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

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 23 June 2016.)

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN (16:38): I rise to speak to the ASER (Restructure) (Facilitation of Riverbank Development) Amendment Bill 2016. I speak on behalf of my Liberal colleagues. The Liberal Party is seeking information on the Riverbank project. It has not been provided to date. As a consequence, the Liberal Party has formed the view that it cannot support the passage of the bill at the third reading without it having had an opportunity to consider the information requested. The Liberal Party will support the second reading and going into committee.

The bill seeks to amend the ASER (Restructure) Act 1997 to enable the initial construction works for the redevelopment of the Festival Plaza Precinct to commence. The original act was passed by the former government to create specific arrangements for the ongoing management of the site. In particular, the act allows for individual leases and commercial interests on the site, as well as shared management and common facilities and services. Just prior to the 2014 state election, the government announced a commitment to redeveloping the precinct. The government also announced that an agreement had been reached between the state government and the Walker group.

The government asserts that the passing of this bill is required to allow the redevelopment to proceed, thereby allowing the government to fulfil its contractual commitments to the Walker group. The government is to contribute $180 million and the Walker Corporation is to contribute in the order of $430 million to the development. The government contribution comprises of $90 million to the Adelaide Festival Centre upgrade, $30 million to the Adelaide Festival Centre car park, and $60 million to the public realm and surroundings.

As I understand it, the Labor government has entered into a contractual arrangement with the Walker group, which has previously been granted certain rights as the government's preferred partner for the redevelopment of the plaza site. The Walker group has the right to build a new commercial office tower and a retail development. The Riverbank Authority has been tasked with facilitating the design, engaging with stakeholders and taking oversight of the project. There is also an agreement with the Casino operators SkyCity regarding the Casino expansion.

I have reviewed the concept visuals and we were advised that there has been some positive feedback. Given the government's notorious record on public engagement, I do not place much faith in the processes capturing the public's mood. The project envisages a complete redevelopment of the Festival Plaza and Station Road precinct. The development includes a plaza and a uniting footbridge (I am not sure what other type of bridge there is given that a bridge must span two sides), a public realm with artwork, water features and interactive spaces, restaurants, and cafes and bars (perhaps an area where there can be the potential to be a declared public precinct, something we will debate later when we reconvene), the redevelopment of the Elder Park frontage of the Festival Centre and a 24-storey office building.

Some of the words used to describe the design concept for the proposal upon completion are 'a place of discovery'; it will contain 'delights and divisions and showcase the best SA has to offer'; 'a compelling destination'; 'an engaging place that welcomes people from all walks of life'; 'an event-ready space—a place that offers a different experience every time, that celebrates the seasons, and is brought to life by a balance of curated and spontaneous activities.'

Yet amongst all these wonderful epitaphs, commercial realities will prevail as they always inevitably do. A large office tower will overshadow the precinct and this parliament. Land will be made available to expand activities to facilitate gambling. It is ironic that the commercial necessities of making available prime real estate to developers will result in a tower that overlooks the house of the people. If built, it will be a symbol of this government placing the commercial needs of developers over and above the needs of the people it serves. It will be a temple to poor public accountability and poor development and a perverted vision of what is in the public's interest.

From the recent examples of pitiful public architecture in this city, I personally find it difficult to believe that the stated aesthetic ambitions will actually be achieved. Public architecture in this state in recent memory is firmly founded on mediocrity and has in recent tradition given birth to creations that are scarred with an uninspiring and unimaginative aesthetic. Let us hope that beyond the conceptual drawings what will actually be created will be world class rather than a poor copy of a soulless Melbourne outer suburb shopping mall.

The designs appear to have been conceived in the abstract without any homage to the cultural and historical heritage or the traditions of the city. There appears to be no concession in the design to meet the needs of the society that the area is meant to serve. This is made abundantly clear from the trite and overused expressions used to describe the concept design. There is no heart and soul in the design. The only design concept that is clearly apparent is the economic calculations of the developers.

There is no worship of beauty and the best our society has to offer. The design is not culturally rich, inclusive or relevant to the state and its past and future peoples; rather, it is sterile and reminds me of shopping precincts the world over. There appears to be no ambition to make it distinct and embody all that is excellent in South Australia. When completed, it is unlikely to be a Gestalt; it is global but it is not timeless.

In order to enable the construction works on the site to commence, the bill will permit increasing the development site to accommodate the SkyCity expansion and plaza; temporary suspension of ancillary rights to allow works to proceed; restructuring of leases and ancillary property rights in the area following completion of the project; and renaming the act the 'Riverbank Act' because it will encompass a much larger area of ultimate consideration in precinct master planning and the like.

The opposition accepts that the amendments to the act as contained in the bill will, if enacted, facilitate the development of the proposal. At the same time, the development could proceed with each party to the development entering into a series of contractual undertakings. I note therefore that the legislation is not technically necessary, but the various stakeholders consider it desirable and have requested the same.

The Liberal opposition has requested certain information contained in the development. This information has not been forthcoming. The Liberal opposition does not believe the bill should pass into law until the release of this information and an opportunity to digest and debate the same. Until this information is provided, we will oppose the passage of the bill. Our position has not changed since it was articulated in the other place by the shadow attorney, the member for Bragg. The government has failed to disclose three significant pieces of critical information:

the contract between Walker Corporation and the government;

particulars of the proposed announcement by the Premier of a new art gallery; and

correspondence between Mr Walker and the former minister for planning and urban development.

The last item has been the subject of an initially successful FOI application by the member for Bragg in the other place, yet it is still to be released.

This project is an important endeavour by the state. It involves the giving up of uniquely located state land, as well as a considerable monetary investment in the name of the people. The project involves contractual relationships with the Walker Corporation and the Casino. Full and frank disclosure of the arrangements should be made to the parliament to ensure that principles of transparency and accountability are upheld. It cannot be said that in recent memory the government has had a good record on large commercial arrangements.

One only needs to consider, more recently, the Gillman transaction and the difficulties surrounding that transaction, and the fact that the ICAC commissioner made findings in relation to two bureaucrats for maladministration. This does not provide the opposition with a great deal of faith in the government's management of large projects, particularly those approvals that it wishes to hurry through this place. With those comments, I complete my remarks.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:47): I rise to put a different point of view on the debating table in the Legislative Council to the last speaker, the Hon. Andrew McLachlan. Family First has considered this particular piece of legislation in quite a bit of detail, and I will go through some of that in a while. The fact is that, after due consideration and consultation, Family First will be supporting the government with this legislation. There are of quite a few reasons for that.

Back when the last Liberal government was in office, the Liberal government worked hard to do the first stages of the North Terrace upgrade and, at the same time, were doing some work on the Riverbank Precinct, including another staged expansion of the Adelaide Convention Centre and, of course, the education precinct of the University of South Australia, close to the new RAH and medical research centre. The point is that, up until this point in time, I thought there was quite a bit of bipartisan support in the parliament—

Members interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order! The honourable member has the floor. He should be able to speak uninterrupted, because I know he does all the time.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Thank you for your protection, sir. If the Leader of Government Business takes me away from my thought patterns again, I would seek your protection again so that I can concentrate on the debate.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): I give the honourable member all the protection he deserves. I suggest you proceed.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Thank you, sir, and do I need some protection!

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): I suggest you proceed.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Thank you, sir; I appreciate your advice. The point is that, in a multipartisan way, up until this point in time, I was under the impression and so was the Family First party that there was general agreement as to the upgrade of North Terrace and the reinvigoration of the Riverbank Precinct. If you have a look at what happens now at Southbank in Melbourne, it is a wonderful asset for the City of Melbourne. It is an exciting place to be and there has been hundreds of millions of dollars of investment over there, probably billions, and there are many jobs being created.

We see the same thing occurring as the continued reinvigoration of North Terrace happens and also now with the situation around the reinvigoration of the Riverbank Precinct to the immediate north of Parliament House and to the west of Parliament House. Several years ago, I appeared on what was then an ABC program called Stateline with Leah MacLennan. I can well remember her interviewing me when I was asking, 'When is the government going to focus on utilising this wasted, tired old space at the back of parliament?'—and it is a wasted, tired old space.

The fact is that this is going to become a very vibrant public space. Whilst Family First does not generally support intrusion into our open Parklands areas and our green belt areas that Colonel Light set the boundaries for in the Adelaide precinct, this space at the moment is, to an extent, not utilised as it could be. I believe that this is a good opportunity to utilise this space which is very tired and underutilised. One of the things that we did have quite a debate about was not the reinvigoration and upgrade of the Festival Theatre and the issues around cafes and public open space areas behind Parliament House but the 28-storey proposal of the Walker group.

I have to say, to be fair, that I was more concerned about that than other executive members of Family First. However, having now seen the artist's impression of the northern works of the promenade, it does seem to me to fit in better than I thought it would, and it does not take away from the historical facade of Old Parliament House and the railway station to the extent that I thought it would. When you go down to Grenfell Street and places like that and look at the facades, they are still interesting for their history and they are still interesting to look at and they still add character to that part of Adelaide, but they have multistorey office apartment blocks right behind the facade. In fact, I worked in one of them when I was David Wootton's parliamentary secretary.

The point is that Adelaide does need a lot of reinvigoration. There is quite a lot of private money being committed by the Walker group to the tune of $460 million, I am advised, or thereabouts, and a total private sector estimate of $810 million. Based on the briefing we had, the government contends that for every $1 of taxpayer spend the private sector will contribute $5. To me, that stacks up to what the economists would say is good public expenditure—when you can spend $1 of taxpayers' money and get $5 from the private sector.

We are still doing quite well as a state when it comes to our arts, festivals and cultural heritage, but compared to other states I think it is true to say that we have slipped behind. This is an opportunity to crank that up so that we can get back into the competition of being a real city of festivals and cultural heritage and also the arts and opportunities for public space. I believe the parliament has, in a sense, already given a head nod to the Casino, whether you like gambling or not. Clearly, Family First does not like gambling, but the fact is that the parliament already gave approval a few years ago for the Casino to have a lot more poker machines and other gambling opportunities.

I will be asking questions about the developments that the Casino is proposing in particular when we get into committee and when we come back after the winter break and holiday period (for some). I am advised that there will be a six-star hotel development with the Casino. I am also advised by those in tourism convention that Adelaide is crying out for some six-star accommodation. The only point that has been raised with me about it is whether or not they are going to actually be building sufficient six-star accommodation when it comes to the number of beds that will be provided.

If this was happening on South Terrace or in the East Terrace precinct of Adelaide, where we still do have our open space and our Parklands proper, then we would have had a different attitude to it, but this is happening in an area that is already full of concrete and bitumen. The bottom line is that there is an economic opportunity here to reinvigorate that and give a lot of people a lot of enjoyment. I would suggest that if this does go ahead I would expect to bump into quite a few of my parliamentary colleagues enjoying the new cafes, enjoying the new restaurants, enjoying the new arts opportunities and enjoying the fact that we will also probably get better quality theatre again because of those upgrades. It will bring in different groups of people internationally to participate in arts and theatre in South Australia.

The other couple of points that I just want to finish on are that when it comes to the contract and the debate by the opposition about the contract, we do have a Public Works Committee. I am not sure how well it works, but the fact is that there is a Public Works Committee. There can be absolute scrutiny there, and you can bring people in under privilege to cross-examine them on matters relevant to this project, including any agency or department heads who you may feel you need to bring in.

Whilst I am often concerned about commercial in confidence, whoever is in government will protect contractual agreements that could actually work against this and other opportunities for private sector investment in the state. The reality is that, whether it is a Liberal government or a Labor government after the election on the third Saturday of March 2018, I would suggest that whatever contractual arrangements similar to this with the Walker group occur they will not be not made public. They will not be made public, and frankly I would not expect them to be made public. We will become a ghost town for investment if that occurs, because you set up a precedent for a situation where there is no commercial confidence.

You have to have some trust in the government. We do have standing committees for that. If the contractual arrangements are not in the best interests of South Australians, over time they will be exposed, and that is when the opposition can capitalise on that, and people then will vote with their feet on election day. We will be trusting the government on this. We put that on the public record. The government has said that this is a good contract. The government has said that this is a contract that will return $5 of private investment money for every $1 of taxpayers' money, and the government has also said that there will be thousands of jobs during construction and hundreds and hundreds of jobs ongoing once the project is completed.

We do not have a lot of areas around Adelaide where we can capitalise on the River Torrens. I was one of those who was opposed to the Adelaide Oval upgrade, but I have had egg on my face over that from my own family. I have had egg on my face over that from most people. I have to admit that it is a heck of a lot better than I thought it was going to be.

It is there now. It is a big investment, and now it is there I think we have to capitalise on what has been spent already and actually get this state and this city humming. That is what we need. It is not humming at the moment, but it could. A lot of money has been spent. You cannot take away what is already there. Look at what has happened in Melbourne with the MCG, with Southbank, with the Rod Laver tennis arena—and hopefully we are going to see some upgrades for tennis in South Australia adjacent to the Adelaide Oval sooner rather than later.

The fact is it is a hub that can hum. It is on its way. There is a piece of legislation here that is going to give some certainty and continuity to the ongoing development, and I would suggest that, come a Liberal government into the future, they will continue on with other expansion and opportunities based on what the current Labor government is doing here with this legislation. With those few words, we, for one, will be supporting the government's bill.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (17:00): In the 1980s, the Adelaide Station and Environs Redevelopment, or the ASER project, led to unprecedented changes in public land use in Adelaide. Of course, over many years, the Parklands had previously been redeveloped in some areas for public use, particularly the institutional uses along North Terrace. The minister makes this point in his second reading speech, but I will refer to that later. What made the ASER project so controversial were the major and overt commercial activities that were allowed on the public Parklands. This included the long-term alienation of public land and public buildings for the Adelaide Casino, the Hyatt Hotel, the Riverside office complex and the Convention Centre.

The government is now proposing for that trend to continue, with further alienations and effective privatisations. The bill before us purports to be a fairly routine suite of practical measures that will make the redevelopment of the Riverbank Precinct proceed more smoothly. The bill will clarify the complex web of access and other property rights that exist amongst the various lessees and stakeholders. However, despite that fairly benign purpose, the elephant in the room is the redevelopment of the Festival Plaza Precinct itself and whether this is in the best interests of the people of South Australia. In my view, it is not.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): The Hon. Mr Brokenshire sought the protection of the Chair. I think he ought to respect the speaker on his feet. The Hon. Mr Parnell has the floor.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Thank you, Mr Acting President. That is not to say that elements of the Festival Plaza redevelopment are not without merit. Like the curate's egg, parts of it are quite good. I, for one, have said to anyone who will listen that I welcome the bulldozer down on the Festival Plaza. I think it is an area that is underused, poorly designed and could be greatly improved. However, the good elements of the redevelopment are overshadowed by the dodgy deals and the inappropriate privatisation of some of the most important public spaces in Adelaide.

I will say that I am not a Johnny-come-lately to this issue. In fact, I think I am the only member of parliament who has made public submissions in writing and in person to the Development Assessment Commission in relation to this development. It is something that I have followed very closely. The Greens do not support the further alienation of the Parklands for exclusive private development. We do not support the Walker Corporation office tower proposed for the land behind Old Parliament House. We do not support giving yet more public land to the Casino. So, why would we support this bill?

I would like to explore the Casino issue first. The bill proposes to expand the area of public land available to the Casino for its proposed expansion. The area of land involved is an irregularly shaped piece to the north of the existing Casino and railway station building heading towards Torrens Lake. This is additional public land which is part of the Adelaide Parklands that is being alienated for the Casino.

As members would recall, the Casino expansion will include 500 new poker machines and 110 extra gaming tables. This is particularly concerning when one considers that casino gamblers are three times more likely to be problem gamblers and moderate-risk gamblers than other punters. Furthermore, the prevalence of problem gambling associated with electronic gaming machines (pokies) is directly related to the accessibility and availability of pokies.

The question for the Greens is whether or not we should vote for measures that make the Casino expansion more likely to proceed, with all its inherent community harm. I think the point is well made by the Adelaide Park Lands Preservation Association, who make the very simple but telling point that there are thousands of casinos around the world, but only one city surrounded by a park. Not surprisingly, the government has anticipated this objection, which is why the minister, in his lengthy second reading contribution, listed all the existing alienations of the Adelaide Parklands. I will not go through them all but the minister says:

…it is important to address arguments put by some that this represents an alienation of Parklands to commercial interests. Nothing about this project represents anything extraordinary in terms of the institutional zone in the Parklands.

All along North Terrace, what was once open park lands has been developed to support a range of public and private interests. All of this is entirely consistent with the park lands legislation and with the long-term patterns of use of this part of the park lands.

The minister goes on to read an extensive list:

Two universities, a hospital and new health care precinct, an office building, a convention centre, a gym, a zoo, a cemetery, two railway stations, a school and soon to be another, two major sporting arenas, a wine centre complex, an organic nursery…

And it goes on. I think the point to make about that is that effectively what the government is saying is that the future direction of the Parklands should be a continuation of the past, with each generation alienating yet a little bit more. Every few years we privatise a little bit more. In my view, that is a recipe for the ultimate fragmentation and dismantling of the Parklands.

It is only through strong legal protections, a supportive local council and a vigilant community sector that this process has slowed over the decades. Again, I am not sure whether any other members of parliament were in attendance in Rundle Mall on that infamous day when former minister Kevin Foley—a great advocate for building new buildings in the middle of the Parklands—had his famous altercation with protesters. Again, it is an issue where I am just making the point that I have been involved with it for many years.

In relation to the Walker Corporation development, the Greens' position is that the Walker development is the wrong approach to developing this important public land. In his second reading speech, the minister said:

The integrity of the process by which Walker became the government's preferred partner and the value-for-money proposition that this project offers cannot be seriously questioned.

Mr Acting President, I question it and I know I am not alone. I am not just talking about the millions of dollars that the Walker Corporation has given to the Labor Party—and the members opposite usually arc up when I say that; it is a nationwide figure not a South Australian-specific figure. They are big donors to the Labor Party. I am talking about the more mechanical aspects of tendering and the contract that resulted.

As members might recall, I was dragged into the District Court by the Walker Corporation, who were desperate to keep their plans for the Festival Plaza secret. They objected to the release of the documents under the Freedom of Information Act, and they even appealed against the Ombudsman's finding that documents surrounding this development were in the public interest and should be released. Using their appeal rights under the Freedom of Information Act, the Walker Corporation delayed the process with legal tactics until they deemed the documents to be old and stale enough to be of no great interest, and then they dropped their appeal just days before the trial was due to begin.

I understand that the member for Bragg, in another place, has had similar experiences in trying to access documents concerning this development, this alienation of public land. According to the minister's second reading speech he says:

The legislation is essential to allow for the redevelopment project to proceed on time and for the government to fulfil its contractual commitments to Walker Group Holdings Pty Ltd for the upgrade.

It goes on:

In addition, the legislative changes will also support the mooted casino expansion by SkyCity Entertainment Group Ltd should it proceed.

In relation to Walker Corporation, the question then is: what about these contractual commitments?

The member for Bragg, as I understand it, has been through the wringer with Walker and still does not have access to those documents. The Liberal Party position, as I understand it, is that they are not going to allow this bill to proceed until they get access to the documents, and I can tell you that the Greens will join them in that call.

These are important accountability documents. There is no question of commercial confidentiality. There is only one company that is dealing with the government on this. There is no competition. Why should we not see the deal that was struck between the Walker Corporation and the government? Again, the Greens do not support the Walker development so why would we support the bill that facilitates it?

I suspect that the government knew that it would have a fight on its hands in relation to this bill. I do not think I have seen such a long second reading speech for a bill like this for a long time. It goes to over 10 pages. I think the language in the second reading speech is bordering on the desperate. The government basically exhorts us to support this bill which it claims is a no-brainer. I think there are plenty of people with plenty of brains who take a different view, but I think the government's overreach is best exemplified in the remarkable claim by the minister in his speech where he said, and I quote:

…we in the government would argue it is entirely consistent with the values expressed in the national heritage listing for the park lands which reflects Colonel Light's original vision for this uniquely Adelaide asset.

I looked pretty hard but I could not see any reference in the official record, or in any of Colonel Light's writings, that identified that a Casino hotel or a 26-storey office tower was an integral part of his vision for Adelaide. I could not see it. However, I do want to put on the record what the official record does say about the Adelaide Parklands. As members would recall, the Adelaide Parklands are nationally heritage listed. If you go to the Australian Heritage Database—it is a lengthy listing—I will read the bit under criterion (g) social value. The record reads:

The Adelaide Park Lands has outstanding social value to South Australians who see it as fundamental to the character and ambience of the city. The Park Lands with their recreation areas, sports grounds, gardens and public facilities provide venues for individual and group activities and events, meetings and passive and active recreation. The Park Lands also have significant social value due to the range of important civic, public, and cultural assets and institutions within it.

It does not say anything about casinos, casino hotels or effectively private office towers. That does not get a guernsey in the Australian heritage record. The record goes on:

The present Adelaide Parklands Preservation Society—

I think it is actually 'Association'—

is the latest in a long history of community groups dedicated to protecting the Adelaide Park Lands. These have included the Park Lands Defence Association (1869-87), the Park Lands Preservation League (1903, 1948) and the National Trust of South Australia. The longevity of the involvement of community groups in campaigning for the protection and safeguarding of the Park Lands is exceptional.

That is what is in the record. These very groups who seek to protect the integrity of Adelaide's Parklands are the ones who are now being criticised as having no brain by the government and no vision for the future.

We have a unique heritage and history here in South Australia that is being put at risk by this development. Our public land, and our Parklands in particular, are increasingly being lost to private and commercial interests, despite protections that were supposedly put into legislation, such as the Adelaide Parklands Act 2005. The Greens are not prepared to vote in favour of continuing this trend and, as a result, will be voting against this bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.S. Lee.