ADELAIDE OVAL REDEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 22 June 2011.)

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (17:44): I rise to speak on the Adelaide Oval Redevelopment and Management Bill and add some comments to support my colleagues the Hon. Robert Lucas and the Hon. David Ridgway. I just want to touch on a few things, starting off with the decision-making processes and how we have come about this. The Liberal Party came out with a bold vision of an inner-city, covered stadium. The Labor Party, prior to the election, realised that we were getting some traction and decided that it would try to drag football and cricket, kicking and screaming, and do a deal at Adelaide Oval.

That was not because it was the best possible outcome for sport in South Australia, not because it would be a state-of-the-art stadium for football participation for the next 50, 60 or 70 years, and not because it was the best outcome for cricket because, in fact, cricket, as we speak, has the best cricket ground in the world down the road, with the best cricket pitch and more than adequate facilities, magnificent surroundings and certainly has never had a requirement for a 50,000-seat stadium to accommodate cricket patrons, and neither is it likely to.

What we have seen with this decision-making process is pure politics. The reality is that the Labor Party held enough seats at the last election to win. The Liberal Party had the majority of the popular vote but, sadly, they were not in the required number of seats. Whilst the Labor Party won the election, I have never considered that it has had a mandate to burst ahead and develop Adelaide Oval.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: The Hon. Paul Holloway is interjecting and making a fuss, and I think that is appropriate, given that it will be one of the last few times I will be speaking when he is still in the chamber. So, former minister, rip in! I cannot recall the Hon. Paul Holloway making a speech on this issue, but I am looking forward to his putting on the record how he thinks this is a 21^st century stadium when, in fact, we know that this is a 20^th century stadium for the 21^st century.

I have a couple of questions that I will put now so that, hopefully, the minister can answer them before we progress to the committee stage. One question I would like the minister to report back on is: has there been any modelling for wind in the new inner-city stadium? Of course, it is not so important for cricket, but incredibly important for the spectacle for football is the wind effect on a game and the actual spectacle. I am really concerned that, in a horseshoe-style stadium, the spectacle of a game of Australian Rules football will be impaired. I would like to hear what modelling has been done with regard to that issue.

I also would like an assurance from the minister that she is prepared to go to the South Australian Cricket Association and make sure that it opens up its vote so that it is open and transparent. In a little while, I will read one of the many emails I have had which show concern for the way in which the actual vote was conducted and the incredible concern that seems to be out there as to the propriety of the vote.

I am not suggesting that the vote was anything but proper but, for goodness sake, why SACA would not release all details and further fan suspicion is beyond me. To me it is a reasonably simple process: you make it open and transparent, then those who are questioning the process and the result really have no argument. But, sadly, what we have seen to date is the typically incredibly poor way this has been handled. So, I seek assurance from the minister that, before we proceed with this, she will ensure that SACA opens up the vote so that people can see that it was open and transparent.

Some time ago, I met with a number of SANFL officials, and I am pleased to say that I have a pretty good rapport with most of the people in the SANFL. I can remember well before this debate suggesting that perhaps we could have Adelaide and Port Adelaide away games sold so that they could be played at Adelaide Oval. This would mean that AFL footy would still be played at Football Park every weekend but some of the poor crowd-pullers like North Melbourne may well have decided that they would be prepared to play Port Adelaide or Adelaide away at Adelaide Oval.

At the time that I had those discussions with people I do respect and certainly like, they were met with horror—absolute horror. I was dismissed out of hand. I was told at the time that the only way AFL football would ever be played at Adelaide Oval would be over their dead bodies. I must say that those people who made those comments are certainly alive and well and seem to be prospering throughout this whole scenario.

We know that football's position with regard to moving to Adelaide Oval in the first instance was that it was absolutely against it. Football was in a strong financial position. We heard boasts about how football was in the top 100 companies. I have certainly seen a number of press releases that have been released by the SANFL over that period of time boasting of the strength of its financial position.

As we know today, football is now a basket case. That position of strength has been eroded dramatically and football has come on their knees to Adelaide Oval. It is not their preferred position. They never had the courage to stand up and support our position for an inner-city covered stadium even though, almost to a man, they were privately prepared to talk about how much better our proposal was.

Football has come a full 180 with regard to its strength and its thoughts with regard to Adelaide Oval. It saddens me as a member of parliament that many members of the Labor Party have acknowledged to us that our proposal was better but because—

The Hon. P. Holloway: Name them.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I don't actually want to, because I do respect private conversations and I hope that I can always maintain that reputation in the parliament that when I do have a private conversation with a member of parliament, especially from the government—and, of course, I hope one day the opposition will be the government—I will respect those private conversations.

Anyhow, a number of people said, 'Look, we've invested too much political capital in this to actually backtrack.' I ask: what sort of way is that to invest in the future of sport in this state? I believe that this is a 50-year decision and I, for one, believe that it will be a disastrous decision. The youth, the generation of today, demands facilities that are far superior to what my generation demanded. As a 20 year old or an 18 year old, I would have been happy to go and watch a game of VFL/AFL football in the rain. It would have been a thrill for me to do that, coming down from Whyalla. I certainly loved the game and would go to great lengths to watch it. I would not go and sit in the rain for love nor money these days.

The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: The Hon. Ann Bressington viciously interjects and calls me too old and a crock. She is right: I am sure I am, but the reality is that young people of today are just not as dedicated. They expect better facilities. Of course, one of the problems you have is that in Victoria they have developed what is now called Etihad Stadium, which is about a 50,000-seat stadium, where you can go without any fear of the weather impacting on your enjoyment and the standard and quality of the game. That is what people expect.

Anybody who knows anything about football knows that if you can play the game in near-perfect conditions, the majority of the time you are going to get a very good standard of football and a great spectacle. The problem we have in this country is that we have a benchmark. We have seen it. The majority of those who have been there are enamoured with that particular facility and, of course, now we as a state are going to go backwards and build a horseshoe stadium at which the SMA claims that 70 per cent of patrons will be undercover.

Well, they would want to improve it. I sat in the new stadium (which I applauded being built) and I was on the record in congratulating this government and the Howard federal government at the time for putting in $50 million to develop the Adelaide Oval to the point that it is today. I have been on the record before and I stand by it. I think it is terrific as it is at the moment.

However, having said that, as a cricket ground the SMA quite rightly states that it was designed for summer; it was designed to allow breezes to come through the stand. I can tell you that on a wet day it is a bit of a disaster. The number of people I saw squirming, supposedly well and truly under cover (this was a couple of weeks ago at an Australia versus New Zealand International Soccer match), was nothing short of a disgrace.

Many people had paid good money to be under cover and they were not just getting damp: they were getting soaked. Here we have a brand new stadium, the first part of this bold vision for this government, and it is just a complete and unmitigated disaster when catering for a winter sport. Goodness knows how much money is going to be needed to be spent on the new western stand to make it remotely agreeable for AFL football.

I have touched on my thoughts regarding the current state of Adelaide Oval; I think it is terrific. I just do not think the money is required to be spent on increasing the capacity of Adelaide Oval at the moment. I would have preferred Port Adelaide to be playing there at the moment. The panacea to all of Port Adelaide's problems to date has been, 'Well, once we move to Adelaide Oval all our problems will be solved.'

I look forward to that with bated breath. I would love to think that they would be playing there at the moment. The ground can fit about 38,000, and I would love to see them filling it up. It would be very encouraging. I would also like to see pigs flying, but that is highly unlikely. The Hon. Mr Gazzola, that was not directed at you, so do not even intimate that it was.

One of the things that I think people have not touched on is how this current proposal has abandoned soccer. The new oval will be totally unsuitable for watching soccer. Our proposal was for Australian Rules Football in winter and major events in winter that you could plan, whether it be concerts or whatever, because you would have a roof. In summertime, obviously, it is the A league players. The larger soccer games would have been well catered for in our stadium that would have been easy to reconfigure.

My goodness! Why would you go down the path of building a state-of-the-art stadium when you could build something second best? This is about what people in South Australia expect from this government—second best. The Hon. Mr Holloway is soon to retire, and we might name a stand after him. I can imagine that in 10 years' I will be pointing out to the Hon. Mr Holloway the deficiencies, and I hope he is suitably embarrassed.

I have mentioned the SACA vote. As I said, I have had a number of people contact me who are quite concerned and disturbed. I will read out the majority of one particular email. After the normal greeting it goes on to state:

1 We know that two journalists voted six times on behalf of SACA members (who were not themselves) using names and membership numbers. As the voting system was set up there was no method of voting confirmation, such as return email (which you have with hard copy voting, such as a signature on and possession of the voting form).

2 We also know that the Sunday Mail journalist was told by Mr McLachlan on the Friday before the vote that the proxy vote was running at 60% [at 60 per cent yes vote]. This figure was reported by the Sunday Mail the day before the vote and I also believe on Adelaide Now the morning of the vote. It is clear from the total vote announced that the figure was wrong. Given the total voting numbers, it was impossible to get to the 80% after the meeting starting at 60%. It is also clear McLachlan's sole purpose of having this figure published was to maximise the Yes vote at the meeting so that the rowdies who had dominated the previous SACA information meetings did not overwhelm the Yes voters (there or who had already cast their votes, knowingly or otherwise). It needs to be remembered that a mere 600 additional No votes (out of 12,000 supposedly cast) would have swung the outcome.

This is clearly an inappropriate use of his position, that is to attempt to influence the outcome of the vote while it is happening. Whether he knew the number or not, as President of the SACA he should never have made any comment about the vote as it was happening.

We also know that the Sunday Mail did not report this as it had done a deal with SACA and [the] SMA to say nothing negative at any time prior to the vote in return for the 'exclusive' about how the oval would look in late March.

3. We checked with Computershare before the vote started and were told that no information (neither how many votes cast or relative percentages) about how the [vote] was going would be provided to any party at least until the start of the SACA meeting (and we believe properly not until after all votes had been counted.) Comments by [Mr] McLachlan just after Easter suggested he was aware of how the vote was going. On the morning of the vote, ABC Breakfast repeatedly asked SACA CEO John Harnden whether he knew how the count was going and he repeatedly declined to say either way. If he did not know and things were being done properly, he would have had no issue with answering those questions in the negative.

4. Despite requests, SACA did not allow any representative of the No case to scrutinise the voting.

Mr President, I ask you: why would they not have allowed that? It is just beyond belief.

5. SACA claims that the vote was 'independently' carried out with Ernst & Young as returning officer and Pitcher Partners as scrutineer. But these parties are not independent of the SACA as both had material conflicts of interest with this role with the vote given their financial relationships with SACA. [Ernst & Young] was enjoying significant contract work from the matter. (they are cited as 'independent experts' on at least two financial matters in the SACA so-called Information Booklet). [Ernst & Young] were also undertaking at that time a major (and no doubt lucrative) strategic review for the SANFL. Pitcher Partners are also the SACA's auditors. Further, both Pitcher Partners and Ernst and Young would have had a host of uncomfortable questions to answer should the vote have gone down as in all likelihood the SACA were broke and would have had to be bailed out by someone (like the AFL is bailing out Port and the SANFL.)

Just on that, not everything you receive is right. As I am well aware, the AFL is not bailing out Port Adelaide and the SANFL: the AFL is lending money, I am told, to the tune of $10 million. This notion that the great white knights, Andrew Demetriou and co., have come in to rescue football in this state is a nonsense. They are providing a loan and all that does is compound the problems, but the SANFL will eventually have to repay the loan. He goes on to say:

This is not to raise any implication about their integrity other than to say that these professional relationships mean they were not independent as they had significant conflicts of interest and that as a matter of professional conduct they should have stood aside from taking on these roles because of those pre-existing roles.

6. The SACA and Ernst and Young have declined requests in our letters to reveal any voting details. [Ernst & Young] refer us to the SACA and the SACA say because of [Ernst & Young] and Pitcher Partners being 'independent' they have no need to do anything more.

My goodness! You would not want transparency, would you?

7. We know of one No vote that on the night was not recorded as being ascribed to his proxy even though there is no doubt the vote was filled in and mailed in good time before the proxy vote closed. We appreciate this alone may not count for much but what other proxy or direct votes were also not counted and why? Note, the top point about the six improper votes cast by the journalists.

8. When the SACA sought shareholder approval for proxy voting, it repeated many times in the publicity about it that proxy voting meant that in any vote, the Chairman had the sole call to allocate votes that were blank and/or unclear and to determine whether any votes were valid. Nonetheless, this right in the Chairman was not actually enshrined in the amendments to the SACA constitution. These rights of the Chairman were again claimed for the Adelaide Oval vote. While this may be common practice in corporate votes, it is improper in the type of vote the SACA held (see further below.) In elections, and this was effectively one of those, such unclear votes are either counted as informal or how they should be treated decided in conjunction with scrutineers from both [or] all sides. [Mr] McLachlan and SACA have again declined to reveal any details of how many votes were made the subject of the Chairman's discretions and as noted above, we were not allowed to have a scrutineer and those who presided over such issues (E&Y and PP) had material conflicts of interest and were not independent assessors of the issue.

9. If the SACA wishes to hide behind 'best or common corporate practice' it needs to have its Information Booklet assessed through the same prism. On that count, for an organisation with 20,000 members in a transaction of $500 million and involving the sale of its major asset, the corporations law would have required a more detailed document with a published independent expert's report assessing whether the transaction was in the best interests of members. The SACA so-called Information Booklet would have passed no standard under corporations law and would have been recalled and the SACA told to issue another that did comply. The fact that the SACA complied with the technical or strict requirements of the Associations Incorporation Act does not mean it met any test about what was appropriate in the circumstances. That law applies as equally to the SACA (with 20,000 members) as it does to local football clubs (50 members) where the corporations law does [not] distinguish between different types of entities and transactions based on size. The fact that the relevant commissioner under the act did nothing should come as no surprise as he answers to a government minister.

10. The conduct of the meeting also raises questions about probity. [Mr] McLachlan ruled that any member who had voted was not allowed to speak. (Yes, members who had voted prior to the night were allowed to withdraw their votes so they could ask a question, but this was somewhat inconvenient once the meeting had started.) Who gave him that right to deny someone who had voted the right to speak at their members' meeting. This would have also applied should any member who had voted on the main resolution sought to move any procedural motion even though they had not then voted on such a matter. That approach did not apply to the AGM held last September.

Further, people were only allowed to ask one question or make one statement and had only two minutes to do so. No right was given (despite our prior requests) for a member of the No campaign to make a statement other than according to those rules. In contrast, the Yes case was allowed to make opening statements that lasted about an hour and of course could sit there and advocate their case in response to each and every question or comment made (whether for or against).

To me, it sounds a bit like the fairness of question time in this place. The email continues:

11. It is questionable whether the SACA offer to reduce its subscription fee to members in the event the motion passed was not a bribe and contrary to electoral law.

12. The SACA vote was about permitting the proposed 'transactions' between the SACA and the SANFL to proceed. At no stage in the so-called Information Booklet or at the meeting was the AFL mentioned as a party or the Crows and/or Port as parties. Yet, with the SANFL also broke it is likely that the AFL, the Crows and/or Port will be a party to the 'transactions'. The SACA members did not vote on such arrangements. (Even though we now know that discussions to save Port were well advanced prior to that vote and we understand the Port licence (and probably also the Crows licence) have already been transferred back to the AFL and thus they will inevitably be a player in the final SMA arrangements if they ever get agreed).

There are some last points.

Votes need to be assessed according to type being hard copy proxies, online proxies, meeting votes and those of all categories that were the subject of the chairman's discretions (as discussed above). We suspect there will be a gross yes/no discrepancy between the first three categories as to be statistically extremely unlikely to have been caused other than by some form of ballot rigging. A check of when votes were recorded, especially online and whether the source of those votes can be checked ought to also be made. A review of how the chairman used his self-appointed discretions also needs to be undertaken.

Votes need to be checked for duplicates, especially between online and hard copy and meeting proxies.

Votes need to be checked against SACA membership numbers as held by SACA and not those provided to Computershare. (There was also a stream of correspondence between us and the SACA about the SACA allowing those who were not financial to become so by 28^th April so that they could vote even though in our view this was in breach of the SACA's own constitution.)

The integrity of the online voting needs to be investigated. Was it possible for people to vote in the names of other people and if so why weren't precautions against misuse put in place? Also, was it possible for a person to vote more than once? What form of voting confirmation existed to prevent illegal voting to occur?

What information and when was information passed between Computershare, Ernst and Young, Pitcher Partners and by any of them and the SACA about the vote prior to the declaration of the poll? Why was each piece of the correspondence appropriate and not a breach of probity?

As members can see, there are many concerns raised by people. They have not been raised flippantly. There has obviously been a lot of thought and attention go into those concerns. My duty as a member of parliament is to raise them because if you are not prepared to be open and transparent, then you become part of the problem. I will not be accused by anybody of being part of this process if, in fact, it has not been carried out in the manner it should be. I have questioned the integrity of the vote. I have asked questions to the minister about modelling with regard to wind and what effect that will have on football.

I would like to close by talking about the Liberal Party's position and deflect criticism from many who are outraged by the fact that we cannot stop this particular proposal. The reality of life is that the Adelaide City Council have come that close to the government on this particular issue. If we had decided to block legislation, it looked to me as if the council and the government could well have done a deal anyhow. They were so close on so many areas, there was very little to argue about. The fact that we have legislation before this place has at least given us the opportunity to try to ensure some probity with the whole process.

Unlike the normal modus operandi of this government, this project will receive full scrutiny. For someone like me who was never really in favour of this second-rate proposal, that is the minimum amount of comfort that I can get out of it. The reality of life is that this is a democratically elected parliament. The opposition are the opposition because they do not have numbers to control the proceedings and the government have the numbers, so we will do our absolute best to scrutinise the project, follow it every step of the way and, at any point if we uncover anything that is inappropriate, then I can promise you we will pursue it until its end. With those few words, I reluctantly will support the second reading of the bill.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (18:12): I rise to give a Greens contribution following the portfolio holder for this area, the Hon. Mark Parnell, as the sports and recreation portfolio holder for the Greens. We have before us a bill which details the Adelaide Oval redevelopment plan, in particular in regard to the management of the Parklands. No doubt other members have also been lobbied by the Adelaide City Council, people from the community, sports lovers, sports haters, people who have a passionate interest in this issue, and it certainly has been something that has got South Australians fired up. It certainly was a key election issue in March 2010 for this state parliament.

What I find interesting is that the proposal we have before us is for a 50,000-seat stadium that will cost $535 million, yet that is not what went to the South Australian people in the election, and certainly we have never had a debate. As the Hon. Kelly Vincent said in her contribution, we have never had a debate about whether or not South Australians believe that that is the amount, the size and scope of the stadium that we would like to see in our city.

I echo the words of the Hon. Mark Parnell. The Greens support footy in the city; we like the idea. We think the city has great potential, and as the Hon. Mark Parnell touched on, for aspects such as public transport and access to the games and other entertainment options that may be put in there. I would hope that not just sport is going to be put into the stadium but also entertainment in general. We think that that is quite appealing given the structure, in particular the public transport structure, of the Adelaide metropolitan region.

Certainly, the SMA and others have gone to great lengths to assure the Greens that there is a public transport plan coming. We were even told the hopeful estimate that 50 per cent of the crowds that would be coming to any particular match or game would be coming by public transport. What we have not seen is any detail on how they hope to achieve that, and it is certainly a significant jump from what we see now.

Getting back to the issue at hand, the Adelaide Oval is, of course, iconic in South Australia's history and in our culture. It was established in 1871, just after the formation of the SACA itself. It is world-famous for cricket and the test matches which it has housed since 1884, where I understand England beat Australia by eight wickets. However, it has not always simply housed cricket. What we are talking about here of having a multipurpose stadium is nothing new.

In fact, 16 sports have been played at the Adelaide Oval at one time or another: archery, athletics, baseball, cycling, gridiron (would you believe) Highland games—very much a dying art these days; and I know a Scottish dancer or two who would love to actually be able to use the Adelaide Oval again, but they certainly will not get the numbers—hockey, lacrosse, lawn tennis, rugby league, rugby union, quoits and, of course, soccer. Most recently we saw the international-friendly match between the Socceroos and New Zealand at Adelaide Oval.

The picket fence that we also know and love has been there surrounding the oval since 1900 but, at that time, it accompanied a cycling track, so, in fact, it had nothing at all to do with the cricket being there. In 1911 the Australian Football Council carnival was played at the ground and won by South Australia against worthy sides from Victoria, WA, Tasmania and New South Wales. It is considered, quite rightly, to be one of the most picturesque test cricket grounds in Australia, if not the world, and I think that is why people are so passionate about this, not to mention the fact that it sits in the Parklands, which are very much an Adelaide treasure.

The oval currently seats about 40,000 spectators yet maximum crowds of days gone by far exceeded this; the highest attendance at a cricket match being 50,962 on the third day of the infamous Bodyline test cricket series. I understand that, on that third day, mounted police patrolled to keep those 50,962 spectators in line. It is a shame they could not do anything about the bowling team from overseas.

The maximum crowd we have had there for an Aussie rules game—it was the SANFL actually—was at a grand final between Port Adelaide and Sturt, which was 62,543; so big numbers at this ground are nothing new either.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: I was there in 1965.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The honourable former lord mayor Steve Condous actually gave me a call about this issue, and I understand he was there, too.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: Sturt lost by three points.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Sturt lost by three points. I knew that they would have lost. I actually have a note here saying, 'I wonder who won.' I was not alive at that stage, but it does not surprise me that Sturt lost. The scoreboard, of course, is iconic. We have had lights on the ground since 1997, entering into this new era of sport, and those lights have been controversial, not least of all in today's paper where we see that the new lights and the proposed arrangement for televised AFL at the grounds may not in fact be compatible.

I am not sure whether anyone else's office was contacted prior to that Advertiser article, but certainly we had a tip-off from a cameraman or two that they can see that the shadows cast over the ground might possibly create some issues with the contract that has just been awarded with regard to the broadcast of the AFL in years to come, so that certainly will need to be addressed.

We have seen temporary stands go up and down, we have seen stands come and go. Change is nothing new for this oval. The AFL is certainly nothing new for this oval either. Even to this day, SANFL matches can quite regularly occur at the Adelaide Oval, including, of course, the traditional grand final rematch on the afternoon of ANZAC Day where diggers and many others enjoy that particular match highlight of the season.

We have seen wonderful concerts over the years as well: Fleetwood Mac, David Bowie, Kiss, Madonna, Paul McCartney, Michael Jackson, Billy Joel and Elton John, as well as Pink and Pearl Jam and AC/DC, and even Wolfmother in recent years. Anyone who remembers and liked Led Zeppelin will like Wolfmother.

The Hon. J.M. Gazzola: That's not true!

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Oh, apparently, that's not true, according to the Hon. John Gazzola. I will defer to him on that, because I actually don't like Led Zeppelin. Adelaide Oval will be resuming its home—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: —as the home of South Australian football if this bill and many other measures are to progress forward in this state. Of course, it has come about through the collaboration of SACA and SANFL and some contribution from the AFL, and it has been many, many decades and then many years of recent work in the making. We know that, for many decades, SANFL and SACA would not have contemplated a project such as this.

What we have before us is a proposal for a city oval that will house those two organisations and their respective sports. It comes at the expense of a previous proposal, which was a $190 million refit of the AAMI Stadium, which was talked about back in the late 2000s, prior to 2009. At that point, certainly Mr Leigh Whicker found that to be his preferred option—and I will just note that before we move on, because we have not really discussed that in this context.

I will reiterate that figure: $190 million for a refit of AAMI Stadium is what was on the table some years ago. At that time, the AFL was certainly open to that, but obviously things have moved quite rapidly since then. The Liberal Party has put up proposals for city-based stadiums. In that context, in 2009, we suddenly heard talk, I understand, of a $300 million stadium in the city. That was the first mooted amount around about then.

Since then, of course, we have progressed a little further. Prior to the last election, we were looking at a $450 million stadium, but then again, these figures seem to be very flexible, and I am not sure what they are based on, which will be my point at the end of all of this. So, we were suddenly looking at $450 million, having had a concept for a $190 million refit of AAMI and then, say, a $390 million or so stand-alone stadium.

We went to the last election, and the then treasurer completely forgot that there has been an $85 million blowout that he had been told about before election—as you do! An amount of $85 million to this government could not pay for things such as disability services or continued adult re-entry education or to keep the Keith, Ardrossan and Moonta hospitals operating to their full standards.

The Hon. K.L. Vincent: It's crazy talk!

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: 'It's crazy talk,' is the Hon. Kelly Vincent's, I believe, sarcastic comment. We must remember not to be too sarcastic in Hansard. Of course, it is demonstrative of where this government's priorities do lie. These figures go up and up and get thrown about and bandied about with no real reason behind them, as far as I can see.

Where we sit today is that the Adelaide Oval is set, in the next four or so years—I understand that there is a plan to try to make this happen by 2014, in time for the next election—to be the new home of AFL football in South Australia. The SANFL, the AFL and SACA have all come to their arrangements. Certainly, if I was having my debts wiped to such large amounts as some of those organisations are, I would be happy to come to similar arrangements, I should imagine.

Let us have a look at what the AFL Chief Executive, Andrew Demetriou, thinks about this wonderful working relationship. He thought that it was a wonderful result for AFL football and a fantastic result for fans of the game in South Australia.

This was when the South Australian government had pledged just $450 million to transform the Adelaide Oval into the world-class 55,000-seat stadium. At that stage, of course, the state government had plans to seek up to $150 million of this from the federal government with the remaining $300 million to be raised by the redistribution of funds for the proposed AAMI Stadium upgrade and West Lakes tram extensions.

Of course, this was all tied in to winning federal support and making the Adelaide Oval FIFA-compliant for Australia's bid to host the World Cup in 2018 or 2022. Under that, we proceeded along and, as we know, suddenly the amount went up by a little $85 million or so. Of course, we did not succeed in our bid for the World Cup. In fact, we only got the one vote, so I am not sure whether or not our state and our federal governments should have been a lot more cautious in proceeding and making such grand schemes and plans.

It is also quite interesting that the design features of the new Adelaide Oval and the glossy brochures and certainly the website with a fly-through also make a lot of the wonderful advantages that this will bring to the new Riverbank Precinct. Again, the Greens are quite supportive of investigation of the new Riverbank Precinct, and certainly sports and entertainment and food and cultural activities in this area would be something that we would welcome in many ways, but the footbridge, which is actually a key part of the whole project, had always been portrayed in the advertising and the glossies as linking the oval across the Torrens, of course, into the CBD where the public transport is, where the food currently is, and where it is necessary for people to be able to travel to make this scheme work.

The footbridge, of course, is not even part of the costings yet, so goodness knows what figure we will end up paying for a footbridge that will support this. Many South Australians probably share my cynicism that the footbridge should always have been included in the costings if we were being real with the South Australian people but, given the figures that have jumped up and down, I do not think we ever were being real with the South Australian people here.

Sporting fans in the modern era are demanding good facilities to enjoy their sport, not only at their venue of choice but also the transport that supports that, and the entertainment and dining options available to them before and after. That is again another plus for having an oval in the city, but South Australia and the Adelaide Oval are no Robinson Crusoe in desiring that sort of an experience.

The Hon. Terry Stephens mentioned Etihad Stadium, and certainly I am a fan of Etihad Stadium. I think it is a fantastic experience if you want to go and see a game. It is easy to get in and out, transport is a breeze, you do not get wet, you can see the game really well no matter how high up in the stands you are or how low down in the stands you are, and it is a fantastic cultural experience. I would love to think that South Australians would be able to share in that, but at what cost? Could you not just for a moment think about whether or not we are actually being ripped off here?

The Gabba had a facelift a few years ago, and they have certainly got function centres that hold up to 800 guests there. They are AFL and media equipped and also change room equipped, and they also accommodate cricket there. Their television broadcast facilities and media rooms and also of course their patron facilities with 31 food and beverage outlets and 26 fixed bar outlets are pretty much the standard that we are talking about here. They consider themselves a world-class ground. That facelift cost $60 million. It was quite controversial in that state. I cannot imagine what they would think of our $535 million that we are looking at here in South Australia.

Then again, a few hours down the road at Carrara, the new Metricon stadium cost $144 million. I will note here that it was originally priced at $250 million when it was first mooted. Again, it has all the mod cons that you would expect. It is AFL compliant in terms of the treatment of both the media and the players and it has wonderful public transport in and out. It was built almost from the ground up. They flattened the old Carrara Stadium and simply kept the lights and rebuilt again. That had 25,000 seats, so it was a little smaller, but it was $144 million—in fact, less than the original AAMI refit was projected to cost.

[Sitting extended beyond 18:30 on motion of Hon. G.E. Gago]

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I will try to wrap it up reasonably quickly but I do have a few more comments to make. We were discussing the new Metricon Stadium in Carrara and I note that that also hosts Rugby League games on a regular basis, as well as being the centre for the Carrara Markets and many other things. There are also facilities for conferences and executive and corporate entertaining.

Geelong or Skilled Stadium (the old Kardinia Park) increased its seats in recent years by 3,500 and that redevelopment cost $75 million. The state government was asked for a contribution of $25 million for that redevelopment, which was largely funded by the local council, as well as the club itself—it is certainly a successful club at the moment—and $14 million of federal money was secured under treasurer Costello. I am not sure if he is a Cats fan.

Sydney is also branching out in AFL and Greater Western Sydney is set to enter the competition next year. The New South Wales government has announced a multimillion dollar upgrade to the Sydney Showground facility at Homebush. That, of course, was an Olympic Park project. It has received a $200 million investment to build the game in New South Wales, with the AFL contributing $10 million to the upgrade.

In relation to that contribution they say, 'We have always invested in facilities where we play AFL games and have previously invested millions of dollars in the SCG, the ANZ Stadium, Blacktown, Olympic Park and now, of course, the Showground.' This is, of course, the CEO, Andrew Demetriou, again. Blacktown, in fact, will be serving as the training facility for the new side. I think that it is interesting that that move has gone forward with a $10 million investment at least, from the AFL there because, of course, in our $535 million project, we are getting, I understand, $5 million from the AFL. Certainly, they have held out for a very long time on that.

Perhaps it was a strategy in securing the funding because, back in 2009 when the AFL mooted the idea of a Greater Western Sydney team stadium, the then New South Wales Premier, Nathan Rees, all but ruled out, to quote the newspaper article here, ' pouring $45 million dollars of taxpayer money' into the stadium for the new site there.

He said that the AFL had been asking the state government for months to contribute that funding to improve the Sydney Showground Olympic Park, but no money was going to be committed to any upgrade. The Premier indicated it was unlikely to be forthcoming any time soon. That was back in November 2009. To quote him: 'I would rather put the money into schools and hospitals, quite frankly. That is what I said publicly and that is what I have said to the AFL.'

Now, I would suggest that perhaps that is what our treasurer Foley should have been saying to the AFL as well. Somehow, we have got a massive cost blowout where we are still yet to see real plans: we have just to sign the contract to Cox Architects. I do not begrudge them not being based in Adelaide—I certainly think that they do have expertise in stadiums—but I certainly do begrudge the government not ensuring that a tender process was undertaken for the design of this new stadium.

I also begrudge this government not holding out but putting its cards on the table saying, 'Yes, yes. We want this stadium and we are going to pay you $390, no: make that $450, no: make that $535 million, to make it happen.' Now, that is no way to negotiate. Anyone who has ever bought a used car and used that sort of strategy would certainly be getting ripped off, and quite rightly so. I would suggest that maybe the Minister for Consumer Affairs should have been having a few words with the treasurer about a better bargaining strategy and not buying a lemon.

I would also note that, of course, the AFL has just secured a media deal of $1.2 billion, I believe. As I mentioned before, we may, in fact, find that our oval here in Adelaide is not compliant with that media deal, but they are certainly not hard up. They are not scrambling in their pockets to rub two pennies together. The AFL is certainly not a poor organisation and, for what it is getting out of this state, it is probably down to its good management and negotiation skills.

I will tell you who is struggling for a few pennies and that is Sport SA. Now, while we are throwing these millions and multimillions of dollars around for an oval, Sport SA went to the government, cap in hand almost, before this last budget and pretty much begged that we have a look at some sort of a sports lottery in this state to fund local sports.

At the moment, it does benefit from some proceeds from SA Lotteries, in terms of funding our local grassroots sports, but, certainly, it is not in the luxurious position that I believe the SANFL and SACA are now in. Yet, Sport SA, of course, represents 150 sport and recreational organisations and, in fact, nearly every household in the state—805,000 adults and 123,000 children. I dare say that a little bit of the money that is being splashed around here could have much more rightly gone to organisations such as Sport SA.

With that, this matter has been the talking point of people in the street and people at barbecues. Certainly, as I say, I do not begrudge having a world-class oval in the city but if every other place that I have mentioned previously in this debate—if Carrara, Geelong, Patterson (I did not get into that, because I spared the members that particular discussion) and Sydney—can all get a much better deal than South Australia has, perhaps we should be going back to the drawing board on this.

Of course, this bill will deal with the arrangements around the Parklands, and I understand that the Liberals have quite a few amendments to come—some 15 pages, I believe. We look forward to deliberating and then debating those amendments, as well as the bill in its entirety, and welcome the second reading stage.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (18:40): Obviously, it is past the normal hour we would finish in this place so I will keep my comments relatively brief. I did have a fairly extensive contribution but, having said that, I think I can tease out most of the main issues during the committee stage. I think it will be an interesting committee stage.

I want to place on the record, first and foremost, that I believe a covered stadium would be the best option for South Australia. I have always felt that way. I think that is the cutting edge for sporting stadiums now. We see them slowly popping up around the world. Australia only has one, at least as far as I am aware, in Melbourne, currently called Etihad Stadium (I think it was called Telstra Dome at some stage). I have been to that venue and it is an excellent venue. At a personal level, I would have liked to have seen something similar to that in South Australia, somewhere in the CBD.

Of course, that was the Liberal Party policy during the last election campaign and, obviously, as they did not win the election, we do not have that policy option before us. I say for the record that, if we had had that policy option before us and if it had required legislation in one form or another, that legislation certainly would have enjoyed my support, because I think that is the next wave of stadium technology, if that be the right term, or level of stadium infrastructure that we are seeing around the world.

I think people know that I have been a supporter of the Adelaide Oval stadium concept because we do not have any other option before us. If I had a choice, certainly my own choice would be to favour a covered stadium, for all the obvious reasons. Simply, it is more comfortable for spectators by and large. However, as I say, we do not have that option before us and, as we do not have that option before us, there is not much point talking about it because it is not going to happen.

One of the significant downsides I see of the project that we do have before us at the moment is that, of course, investing a very substantial amount of money into the Adelaide Oval stadium project—which in itself is a very good project—essentially rules out a covered stadium for a very substantial period in the future, I would guess. Indeed, in speaking to the leaders and very senior people in cricket, football and other sports governing bodies in South Australia, I can say to the house (and I am sure it is something that is no great secret at all) that, secretly, certainly people in football would be very keen on a covered stadium, as they see it as cutting edge for stadium developments as they currently stand.

However, again, it is not an option before them, either, obviously, so they are prepared to take what might be considered to be next best; and that is how I see it. I think there are many positives with respect to this particular development. There are, of course, downsides of the development, and I will go into those a little bit in a moment; but I think as a state occasionally we have a chance to grasp something which will really showcase what we do well here in South Australia. As I said, I think a covered stadium would have been the best option. We do not have that option currently. Therefore, to me, this is the next best option. Certainly, my personal view is that the positives in this development outweigh the negatives.

The one clear thing I think that we can say with confidence about this stadium development is that, although it is costing an absolutely huge amount of money, the real positive is the potential for a level of excitement and vibe and buzz (whatever the right word is) of activity in the CBD area. We are very fortunate in Adelaide in that we have a stadium in the Adelaide Oval which is just a few hundred metres from the main part of the city. No other city can claim that.

I understand it will be the closest stadium to the main part of a city of any in Australia. Certainly, it is closer to the centre of the city than the MCG and Etihad Stadium, and certainly a lot closer than the SCG. Certainly Subiaco is a long way away compared with how close the Adelaide Oval is to the centre of the city. So we are very fortunate in that regard.

I think what is going to come of this, which will probably be the strongest positive of all, is that it will create a real buzz in the city. There will be all the business spin-offs, of course; the cafes will be full, the restaurants will be full, and I think that everyone wins in that regard. It is good for the economy and it is good for the government, if you like, because the tax receipts will be up as well for whatever side happens to govern at that time. So, there are many positives for such development. It is, of course, a huge amount of money, as I have said, and that is perhaps the one very substantial downside of this project.

Family First has been a consistent supporter of a world-class stadium in our CBD; however, there are a number of concerns that have been raised regarding the way the project should proceed, and I think members have all outlined those in great detail so I will not do that, but I will touch on some of the high points. Most notably, the Adelaide City Council has raised a number of concerns with all of us, including me, and we remain very much open to the arguments of the council and, in fact, are keen to hear the full detail before reaching an absolute conclusion on the detail of those issues.

We are also empathetic to the points were placed on the record during the second reading speeches made by the Hon. Ann Bressington and the Hon. Kelly Vincent. I think the reality is that it is a lot of money that is being spent here. There is no question that I think we will see a limited scope for resources to be channelled into what you might call 'more significant' areas of need, because of this very large expenditure. I think the Hon. Ann Bressington in particular and the Hon. Kelly Vincent have argued that quite rightly.

They have argued that funds committed to this project should not detract from funding to organisations such as Families SA or to disability services, and we would wholeheartedly agree. Those concerns are valid and properly made and are shared by Family First, and I urge the government, as we proceed with this project, to take them into account fully and properly. We therefore do not commit, at this stage, to complete support for the government's proposals, as outlined in this bill, and we will be carefully considering the debate as it unfolds during the committee stage.

I think it has been outlined that the Liberal opposition has quite an extensive number of amendments. We are favourable to some of those amendments at this stage and not to others, but we look forward to the debate on those. The government maintains that it has four broad objectives in this bill, and they are:

1. To vest care, control and management of the Adelaide Oval core area to the minister;

2. The minister will be authorised to grant a lease of the Adelaide Oval core area to the Adelaide Oval SMA Ltd for any term up to 80 years. The lease will provide unrestricted and exclusive use of Adelaide Oval for cricket and football purposes during designated periods of the year;

3. At the request of the minister, the Adelaide City Council must grant a licence over all of the Adelaide Oval licensed area, and the licence will be for any term up to 80 years; and

4. Any development up to 2015 within the Adelaide Oval core area, as it is deemed, and the Adelaide Oval licensed area, will be authorised.

I note from reading the bill some further provisions of importance that are worth noting and briefly putting on the record. The Adelaide Oval scoreboard, as other members have mentioned, must be retained; that is a good thing. The oval will continue to be called the Adelaide Oval to prevent, I presume, the confusion relating to Melbourne's Docklands and other stadiums; in those cases, they have been called 'Colonial Stadium', 'Telstra Dome', and it is currently known as Etihad Stadium. My wife recently asked me, 'What is Etihad?' It is an airline, as I understand it, but that just shows the confusion that can result from these names.

Spectators are guaranteed at least 1,200 square metres of open space between the score board and the western stands; I think that is a very good thing too. Further, Victor Richardson Road will be closed. I have mixed feelings about that, Mr President, but I understand we will be looking at that more closely as the debate ensues.

I formally put on the record my thanks to then acting lord mayor, Mr David Plumridge, along with the Chief Executive Officer of the Adelaide City Council, whom I have spoken with at length regarding this proposal, and they have certainly provided me with valuable advice. I also thank the SMA for their briefings. They had very good briefings and it was a very polished performance, I must say, with a lot of passion exuding from them. I believe that they certainly really want this to go ahead. Of course, I have met with the senior people of both football and cricket. They have been most helpful as well, and I thank them—Leigh Whicker and others.

I did want to put on record Family First's support, in principle, for the concept of a redeveloped city stadium. I have been in the media on numerous occasions saying as such. I have been to Melbourne recently, and I believe that the city stadium there has done very good things for that city.

The whole of the Melbourne CBD comes alive during the big events, and I think that a city stadium, in whatever form, would be good for South Australia and Adelaide in particular—although also country people, I think, will find it more easy to get to the city. Certainly, accommodation facilities will be available to them which they may not currently enjoy at AAMI Stadium.

I have just a few final points, if I may. I will only be a few more moments. I appreciate that members are ready to leave. I have just a few quick points, if I may. I think that the other thing that we need to pay attention to here is that the SACA has voted on this. The SACA members have had their say. If they wanted to vote this down they could have easily done so, yet, as I understand it, something like 82 or 83 per cent of the SACA members supported the concept that has been put before them, and I think that members in this place should pay attention to that, frankly, or at least take heed of it.

Their decision-making should not necessarily be the be all and end all, but I think that we should respect the fact that such a substantial number of people in that organisation supported the project going ahead, and, certainly, that is a significant factor to me. I would also like to say a couple of other things about some of the issues that have been raised. I will just be very quick on this. I could really go into detail here, but I will not. I hear a couple of 'hear, hear' around the room!

It does not concern me either way how many people catch public transport to these events. I think that we have got to the stage where we try to nanny state people into thinking that they should be catching buses, trains, trams or whatever else. The reality is that people will drive to the football just like they do now, they will drive to the cricket just like they do now, and they should be able to park their car if they want to.

There is nothing wrong with driving cars. It is not some sort of moral sin, or whatever the word may be, that seems to be thrust upon us. The first big selling point to me that one particular side of the debate tried to argue with me was, 'You know, the great thing about this stadium is that we're going to have 50 per cent of people catching public transport to the football or to the cricket', to which I say, 'Who cares?'

If people want to drive they should be able to drive, and I do not think that they should be able to feel that they are doing something in any way wrong by doing so. There is so much more I could say on that but I will not. I have heard hysterical arguments, bordering on hysteria, from some people—not from many people but from some people—about the Parklands and how this will destroy the Parklands, and that Adelaide will never be the same because of it.

I reject that entirely. The truth is that we have had parking on the Parklands for a long time. I think that the council, to be honest, has had a very fair and reasonable approach to that whole issue, but there are some people who have just gone totally over the top on that. We have had parking on the Parklands for a long time. They are well managed, and the truth is that they are beautiful Parklands and they are there to use, not simply to stare at.

My last comment is that, if a covered stadium was available, if that was on the table, that would receive my support. It is not on the table. This, I believe, is the next best option. I think that some of the Liberal amendments are well and truly worthy of consideration, and I look forward to looking at those more closely and hearing the arguments from the opposition. As I say, at this stage, we are generally supportive of a stadium in the city. It is a great deal of money. I think that both sides of the argument have had a good say. It is time to get on and bring this to a vote.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Public Sector Management, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister for Gambling) (18:53): I do not believe there are any further second reading contributions to this important bill, and I thank members for their contributions. While many of the contributions have been pure politics and some of them are rehashing arguments about the 2010 state election, it has certainly been very pleasing to have members acknowledge how important this investment is for the state and what it will mean for the city.

As members know, the Minister for Infrastructure has carriage of this project and he has already expressed a willingness to deal with most of the Liberal's intended amendments. There are minor disagreements over the wording and the issue of rent, but the minister has, again, assured me that he is confident that he can reach resolution of those outstanding matters.

I note that his staff are in contact with the opposition, and the government will make every attempt to provide positions to the final amendments at the earliest opportunity. This includes the Hon. Mr Lucas's comments about including the word 'grassed' into 'open space'. I can assure members on the crossbenches that they will be kept up to date with these arrangements as they have been to this point; and the government will, of course, discuss any other amendments that might be put forward in the meantime.

In relation to other questions and concerns about public transport and other matters, I will ensure members are provided with written responses in coming days so all members are in a position to move promptly on this bill on the next day of sitting, as indicated by the Hon. Rob Lucas in his comments. With those brief comments, I thank members again for their second reading contributions and look forward to this bill being dealt with expeditiously through the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. G.E. Gago.