Question Time

VICTORIA PARK REDEVELOPMENT

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (14:32): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Urban Development and Planning a question about the Victoria Park development.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Almost a year ago the Treasurer, the Hon. Kevin Foley, announced the go-ahead for this particular project, which was to replace the grandstand, reduce the track size and return some land to general park use, and put an end to the temporary structures for the V8 Supercar race. In fact, we note that there has been horse racing at Victoria Park for some 100 years and car racing for some 20 years and the structures are either in extremely poor condition or temporary in nature.

On 27 September this year, the Leader of the Opposition (Hon. Martin Hamilton-Smith) indicated that the state Liberal Party would support legislation so that construction work could begin straight after the 2008 Clipsal 500 race. In the last sitting week the Minister for Urban Development and Planning announced and laid on the table the Cheltenham Racecourse Development Plan Amendment, a development plan amendment instigated by himself. At a number of public functions since that time, I have heard the minister talk very favourably about his DPA and, in particular, the aspects of transport-oriented development, the commercial development around the railway station, some high-rise development (potentially up to six storeys high) in close proximity to the railway station and, of course, acquifer storage and recovery in what is a significantly reduced open space from what the Premier initially indicated.

It is the opposition's understanding that this development and the redevelopment of Cheltenham is, of course, contingent on the redevelopment of Victoria Park. It is interesting to note in the online poll conducted by the The Advertiser that, as of 1pm today, 70 per cent of respondents (some 583 out of a total of 832) are in favour of the Victoria Park development going ahead. I am also aware that the Treasurer has made a statement today saying that he is prepared to go back to the negotiating table, notwithstanding the fact that some time ago the Treasurer was extremely outspoken about the council and in fact threatened to sack the council. My questions to the minister are:

1. Are you prepared to let the Cheltenham redevelopment wither on the vine because of your government's inability to deliver the project?

2. What aspects of the proposed development are now up for negotiation that were not up for negotiation a matter of weeks ago?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Police, Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning) (14:35): In relation to Cheltenham, I heard Steve Ploubidis from the SAJC indicate this morning that as far as he was concerned the Cheltenham project would proceed. After all, it is the SAJC's land at Cheltenham. This government has facilitated the development plan amendment, but Mr Ploubidis indicated that they would proceed with that regardless of the outcome for Victoria Park.

In relation to Victoria Park, it was only last evening that the newly elected Adelaide council, an entirely new council, expressed its view, but it is my understanding from press reports that, while it rejected the lease of the park for motor sport activities, it also indicated that it was prepared to negotiate with the government. Given that that decision was made only last evening, it would be wise for the government to at least have the opportunity to discuss that matter with representatives of council and see whether there is provision for some compromise here. It is incumbent on the government to at least hear what the newly elected city council has to say.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Members opposite are always criticising this government and saying that we do not consult enough. Now that we have had a council election, whilst we do not necessarily agree with that council surely we should at least hear what it has to say. The government will do that and we would expect that, if the council is acting in good faith, the government should also act in good faith and not put conditions on that. I am sure my colleague, who is responsible for this matter, will listen to what the city council has to say and, if it is possible to reach some agreement with the city council, the public of this state would expect us to try to do that. At the same time, if the city council is not genuine and is not negotiating with bona fides, that will soon become obvious and the public will judge the council accordingly. The sensible thing for the government to do is at least listen to what council has to say, and we will do that.