Motions

Adelaide Oval

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (11:02): I move:

That this house moves to establish a select committee to inquire into and report on the impacts and benefits of the redevelopment of the Adelaide Oval, and in particular:

(a) the economic benefits of the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval;

(b) the financial benefits of the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval, including to which organisations the benefits are accruing;

(c) the impacts and benefits to the South Australian Cricket Association, the Adelaide Football Club and the Port Adelaide Football Club;

(d) the corporate governance of the Oval, including the Stadium Management Authority;

(e) the legislative, regulatory and other legal frameworks governing the Adelaide Oval, and any opportunities for improvement;

(f) any opportunities to improve the functions, benefits and operation of the Oval; and

(g) any other related matters.

It is fair to say that from the time that I first put this motion for consideration of the house on the Notice Paper in early November, things have moved on somewhat and there have been 'some developments', if I can put it euphemistically. We have had the announcement by the government and the Stadium Management Authority of the proposal to develop a hotel facility, essentially to be built onto the eastern side of the Adelaide Oval. Indeed, there is some effort going on in this regard in the other place. I think I would not surprise too many members if I were to foreshadow that perhaps my motion may not be successful when we get to the point of putting it. Regrettably, I understand why, given those developments.

I want to take the opportunity to talk about the Adelaide Oval, not so much the issue which has been ventilated quite a lot in the last two to three months, that is, principally about the proposed hotel development and the government's $42 million loan to facilitate it, but about the precursor to that announcement, the development of the Oval itself over the period from 2011 to the very beginning of 2014 and what we have seen since that development which has been successfully delivered.

Many members will be aware that the history of the redevelopment of the Oval has been told many times. In fact, if success has many fathers, then the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval finds itself perhaps like Julius in Twins, with many, many fathers claiming responsibility. We have not only someone with whom I am well acquainted, the former member for Port Adelaide, the Hon. Kevin Foley, but also the former member for Waite, the Hon. Martin Hamilton-Smith. We even have the Hon. Terry Stephens from the other place, who claims credit for the redevelopment of the Adelaide Oval, also known as—

The SPEAKER: He is very talented.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —'the builder'. It did have quite an interesting and chequered history, if I can put it like that. We got to the point that, in 2011, this parliament found itself considering a bill to enable $535 million of taxpayers' funds to be granted to the Oval and its custodians for the redevelopment and why that would be. We had for many years, an ongoing problem, particularly with football, but also with cricket here in South Australia, where we had an ageing facility at Football Park, which continued year on year to attract fewer and fewer patrons to attend AFL fixtures, as well as SANFL fixtures. We were having a similar problem here in the city with the Adelaide Oval and the South Australian Cricket Association, again, with an ageing infrastructure, struggling to attract crowds to predominantly cricket fixtures, but as well, from time to time, other fixtures hosted at the Adelaide Oval.

There had been many discussions facilitated by both sides of politics here in South Australia about what could be done about the situation. We had proposals for developments of new facilities in different parts of the city. We had a proposal funded at one point by the former Labor government for improvement of some of the facilities at Football Park. Nonetheless, which of the ovals or Julius's parents think they were responsible for the final proposal, we found ourselves considering the redevelopment of the Adelaide Oval on the footprint that we have always been familiar with.

It caused some consternation, particularly amongst the community, but also amongst South Australian Cricket Association members who ostensibly, through their organisation, were the custodians of the Oval. Beyond those members, taxpayers thought why, once again, are South Australian and, indeed, commonwealth taxpayers, providing more and more money for the redevelopment of these facilities? There had been contributions towards the Chappell stand, there had been contributions towards the redevelopment of the western grandstand, yet here we were once more with a $450 million redevelopment of the remainder of the Oval, as well as an $85 million grant to pay for the works that had already been completed on the western grandstand.

This parliament took the view that it was appropriate for a wholesale redevelopment of the facilities and provided $535 million for that purpose. It placed some requirements and restrictions on what could and could not be done in the precinct and also how much could be done over a time frame expanding 10 years, from December 2009 to December 2019.

Given that football would be required to move from its base at Football Park into the city, there had to be some sort of management arrangement arrived at between the very different football interests and cricket interests, which seem to have a history of not being able to get along and agree on how they could possibly share premises, let alone the operational responsibilities and any financial benefits that might come along with some arrangement.

Between the two organisations, shepherded by their leaders, at the time the Hon. Ian McLachlan, from the South Australian Cricket Association, a former federal minister, as well as Mr Lee Wicker, then the Chief Executive of the South Australian National Football League, an agreement was formed to create a new incorporated organisation under the Corporations (South Australia) Act, the Stadium Management Authority.

The Stadium Management Authority would comprise an equal number of delegates from both those organisations, the SANFL and the SACA, and come up with some sort of amenable regime where there would be some rotation in the chairing of that body so that there could be no assertion that one body was gaining more influence in this new organisation over the other. At the time, it was seen as a necessary compromise and not necessarily a flawed compromise. There is nothing inherent within the structure of the Stadium Management Authority, as it was initiated, that should lead to any problems with the management and the superintendence of the Oval.

We had a bit of a soft launch at the end of 2013 for that Ashes series that came to South Australia when not everything was complete. Other members might remember if they attended that test, walking across the footbridge, which had not yet been paved. There were still some works going on at the Oval itself. But it was evident from that Ashes Test match, which was played there, that the redevelopment was going to be a tremendous success.

Then we saw on 28 March 2014 possibly one of the greatest football games played at Adelaide Oval in the first round of that season for the Adelaide and Port Adelaide football clubs, when Port Adelaide was victorious over their lesser cross-town rivals. There was much to be celebrated on that day! The success of that day, with more than 52,000 people attending that game, continued on for the rest of that season and beyond into the 2015 season and so on, as we have seen over the next five years.

In fact, crowd numbers and attendance levels have been so strong that, both for Crows and Power games, they have easily surpassed the initial financial model that was drawn up by the SANFL and the two football clubs for what they could anticipate at the Oval. They were 'shooting the lights out' to use a common expression when it came to attracting crowds and then, of course, revenues to the Oval. This facilitated a substantial uplift in the revenues for the Oval and enabled the SANFL to make sure that they had not moved their location from Football Park to Adelaide Oval at any financial loss, but it also provided some capacity for financial uplift for the two football clubs.

That is really one half of what the redevelopment was all about: making sure that not only do we have a fantastic redeveloped nation-leading stadium at Adelaide Oval but that our two major sporting codes playing there, football and cricket, would be left financially significantly better off so that they could invest in their own sports, invest in their own grassroots communities and have a strong and viable future and that we could be sure in South Australia that our clubs had everything they needed to compete, not just at the highest level but successfully in finals, for example.

That has certainly been the case. There have been uplifts for the SANFL and, after much complaint from the two AFL clubs in South Australia, both the Crows and the Power, there have been amendments made to the stadium deal, as it is called at Adelaide Oval, to make sure that, of the very significant uplift in revenues the Oval is experiencing, those two football clubs are doing better than they were out of the stadium deal they had at Football Park. But that did not end the complaints.

There have been ongoing concerns raised by the two football clubs, by the members of the two football clubs, by board members of the two football clubs, that those two football clubs are not doing as well as they should, given how financially successful the Oval has been performing. To a lesser extent, that has also been reflected by South Australian Cricket Association members, as well as South Australian Cricket Association board members, hence the reason this motion was raised by me in this place. After five years, it was about time we had a look at this arrangement and this issue. We will get some answers on how much money is actually being generated at the Oval and, importantly, to the question: where is that money ending up?

One of the protections we put in the legislation is that the Auditor-General is required not only to report every six months on whether the $535 million set aside by this parliament for the development has been spent appropriately and according to law but to audit the finances of the Stadium Management Authority. Without diminishing the efforts of auditors-general going back for at least the past five years, we have seen very simple, very cursory reports into the Stadium Management Authority's finances, basically an assurance that the level of income they receive, the level of expenditure going out, the effect on their balance sheet and their reported cash flows have been accurately reported.

There has not been that next level down of detail, which is of crucial importance; that is, what is actually happening, particularly with all that money flowing out of the Stadium Management Authority? Since the efforts commenced in the other place, we have started to see some—not enough, but some—information about how much is being raised and where that money is going. We have been told by the Stadium Management Authority that over five years we have seen $80 million go to the SANFL. The SANFL claim that is not actually money for them: that is money that goes to grassroots football, which I find interesting.

Like all my fellow members of parliament, I have South Australian amateur league football clubs in my electorate—indeed, many members opposite have Hills and country league football clubs—which have no relationship whatsoever with the SANFL. I am looking forward to hearing the SANFL justify their deep and financial connection to grassroots football because there does not seem to be a clear connection, let alone financial flow to them through any of those three channels. The SANFL claims that the $80 million is money that goes to the Power and to the Crows as well. On the face of it, that does not seem to be the case, so we are looking forward to getting some answers there.

What we are trying to do is shed some light on whether the intentions of this parliament have actually been met. Has the redeveloped Oval proved a financial success—yes—and, once that financial success has been achieved, is the money going where it was intended? That is, does it make sure that the AFL football clubs and the grassroots football that we were hoping to support, and then the same arrangements on the side of cricket, are actually being financially supported, or is this just going to the back pocket of the SANFL and other interests and not flowing back to the community?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL (Schubert—Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government, Minister for Planning) (11:17): I rise to say that the government will oppose this select committee on one simple basis, and that is that the upper house, on the motion of the Hon. Ian Hunter, moved a select committee with substantially the same terms of reference as those being inquired into here. That select committee is established and, as the member for Lee has pointed out, is currently underway. Its terms of reference are to inquire into:

(a) The economic and financial benefits of the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval, including to whom the benefits are accruing;

(b) The operations and financial management of the Adelaide Oval;

(c) The corporate governance of the Oval, including the Stadium Management Authority;

(d) The financial returns to the South Australian National Football League, the South Australian Cricket Association, and the Adelaide and Port Adelaide Football Clubs;

(e) The financial contributions into the Oval infrastructure and into the broader sporting community from the Oval's operations;

(f) The proposed hotel development at the Adelaide Oval, and the process by which the Government considered the proposal at approved financing the proposed hotel development;

(g) The impacts on the hotel industry in Adelaide of the proposed hotel development;

(h) The legislative, regulatory and other legal frameworks governing the operations of the Adelaide Oval, and any opportunities for improvement;

(i) The impact of the Oval and its operations on the surrounding parklands and the legislative, regulatory and other legal frameworks governing further development in the parklands; and

(j) Any other related matters.

I think that those terms of reference are broad enough to encompass not only the more limited terms of reference being canvassed in this select committee but also, I assume, the subsequent hotel development, which came out after the point in time at which the member for Lee proposed this select committee to this house.

It is quite interesting, certainly, hearing the member for Lee's speech. They set up the deal into Adelaide Oval. It was one of the crowning glories of the Hon. Kevin Foley at that time. He boasted in a podcast about how he had managed to hide the cost blowout from everybody, including the South Australian people and almost all his cabinet colleagues, in the lead-up into the 2010 election. He was quite boastful about that.

It does seem that the member for Lee, especially in his rhetoric, is potentially trying to trash the legacy of the Hon. Kevin Foley and the work he did to get the Adelaide Oval hotel development off the ground and essentially would like this select committee to go through and forensically analyse the deal that the then treasurer put together, in whose office I may or may not understand the member for Lee was working at the time. I find it quite peculiar that Labor now wants to distance itself from the Adelaide Oval redevelopment and the deal that surrounds that. Who would know?

I think all these issues can be well ventilated by members in the upper house; indeed, they are doing so at the moment. I think that as good Liberals we do not want to see red-tape duplication and unnecessary bureaucracy, and we would consider that one select committee into these issues is enough. Certainly, there was much insinuation in the member for Lee's speech to potentially question the probity of the operations of the Stadium Management Authority and the other organisations involved with it.

The member for Lee also mentioned the fact that the Auditor-General does actually look at the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval and the $535 million and the circumstances in which that money is being spent. I cannot be 100 per cent certain because I have not done the research, but I am fairly sure that that would have been an amendment that the Liberal then opposition would have put in place as well as the hard $535 million cap. Again, that is an avenue the then Liberal opposition put in place to make sure that there was proper scrutiny of this deal.

A report was tabled in this place not two days ago that identifies where the Oval is at and gives a very full and frank account of how that redevelopment has occurred to make sure that this redevelopment has taken place in compliance with the act that was put through this house at that time.

I think that the member for Lee, if he had wanted this select committee to have primacy, maybe should have sought to bring it on earlier or had a discussion with his colleague Ian Hunter in the other place. Whether or not the Hon. Ian Hunter has trumped the member for Lee, either way there is a select committee that is ongoing. It has the opportunity to delve into these matters, I would consider, to an even greater extent than the terms of reference being applied here. I think that one select committee into this issue is enough and that we would not want to waste this parliament's very valuable time on a duplicate select committee.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (11:23): I thank the member for Schubert for his contribution. As much as I enjoy being patronised by my juniors, I do appreciate it being done from a basis of fact. He is right in one respect: he has not done the research on this matter. If he had done the research in this matter, then he would realise that the Stadium Management Authority and the act were shepherded through both houses of parliament under the stewardship of the responsible minister of the time, the minister for infrastructure, the Hon. Patrick Conlon. The records show, of course, that after the unfortunate lapse of memory of the Hon. Kevin Foley over the course of the 2010 election that it was perhaps best that the Hon. Mr Conlon took stewardship of it.

I can appreciate the government's perspective on this particular motion. Indeed, I pointed out earlier that it was with no firm expectation of this house's support for this motion that I rose today to speak to it, given the developments of the efforts in the other place. But I do want to make one more serious point, and that is that, as I was at pains to say in my earlier remarks, there should not be anything inherently wrong with the arrangements in place for the management and the stewardship of the operations of the Oval, but this parliament should be asking pointed questions about whether the current management is ensuring that the parliament's desires, back in 2011 when that bill was passed, are being met.

You do not have to go too far in South Australia to be approached by somebody who has a genuine belief, and a belief that exists with some basis, that our football clubs are not getting what they should, given the financial success of the Oval, that our Cricket Association and their clubs, for example, the Redbacks, the Adelaide Strikers, the premier turf association—

Mr Cowdrey: Scorpions.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —the Scorpions, thank you, member for Colton—and whether all those organisations are getting as much as they should, given the extraordinary success of the Oval. It is absolutely imperative that, having made such an extraordinary commitment—and there can be no doubt that in excess of half a billion dollars is an extraordinary commitment to pay over to a private organisation for this purpose—we make sure that the outcomes this parliament desired are being delivered.

I appreciate the government's approach in the establishment of the efforts in the other place. They not only supported it—I am not sure how enthusiastically—but they are attendant on the committee, including the Hon. Mr Stephens, getting to see the growth of his cherished child and how it is going. just as it enters school age after five years. But, coming out of it, there is a very serious matter—that is, making sure that the SMA is doing the right thing.

We have to be prepared, if the Stadium Management Authority is found not to be doing the right thing, if they are not ensuring that the financial benefits of the Oval are going to those that this parliament intended, for this parliament to consider some rectifying action. That will be a big call for us to contemplate, but an important one.

Our predecessors have made that extraordinary contribution, and if it is not delivering then it will be up to this place to ensure that we take corrective action to ensure that the Stadium Management Authority is delivering. I would hope that we get full, open, transparent and honest cooperation for the Stadium Management Authority so that we can get to the bottom of where all the money is going, and I look forward to progressing the efforts in the other place to get to the bottom of it.

Motion negatived.