expression of interest in a development, which has very different to what ultimately transpired.

It is unsurprising to me that I read in the paper from time to time that there has been some disquiet in the property development world about this deal. I am not in a position to make any judgement about whether this has all of the barnacles of the Gillman deal, but I do say this: every day that the government refuses to provide us with the reassurance that this is a good deal for South Australia, a good use of taxpayers' money, and is of benefit to the South Australians of their public asset, then my confidence in this arrangement diminishes. It should ring alarm bells to everyone in this parliament.

One of the most recent comments that was made was about government doing things properly, not just to protect all the principles that I opened on today but to reassure the public that things were being done fairly and that the rules were being complied with by government, which is supposed to be the model litigant, the model citizen, etc. One of the things that must be done is ensure that there is no misconduct, no maladministration, no secret deals, no kickbacks or corruption and all those sorts of things. The government has to be reassured that they know they are actually doing the right thing and ensuring that the agencies that are responsible are doing the right thing.

We not only have a regime of law to protect against that but we also have regulatory impositions. We also have codes of conduct, practice guidelines—all the things that are necessary to ensure that the government and its agencies are acting in a proper manner. All of that is part of the confidence that we as a parliament would have in the government's management of a project in its application of funds, disposal of an asset or alienation of an asset, which is essentially what is occurring here: Walker Corporation are going to enjoy a 70-year exclusive access to certain precincts. In my view, that confidence is being shattered.

Our highest protector of conduct in the state as an investigator, the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption, makes statements that he then publishes, which he is able to do. He publishes information time to time about cases he is investigating, particularly when he has determined that it should be referred on to another agency (DPP or to the police and the like). He made a very recent statement in which he outlined a number of reasons why there ought to be some changes to the ICAC Act, in particular dealing with investigations that he considered might benefit from being held in public.

He made the very clear observation, which he has repeated on a number of occasions, that, whilst he staunchly opposed open hearings for corruption investigations, there would be benefits for some serious maladministration inquiries. Maladministration, members will remember, results when there is an irregular or unauthorised use of public money, a substantial misuse of public resources, or inappropriate use of official functions, and it includes conduct that might be described as incompetent or negligent, but not criminal conduct. One of the most astute observations I think Commissioner Lander recently made is when he said, in respect of investigating maladministration:

I was concerned that public officers could commit offences rather casually and that really is a product of maladministration that public officers can casually commit an offence and obtain money or benefits to which they're not entitled.

He went on to say:

If maladministration is allowed to foster that will create the opportunity for corruption and that is our [SA's] experience.

That should again raise concerns by members of this house when they are asked to progress consideration of a statutory restructure to facilitate a deal of which the documentation that has been produced is manifestly inadequate. I remind the house that the opposition's position is very clear. First, let us see the contract. You put to us a position. If there is a specific clause in the contract which should be protected for commercial-in-confidence, trade secrets, intellectual property, etc., we would be happy to hear it.

Secondly, if you change the terms then we need to know about them. If the Premier wants to make an announcement, as he did a week or 10 days or so ago, that he is now thinking about putting a new art gallery in this precinct then we need to know about it and we are entitled to know about it. You cannot just come along and say, 'Look, this is a project we are thinking about, give or take a few hundred million.' No, that is not acceptable.

Thirdly, if the law says that we are entitled to see documents, including correspondence between the parties—in this case, Walker Corporation and the government—then we need to see them. That is a condition precedent for us to consider restructuring this law to facilitate this secret project. I do not think we are asking too much. I think that is reasonable. Anybody out in the public arena is entitled to have that information or at least know that we have received that information, have had the opportunity to consider it and then be able to express a vote in the advance of this bill in their interest. That is what we are here for.

For the government to continue to be so secretive, as I say, undermines the democracy, it undermines and insults this parliament and, in my view, it undermines the confidence of the public even in the government. Even for self-interest, they should start thinking a bit smarter and realise that they are here to represent and serve the people of South Australia, not sign up secret deals which are then being sought to be approved and given the blessing of this parliament without us even seeing the documentation. That is disgraceful conduct on behalf of a government. It is grossly inadequate for our consideration and we will not accept it on this side of the house.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (12:02): I thank the deputy leader for her contribution. Not that I have done as much legislation in this parliamentary session as perhaps she and, more to the point, the Attorney-General have, but I think the filibuster of the session award goes to the deputy leader for padding out that hour quoting from reports unrelated to the matter or the content of the bill, let alone regurgitating past media statements on unrelated matters from opposition backbenchers. I take my hat off to the deputy leader for stretching that out in the way that she did.

Of course, I do not tend to agree with some of the quite probably unparliamentary reflections on me as minister, on some of my ministerial colleagues and on the government. In fact, I think the accusation of 'felonious conduct' was made by the deputy leader, which is somewhat disappointing, despite it being her birthday today. For her to engage in that sort of unnecessary and inappropriate behaviour in this chamber is a disappointing example to set for other members in here. Nonetheless, it would be untrue of me to say that it would be the first time that that sort of behaviour has been engaged in by the deputy leader. But I thank her for her contribution. She is an avid watcher of matters within this portfolio. I am surprised that she—

Ms Chapman: I am the shadow minister, that's why.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: As the deputy leader points out, she is the shadow minister, and she has known about this bill for at least 11 weeks. Indeed, it has been before the house for 11 weeks. I get the impression that perhaps the reason for her hour-long filibuster and inability to indicate support or otherwise for the bill might be that, despite having those 11 weeks, she still has not taken it to her party room, which would not be unusual because, of course, we have seen similar sorts of behaviour from other opposition spokespeople.

Ms REDMOND: Point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: the minister is imputing an improper motive to the deputy leader.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Having listened, as I did, intently to the contribution, I understand the minister's point; however, he must—

Ms REDMOND: He hasn't bothered to read the standing orders.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! He must wind up the debate on the second reading.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, of course, Deputy Speaker, it will be my pleasure to. Nonetheless, we look forward to progressing this bill. It is an important bill because, as the deputy leader unfortunately glossed over, this bill facilitates the development of a much-needed piece of infrastructure within the precinct in which we continually meet here at parliament.

At the very least, we need the redevelopment of the car park facility which is behind us, not just for the principal concern, I understand, of many of those opposite, or if not those opposite then those who work for those opposite—that is, car parking facilities for their benefit—but also for the Festival Theatre. We are not just seeking to redevelop a car park: we are also taking that opportunity to provide an extensive upgrade to the Adelaide Festival Theatre. Something which I think we can be proud of as a Labor government is that we are doubling down on the works that were done back in the 1970s by former premier the late Don Dunstan—a tremendous supporter of the arts.

Ms Redmond: It was Steele Hall's initiative.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, as the former leader, the member for Heysen, says, this is another of the initiatives, apparently, of Steele Hall. What was he not responsible for between 1940 and 1980?

Ms Chapman: Financial debt.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Perhaps, even me uttering that name and a comment to that effect may indeed enliven some sort of contribution in the letters to the editor page in The Advertiser from the said former Liberal leader, but let's wait and see how that travels.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Without further ado, I will conclude the government's remarks. We look forward to the support of this house for this bill so we can get on with this project which, as I mentioned, includes not just a car park but also the redevelopment of the Adelaide Festival Theatre and the development of a new meeting place for South Australians in the Festival Plaza Precinct. The agreements which have been struck, not just between the government and Walker but also between the government and SkyCity, allow the early works package of works for SkyCity's development, providing some basement facilities and foundation structures. I will conclude my remarks there.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The CHAIR: Are we going to do some debate on this or are we adjourning it?

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

Ms CHAPMAN: I move:

That progress be reported.

The CHAIR: Is that seconded?

Mr Treloar: Yes.

The CHAIR: For the question say aye, against say no, the ayes—

Ms Chapman: Divide!

The CHAIR: Sorry, we are not adjourning it?

Ms Chapman: Divide!

The CHAIR: Hang on just a second—are we misunderstanding you? We thought you wanted to report progress.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Okay, so if there is a dissenting voice, we need to ring the bells. We are adjourning it, and now she is saying 'divide'.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am sorry if there is any confusion—

The CHAIR: There is lots of confusion. I wish someone would be clear about what we are doing. It is very hard to take advice from four people.

Ms CHAPMAN: At this stage I have moved to report progress, it has been seconded, you have taken the vote—

The CHAIR: I have not called it though.

Ms CHAPMAN: I thought you had called the noes.

The CHAIR: As I recall, I had not called it.

Ms CHAPMAN: If you would be so kind, Madam Chair, to call the vote and, in the event it is in the negative, I indicate to you that I will be seeking to divide.

The CHAIR: So, why don't the whips do all this beforehand? That was my question last week.

Mr Treloar: This has been organised this morning.

The CHAIR: It does not look organised to me. Does anyone not tell the member for Bragg—is that the problem? I am calling clause 2.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

The CHAIR: You said no, so I am calling it lost.

Ms Chapman: Divide!

The CHAIR: Now the member for Bragg wants a division; ring the bells.

The committee divided on the motion:

Ayes 17

Noes 21

Majority 4

Motion thus negatived.

Clause passed.

Clause 3.

Ms CHAPMAN: My question is to the minister, and it is the only one I propose to ask. The minister opened the second reading contribution from the government by applauding, in the Riverbank area, the already successful story of the Adelaide Oval. He stated:

The redeveloped oval has been a triumph, with visitor numbers not seen since the 'Bodyline' over half a century ago—in times of economic change it has galvanised South Australians…

My question to the minister is: did you check whether the attendances at the SANFL grand finals during the 1960s, which on my understanding exceeded 65,000 people, had been taken into account when you made that statement to the parliament?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am happy to talk about the redevelopment of the Adelaide Oval and crowd figures that have been achieved, and I thank the member for the welcome introduction to talk about this project. As you would recall, Chair, when the government sought to progress the development of Adelaide Oval we had some significant challenges. Without trying to indicate what all of those challenges were, perhaps I could advise the house of some of those challenges. We were missing a key economic driver, for example, for enhanced economic activity within the Adelaide CBD.

We are also suffering from declining sporting attendances at two major sports: one, of course, Australian rules football, and the second is attendances at cricket games. Having had some significant history that has passed in the time perhaps preceding the interests of either the deputy leader or me in the lead-up to the move of SANFL football down to Football Park during the 1970s, since that time both the SANFL as well as, from time to time, some cricket games, perhaps notably some of the World Series Cricket games, have been held at Football Park.

However, in more recent times, certainly in the period of the first decade of the current millennium, we had seen a gradual decline and a gradual dwindling of crowd numbers at Football Park, and it is fair to say that there had been a similar sort of dwindling of crowd numbers for some cricket fixtures—not all, but some cricket fixtures—at Adelaide Oval. To give three examples, certainly the club that I am most passionate about, the Port Adelaide Football Club and its AFL incarnation Port Power, had been suffering from declining crowd numbers at Football Park. When mated with what was perceived to be—and, of course, none of us have seen the actual details of this—an unreasonable stadium deal from the SANFL at that time at Football Park, these declining crowd numbers were costing not only the sport of Aussie rules football in South Australia some of its lustre and allure for fans but it was also financially costing the Port Adelaide Football Club quite significantly from being stuck down at Football Park playing games.

Certainly I can remember in a previous professional incarnation that there were some suggestions that an additional sheen of lustre could be reapplied to Football Park, and perhaps the state had some role in providing some financial assistance to the SANFL to substantially redevelop Football Park, and maybe that was to upgrade its facilities, upgrade its stadium capacity, upgrade its food and beverage experience and be able to attract the sort of crowds, which are referenced by the second reading comments, at that location.

However, of course, the AFL at the time took a different view. It thought that part of the reason why the MCG and now, as we understand to a lesser extent, Etihad stadium or the Docklands Stadium facility had been more of a success was because of its proximity to Melbourne's CBD, to the heart of Melbourne, and so came the suggestion for the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval. Certainly fast-forward—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Fast-forward some period of time—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The CHAIR: I must remind the member for Bragg, irrespective of the fact that it is her birthday, that we are not going to tolerate interjections—are we—and we are not going to respond to them.

Mr Knoll interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! The member for Schubert, if I have to go and get the book I will go and get the book.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Where were we? Perhaps I will rewind and start again.

The CHAIR: Yes, why not. I have lost track, too.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Perhaps that might be necessary.

Members interjecting:

Ms Redmond: Speaking of filibusters.

Ms CHAPMAN: I do raise a point of order. My question was about why the alleged visitor patronage at the Adelaide Oval, in the opening statement by the minister, was inconsistent with the claim that over 60,000 people attended SANFL grand finals during the 1960s, so it is a visitor patronage question as to who is right. If the minister has erred in his claim that there had not been visitor patronage since similar to Bodyline, then perhaps he had not read it when he gave the speech or had not checked it, but I am happy to have—

Members interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: I am happy to have the minister—

The CHAIR: I have been very generous to everybody—

Ms CHAPMAN: —consider some long way of getting to it, but he has had about 10 minutes and I would like to know what the answer is.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

Ms CHAPMAN: Because he can speak—

The CHAIR: Order! Sit. The Chair has been very lenient with everybody this morning. We are going to listen carefully to what the minister says as he addresses, as soon as he possibly can, the question.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That is right, thank you, Chair. I apologise to the deputy leader, I did not realise she had an exclusive licence on that excess detail.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! It would be good if everyone was respectful of everybody, but there has been a little bit of argy-bargy here this morning, so it is a bit hard for the pot to call the kettle black. Back to the topic.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Anyway, crowd numbers. How to boost crowd numbers is the purpose of the Adelaide Oval, as referenced in the second reading contribution.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Bragg, you will miss question time and I would not want that to happen.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Well, that is not something that would be true for all of us.

The CHAIR: Order! I might be misleading the house. Back to the topic.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: So, crowd numbers. The idea of the Adelaide Oval redevelopment was to boost crowd numbers, particularly in light of the dwindling, last year, of both AFL football, at football park, and attendances here in South Australia for both of our teams. I gave the example of the Port Adelaide Football Club, but it was also an experience replicated, unfortunately, by the Adelaide Football Club—a club that I am somewhat less passionate about, but realise its equal importance here in attracting people to enjoy that game of Australian rules football but importantly contribute to the economy of South Australia.

As I was saying, the Australian Football League took the view that a redeveloped oval closer to the city was desirable to boost those crowd numbers. Fast-forward the tape a little and, as we found ourselves at the outset of the 2014 AFL season, only a small number of days after the recent state election—and what a pleasure it was for the re-elected Premier to be out on that oval after that state election, tossing the coin at the beginning of what was a showdown, and very pleasingly for me, as a season ticket holder of the Port Adelaide Football Club, a home showdown for Port Adelaide—we had a record crowd of over 50,000 people. Those crowd numbers, by and large, have been replicated throughout the entire season.

That certainly had not been the case for many years at football park, and when we come to cricket, and this is where we get to the nub of the issue about the comparison with—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! Member for Bragg.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! Member for Bragg.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It must be frustrating—

The CHAIR: No—to me, not her, me.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It must be frustrating—

The CHAIR: No, not that bit, the next bit about cricket.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: So, to the nub of the issue, which is comparing the Bodyline crowds to the recent football crowds, and somewhat of a red herring conjecture by the deputy leader throwing up one crowd, which, if you are a Port Adelaide Football Club supporter—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That is right, is best forgotten, given the result. Nonetheless—

Ms Chapman: 2 October 1965.

The CHAIR: Member for Bragg, I will have to get the book, I cannot cope any longer. Keep going.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The comparison between these three events, the crowds that we had in the Bodyline series, where I understand we had five days—it was five days, it was not one of those six-day test matches that we used to have back in that era, but five days—and days they were, eight-ball overs back then. They were long days and it is incredible that a crowd would stick it out for that long, particularly given the quality of the infrastructure back then, when there was less shade and fewer amenities—but stick it out they did. Five days of capacity crowds at Adelaide Oval.

Now the deputy leader, somewhat incongruously, as a red herring—and I am mystified that she does not have any other questions at the committee stage of this bill, but I will not digress—says, 'What about one day,' unimportant in the context of sporting history particularly given its result, 'back in the 1960s when maybe there was an overcapacity crowd?' Well, one day does not a spring make, or whatever the metaphor is. One day is not a valid comparison for the trend that is spoken about in this second reading speech.

The trend of crowd attendances cannot be shied away from. The trend has been that crowds have repeatedly been at or near capacity for AFL football games at the redeveloped Adelaide Oval, at or near capacity as they were for the Bodyline series back in the 1930s. That is the validity of the comparison. Given that she represent suburbs which by and large are likely to support clubs like Sturt, as unfortunate as that may be, particularly for them, given their recent success or lack thereof on the sporting field, I realise that it is in the deputy leader's interest to raise that red herring, 'What about that Port Adelaide versus Sturt Football Club game?'

But to pick one day and say that that was at capacity or even beyond capacity and that that is a valid comparison to what happened in the 1930s, when we had a series of days over the whole period of a test match at Adelaide Oval when we were at capacity crowds, or even what we have seen for the most part over nearly 2½ football seasons now of near capacity or at capacity football crowds, I do not believe is a valid comparison, so I stand by what is in the second reading.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (4 to 7) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (12:32): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

Sitting suspended from 12:33 to 14:00.