HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-05-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CHELSEA CINEMA

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (11:52): I move:

That the house condemns the Minister for Volunteers for supporting the Treasurer's abandonment of the Chelsea Cinema.

It is with heavy heart that I make this submission to the parliament today for a number of reasons. The Chelsea Cinema is on the border of the state electorates of Bragg and Hartley, only a few hundred metres from where the member for Norwood lives, and is precious to our respective communities. It attracted extraordinary public response when the owner of the Chelsea Cinema, namely, the Burnside council, announced during 2009 its intention to offer the property for sale. A proposal had been put up—not terribly well canvassed in the community—that the property was no longer required for the benefit of the people within the Burnside council area and that it was really surplus to requirements. The council stated that it was not in the business of running a picture theatre and that it would be sold.

The petitions, signed by well over 1,000 local people, which I received and took to the Burnside council, begged it not specifically to reconsider the question of sale but to properly consult with the community to ensure that everybody had a say about this matter. I used my influence in this respect, along with other members of parliament, including the member for Hartley, who appeared in the community and at our public meetings to be passionate about the importance of retaining the Chelsea Cinema, a cinema with an extraordinary history. It has not only accommodated an historic picture theatre and been used for the screening of films but has been the venue for public meetings and important events of dozens of volunteer organisations within the eastern region.

There seemed to be a coming together of the community, with strong advocates and parliamentary representatives from this place, including the new members for Norwood and Morialta and the Liberal candidate for Hartley, Mr Joe Scalzi (a former member) requiring the Burnside council to fairly reconsider this position in light of the imminent notice of sale.

In December last year the Burnside Council resolved that it would proceed with the sale of the property. Various events have interrupted or delayed that process, and I would expect that we will be past November before the council ultimately makes a decision.

Two things were fundamental to what the public was saying, overlapping our ratepayers and constituents. One was the importance of the property remaining a public asset. That is, the community is saying that whether it is in a trust, whether it is held by the Burnside council or whether it is a state or federal government entity, it must be retained as a public asset for public use, and public money is necessary to maintain it and public sponsorship is important.

The second matter was that the main auditorium of that facility should be preserved, that is, it should not be petitioned off into some smaller function rooms or other activity facilities. There was a further aspect which I think was important but which has become increasingly important as time has gone by, that is, the volunteer organisations that have lined up (and I am sure they have seen the member for Hartley, as they have members on this side) for the opportunity to have access, for nominal cost, to enjoy that venue. Bear in mind that the access to public houses in the eastern area, as is the access to open space, is precious, and we as representatives must bring this matter to the attention of the parliament.

Notwithstanding all that history and the apparent interest by the minister in the principles that underpin those aspects, on 17 June last year, almost contemporaneously with the conduct of the member, the issue was raised in this parliament. During the course of the debate in respect of another ill-conceived idea of the government, which is to relocate the Royal Adelaide Hospital, the question of the use of public funds by the state government to acquire the Chelsea Cinema and keep it in public hands was met with a retort from the Treasurer when he said, 'You just worry about spending $2 million on a picture theatre. I mean, have you ever heard of a worse priority for public expenditure?' It is fair to say that the Treasurer in the time I have been here has not appeared to me to be someone who is as passionate about the arts, picture theatres or historic buildings as he may be about other things. Nevertheless, each has their own priorities, and he is entitled to his view.

What was extraordinary was not his statement but a subsequent statement recorded in Hansard by Ms Portolesi (but I will properly call her the member for Hartley and Minister for Volunteers) about the campaign to buy. She says. 'I don't think so. We support the Treasurer.' That is a stunning admission, by the now Minister for Volunteers, back in June 2009 when she appeared to be masquerading as a great supporter of the protection of the Chelsea Cinema as a public asset and for it to be kept open for a group in the community comprising thousands whom she now represents in the state parliament as the Minister for Volunteers. That is what is so stunning about that contribution.

I bring that matter to the attention of the house because, notwithstanding that statement which, in my view, is a condemnation of the minister, there is an opportunity for the minister to plea for mercy on this. I have written, as the member for Bragg, to her, as the Minister for Volunteers, and asked her whether, if she is serious about her position that she made public last year to keep the Chelsea Cinema in public hands, she will commit in cabinet to ensuring that there is a provision of funding for the acquisition of the Chelsea Cinema by the state to protect this historic asset.

She is in a privileged position now as a member of the cabinet and she can have a say. The real test is to ask for that support. Given that the Premier has a published and proud claim of his passionate commitment to the arts—so much so that he is prepared to sell off 42 per cent of the Glenside Hospital site for private housing and supermarkets, and to accommodate precious new headquarters for the South Australian Film Corporation and to provide for filming facilities in lieu of maintaining an asset base for future needs in mental health—and film in particular, it would be exposed as a complete facade if his government, with the support of the Minister for Volunteers, is not prepared to present that submission in cabinet and seek that.

If she is not successful, so be it; but, if she does not even ask for it, it will show the shallow and insincere presentation that has been made to the public and to her constituents and to my constituents and to neighbouring electorates. I have not received a response, so I am assuming that she has not yet had an opportunity to present that submission to the cabinet. I hope that I get a letter back saying, 'Not only have I applied but I have succeeded, and the Treasurer will be announcing this in the 2010 budget.' That may not be the answer, but, if she tries and fails, I will at least give her credit for trying. In the meantime, she stands condemned.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Treasurer, Minister for Federal/State Relations, Minister for Defence Industries) (12:02): Madam Deputy Speaker, I love the Chelsea Cinema. To me, it is one of those great—

Ms Chapman: Ever been there?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Yes I have; the Rocky Horror Picture Show—water pistols and rice.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I was watching, not participating. My guess is that you would probably make a better Frankenfurter than I would. No, I doubt that the government will be providing financial assistance. I mention my beloved theatres in Port Adelaide and in Semaphore. The Odeon is still operating—sort of half bric-a-brac and half cinema—and it is good. With respect to the old Odeon, or the old cinema that is now the Semaphore library (which was a great theatre I used to go to as a kid), I had to accept that cinema's closure. It was not something that we were able to sustain.

I was just saying to the member for Mount Gambier that the reality is that there would be many great theatres in all our communities which we as kids used to go to but which no longer exist, not to mention the dear old drive-ins. The dear old drive-ins had so much of a role in the development of our social interactions as young people. I am sure that we have all driven out of a drive-in with the speaker still stuck in the window.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Well, I just forgot.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Treasurer, please return to the subject of debate. We are not interested in what you did in the drive-in in 1963.

An honourable member interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, we are not.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: When modern technology entered the drive-in sphere and you had to click the thing onto the aerial, that was really confronting because my car never had an aerial. When I did get a car with an aerial—well, we won't go there.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is just getting too racy for me. Let's talk about the Chelsea Cinema.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: There is great technological change in cinemas today. They are a whole different experience.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: You can get the gold chairs and you can lay back in them. These cinemas are everywhere. The reality is that the Chelsea Cinema's future is an issue for the local community and the local council, not the state government. It would not be a good precedent for governments to say, 'We will support the retention of a cinema in its full glory.' I could only imagine how many members would be queuing up if the local Eudunda cinema closed; or there would be a cinema in Pinnaroo that no longer exists.

Ms Thompson: Lockleys.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Lockleys.

Ms Thompson: There are lots of historical features in our electorates.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Yes. These venues are throughout our city in various forms.

Mr Venning: One opening in Blyth.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: One opening in Blyth, fantastic. I can understand the passion. I should put on the public record that the member for Hartley has been passionate about the future of the Chelsea. In her brief time in cabinet there has barely been a meeting when the issue of the Chelsea has not been raised.

Ms Chapman: And you have said no every time.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Yes.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Here we go. He has been here five minutes and he is an expert on everything. The reality is that the matter of the passionate support for the Chelsea has been raised in cabinet on a number of occasions, and I have to confess that some of my responses have been along the lines I have given to the house—not so much about the drive-ins because I do not trust cabinet solidarity to share all my stories about the drive-ins without their somehow finding their way into the public domain.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Okay, too much information from the women on the backbenches.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Well, there used to be a hole in the fence at the Taperoo drive-in. We would all chip for one of our mates to get in and then we would file in through the hole in the fence.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: So why did it go bust?

Mr Pederick: No-one was paying!

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Yes, there was that. The member for Hartley has been a very passionate advocate for the future of the Chelsea, but we have explained to the member for Hartley—and I am not sure she is totally convinced—that it is not a priority or a precedent that we as a government can set for the very points I have articulated.

Ms Chapman: What about $43 million at Glenside? How's that a priority?

The Hon. G. Portolesi: We stand shoulder to shoulder. I don't think we should buy it.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: The member doesn't think we should buy it.

The Hon. G. Portolesi: No.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: That's right.

The Hon. G. Portolesi: And neither do the Libs, because it wasn't part of their election policy.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Of course it wasn't. I do not think the shadow cabinet would be with the shadow minister for community services on this one because of the very point—

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you want to chat afterwards, member for Norwood, you can, but at the moment the Treasurer is talking.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I will conclude my remarks with that informative and constructive contribution to the wider public and social debate.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Come down to the Odeon; it is open on Semaphore Road.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Okay, and with that lovely invitation let us move on. Have you finished Treasurer? You have, haven't you?

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I have the feeling I am finished, whether I like it or not.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think you have; I feel it within.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Sibbons.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT