SOUTH AUSTRALIAN MOTOR SPORT (CONSTRUCTION OF PERMANENT BUILDINGS) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. M. PARNELL (15:41): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the South Australian Motor Sport Act 1984. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. M. PARNELL (15:41): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the bill I have drafted is primarily to plug a loophole, as I see it, in the South Australian Motor Sport Act and to ensure that, if the government is determined to build a corporate facility on Victoria Park, it will need to either negotiate suitable arrangements with the Adelaide City Council or legislate in this parliament to achieve that end. What I do not want the government to be able to do is use exemptions contained in the South Australian Motor Sport Act to achieve that end without going through either of those processes.

The impetus for this bill was an article printed in last month's Adelaide Review. The article talked about the likelihood of special legislation being introduced in parliament to facilitate the corporate facility in Victoria Park. I will read from the Adelaide Review article because it explains quite well the rationale for this bill. The article states:

However, the government may not have to legislate. Detailed legal advice paid for by Adelaide City Council months before the council poll says that wide powers exist in the SA Motor Sport Act 1984 to give the SA Motor Sport Board...what it wants on the parklands site. The advice also reveals that the Deputy Premier has major powers under this act to overrule any council lease conditions. Council's lawyers claim that:

The act allows the [South Australian Motor Sport Board] to install permanent infrastructure (including buildings) on land comprising a 'declared area'.

The board may also access land comprising a 'declared area' for a motor sport event at any time outside of a 'declared period'...'and, further, may carry out works and do any other things on that land, provided that they are reasonably necessary for or incidental to the performance of its functions.

While there is uncertainty that this allows the board to occupy land long term, the lawyers advise that 'the act is silent on this issue and there is no express prohibition on long-term access'.

The article goes on:

The key to the board's freedoms is legal advice that its activities must relate to those occurring 'in the course of the SAMSB's functions.' Section 10(2) of the act says: 'For the purpose, or in the course, of performing its functions, the board may (b) carry out works for the construction, alteration or removal of public or other roads, track, grandstands, fencing, barriers and other buildings and structures.' Adelaide City Council's lease public consultation ended on 12 October and council is reviewing the responses.

The council has now reviewed the responses and has determined that it does not wish to give a lease. The article continues:

There has been a widely held assumption that the council must formally approve a lease to the state government before it can act, but legal advice highlights a grey area. It is possible for the Motorsport Board to get around the rigors of a lease with council, under the wide provisions of the SA Motorsport Act. The lawyers claim that: 'The SAMSB cannot be bound by the conditions of a lease unless it is a party to that lease.' They then explore what might happen if the board signed a lease and then failed to comply with conditions. They advise: 'Outside of a "prescribed works period", the SAMSB must comply with conditions determined by council. However, if the minister (the Deputy Premier) on the application of the SAMSB considers those conditions to be unreasonable then the minister may determine the conditions.' In other words, minister Kevin Foley has the power to determine the conditions of a lease if the SAMSB asks him.

That article had many people referring to the statute book to look at what powers existed in the South Australian Motorsport Board legislation and whether or not those provisions could be amended to make it clear that the government cannot ride roughshod over either the elected council or this parliament.

The amendments that I have introduced go to a couple of the provisions in that act. The first thing it does is it includes in section 10 of the act (the functions and powers of the board) a new power or function, which is that the board must not construct a permanent building in any parkland within the city of Adelaide without the approval of the Corporation of the City of Adelaide. So, that makes it very clear that this legislation is not to be used to override the city council. As for the meaning of 'permanent building', I have defined that to be a building that is intended to remain standing for a period exceeding six months.

When it comes to the facility of which we have all seen drawings, it is certainly intended to stay for more than six months—probably more likely 60 years given the pictures that we have seen. I have also sought to amend section 25 of the act, entitled 'non-application of certain laws'. I have been aware of this section for many years, because I used it in the teaching of environmental law at university.

One of the things that is included in section 25 is that the Environment Protection Act—which is our main noise law—does not apply to or in relation to a declared area for a motorsport event during the declared period for that event. The reason I used that as an example to students was to say that the general law of the land says that you are not allowed to make an unreasonable amount of noise; but here we have a legislative provision which prevents people from complaining about the noise from the Clipsal and the Australian Formula One Grand Prix before it. Most people would accept that it is a necessary exemption. If we are going to have a very noisy car race then we probably do need to suspend our noise laws for that period. Section 25(2) provides:

The provisions of the Development Act 1993 do not apply to or in relation to any works carried out or activity engaged in by or with the approval of the board within a declared area.

That goes far further than just saying, 'No-one can complain about the noise from the Clipsal race'. This is saying that the Development Act does not apply. That, I think, is an appropriate provision if we are talking about temporary facilities. We should not need to have to get development approval to put up a grandstand and then take it down again, and then get another development approval next year to put it up and take it down.

My amendment makes it very clear that that exemption or, if you like, the non-application of the Development Act does not apply to or in relation to the construction of a permanent building within a declared area. In other words, even though the government has been going through the Development Act process, I want to make it crystal clear that it cannot use this Motorsport Board Act to, later down the track, decide that it does not need development approval. The cumulative effect of these amendments is to ensure that proper processes are followed. If at the end of the day we see legislation in this parliament to make it clear that a corporate facility is to be constructed, I do not use the same language as the opposition, 'Bring it on', but I do say, 'Let's at least make sure that we have that debate in parliament.'

I am on the record as saying that I oppose a permanent facility of the type proposed by government in the location it proposes. I am not against all forms of development in the parklands. I think that we clearly do have development, and we have existing development that could be removed and consolidated, but building this massive structure in the centre of Victoria Park is not, in my view, the best way to protect the Adelaide Parklands. I urge all members to support this bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of the Hon. R.P. Wortley.