HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-07-20 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ADELAIDE OVAL

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (15:51): 'The most useful thing about a principle is that it can always be sacrificed to expediency.' Those are the words of Somerset Maugham. No truer words could have been spoken about the Rann government-inspired redevelopment of Adelaide Oval.

During the last parliamentary sitting week I sat patiently, listening intently to question time, which is parliament's opportunity for members to ask the government of the day specific questions about the running of government, with the desire that government is transparent and held accountable. However, what transpired was a collection of Dorothy Dixers, that is, government members gushingly asking their own ministers questions, which are jovially replied to with endless pages of pre-prepared notes of praise for their own work.

Whilst in theory each turn by the opposition to ask a question should provide some insight into government procedure, what tends to unfold is either the question being placed on notice or the government evades answering the question and deflects and deviates, ducking and weaving better than a featherweight boxer. Often a simple yes or no would suffice; however, this seems impossible for the government to give. Since forming government in 2002 the Rann government has failed to answer over 2,500 questions on notice, effectively sending them to political oblivion at the proroguing of the parliamentary session.

So I go back to expediency. Prior to the March 2010 election, faced with the Liberal opposition's plan of a multifunction, FIFA compliant, covered retractable-roof stadium complex as part of a wider entertainment precinct, the Labor government needed to come up with something. What South Australia received was a hastily-planned upgrade of Adelaide Oval for $450 million—'and not a penny more'—with a firm deadline of 30 June 2010 or 'the deal is off the table'.

The Rann government gave the image of being firm and decisive in action. However, since returning to government following the March 2010 election we are starting to see the Rann government's very hastily-prepared Adelaide Oval upgrade unravel. We now know that, despite emphatic claims of 'not a penny more', the government was well aware that the cost of the oval upgrade would be more than what was first stated. The deadline has been extended to 31 August, with talk about town that this will be extended further.

What started at $450 million 'and not a penny more' has ballooned to $535 million, which we now understand does not include the cost of the footbridge, which could be anywhere up to $40 million, an extra $15 million for public transport needs and $11 million to create an open-air car park. We now know that Treasurer Foley was briefed before the state election that $450 million would not be enough, yet he failed to disclose this information to South Australia. Then Treasurer Kevin Foley was advised in April this year that the total cost of the Adelaide Oval redevelopment outlined in December would be approximately $701 million, yet nearly nine months since the oval was first announced too many questions remain unanswered.

We still do not have any accurate costings, the public have not been able to see exactly what is proposed and where the money is to come from, and we are not privy to the exact seating capacity. We can only hope that the oval upgrade will be FIFA compliant, otherwise our state will possibly miss out on the opportunity to be included in the 2022 World Cup bid. We do not know if SACA members will have to travel to Glenelg for Sheffield Shield, state one-day and twenty20 games, as suggested in the Parklands' newsletter of June 2010. We do not know how the Adelaide Crows will replace its Crows shed, which caters for as many as 3,000 fans after the game.

Why are South Australian taxpayers, most of whom are not members of SACA, required to pay a debt of an estimated $85 million when the club had an annual turnover of $9 million in the '96-97 year, rising to $27.7 million in '07-08, with recorded surpluses of $12 million per year for the last five years? Were you the taxpayer asked if you wanted to pay this debt? I wasn't. New light was shed on this part of the story at a recent SACA meeting of members, which declared that SACA would have no trouble paying off its debt by 2036 without government assistance. So why are we footing the bill?

Leigh Whicker, the CEO of the SMA, told the Legislative Council's Budget and Finance Committee that the $701 million cost did not include the cost of another 900 car parks required to ensure that the oval was FIFA compliant. Mr Whicker argued that football and cricket had been promised a project which included a bridge over the River Torrens, a roof on Memorial Drive's centre court, car parking and FIFA compliance. Some 3,800 on-site car parks were required, but so far only 2,900 have been planned for, including 800 underground parks near the tennis centre. FIFA stadium requirements include a demand for car park spaces of 8,333 cars within a 1.5 kilometre radius as well as 400 bus parks, depending on the amount of transport available. A map of North Adelaide with a radius of 1.5 kilometres shows 5,000 car parking spaces.

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