HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-06-08 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ADELAIDE OVAL REDEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 7 June 2011.)

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite) (11:40): Madam Speaker:

Almighty God, we humbly beseech you to bless this parliament and to direct and prosper our deliberations to the advancement of your glory and the true welfare of the people of this state.

It is a prayer that we commence each day of parliament with. It reminds us that we are here first and foremost to serve the people of this state and to look to their true welfare and that, in all of our decisions, we must think first about what is best for South Australians, for the state and for the city.

I have often reflected on the comment of John Howard that, when the federal Liberal coalition was in place and a federal Labor government came forward with proposals to privatise the Commonwealth Bank, to sell Qantas, and to deregulate the banking system, the federal coalition took the view that it was in the best interests of Australia for those things to happen, so they did not oppose them; they supported them, even though they were coming from a Labor government. He always took the view that if it was the good for the country it should be supported, and that in opposition one should be careful about the positions one took to ensure that the best interests of the people and the state were always protected.

That is why I am very pleased to be standing today, as part of a team that has decided to support this legislation, to enable football to return to the city. I think it is a sound decision by our side of the house, and we all look forward now to seeing football returned to the city. Of course, we will be moving important amendments to the legislation, and I sincerely hope that the government gives them due regard because, as always, legislation can be improved. I look forward to seeing this stadium built, and football returned to the city.

In doing so, I want to support comments made by my colleagues on this side earlier, that this was never the preferred solution, that a better solution would always have been a separate, stand-alone stadium, down in the rail yards site. I want to go over some of the history here, because it has been reinvented. I want to remind the house that the language of the Labor government in its first term of office, and in the first couple of years of its second term, was, 'We stand for police, health and education,' and nothing else.

The state Labor government virtually built nothing in its first four years of office and, although it produced an infrastructure plan—and various other glossy plans—it was clear that they were not focused on building a vision for the future of this state, or an infrastructure vision. I say that because some of the decisions they made were very curious. For example, after the 2006 election, one of the first announcements we had was that we would be building trams from Victoria Square down through North Terrace—something that had not been foreshadowed during the election campaign, and it seemed to be something that had been plucked out of the sky.

Shortly afterwards, we had the announcement that we would be building a new hospital down in the rail yards, something else that had not been floated during the election campaign. In fact, the government had taken to the election the promise that it would rebuild the Royal Adelaide Hospital in situ. Thirdly, there was precious little being done about building roads infrastructure. There clearly was no plan to build.

The opposition took the view in 2007, 2008 and 2009 that we needed to transform the political debate onto ground of our choosing, and take it away from the Labor Party's ground, which they had staked as being simply a debate about health, education and police—important though those three things are. We set about a deliberate program to focus the debate on a vision for the future of the state, a vision for the future of the city of Adelaide, and on building to make that vision a reality. That is why we announced a master plan for Adelaide in early 2008 at the Press Club which called for, amongst other things, a revitalising of the city of Adelaide based around the City West precinct.

We argued that this should be our Darling Harbour, this should be our inner city precinct. Melbourne and Brisbane had done it and we did not want to replicate exactly what they had done, but we needed to reinvigorate this city and it now needed to face the River Torrens not Victoria Square, and we needed a completely new journey.

That was reinforced throughout 2008 by our call for things such as new roads and the electrification of the railway system, and the announcement in early 2009 of further detail of our plans for a separate city stadium in City West and our view that we needed a new hospital but it needed to be rebuilt where it was, around the current site, and that the best site for the catalyst for change in this city was City West and that is where the stadium should be.

Our master plan for Adelaide announced at the Press Club in early 2008 also called for the Convention Centre to be expanded. It called for the Entertainment Centre to be brought from where it is at the top of Port Road to be collocated with the new stadium and the Convention Centre extension. We saw an enlivened precinct at the rail yards facing the Torrens. We subsequently flagged the prospect of the casino being part of that new vision, with possibly a science and technology museum. There was a whole raft of new measures that could possibly have included hotels, cafes and restaurants and a complete reinvention of the city of Adelaide based around the Adelaide rail yard site.

Initially, it was described as not a vision but a squint, and the Labor Party did everything it could to dismiss our vision. They argued that the Convention Centre did not need to be extended at all and it was a waste of money. They are on the record time and again saying that. They argued that the Entertainment Centre could stay where it was and we did not need football in the city. They raced down to AAMI Stadium, in fact, with their chequebook and wrote out a cheque for, I think it was, $150 million and they said, 'We will leave football at AAMI Stadium. That is the future for football.' They did everything they could to scotch the vision we set out.

What happened then was that the public debate started to change. Instead of talking about health, education, police and nothing else, the public debate started to move to the issue of a vision for the future of the city and this state, and the Labor government was drawn to a ground of our choosing and these issues became the compelling debates that led up to the 2010 state election. It was a very good example of an opposition getting results from opposition and causing a government to move its agenda to that being set out by the opposition. It is an absolute credit to everyone on this side that that was done. Let me remind the house of what then occurred.

Within months of the master plan for Adelaide being announced, the government threw $50 million at the Entertainment Centre for a major facelift. It is an excellent development down there and it now looks great; but, to extinguish the concept of moving the Entertainment Centre, they threw $50 million at it immediately. Next, as I mentioned, they went down to AAMI Stadium with $150 million and did everything they could to convince the SANFL and the two clubs to remain at AAMI Stadium in the hope of extinguishing the momentum that was growing behind our vision for City West.

Subsequently, having scotched the idea of extending the Convention Centre, saying it was a waste of money and it couldn't be done, what have they decided to do? They decided to commit $394 million to an extension of the Convention Centre. Finally, under the pressure of our arguments, they completely caved in in late 2009 and decided that football would move to Adelaide Oval. They were forced, kicking and screaming on every single issue we had set out before them, to come to our side of the argument.

The result was that, in the election campaign, we were not having an argument about whether we would have a new hospital: it was about where it would be. We were not having an argument about whether we would have a new stadium and football would come to the city: we were having an argument about whether it would be City West or Adelaide Oval. These were positives. We were going to get good results no matter who won. Sadly, the better outcome that would have been delivered had we won is not that which will ultimately be delivered.

I steadfastly believe that the City West area should have been the site for a separate stand-alone stadium, that it would have been absolutely fantastic, that we should have extended the Convention Centre, brought the Entertainment Centre up and re-enlivened that precinct. It would have been our Docklands, our Darling Harbour. It would have been absolutely sensational, but sadly, in at least six seats, the people of South Australia did not see it that way and the result was that the Labor Party was returned.

There were some other events that changed the landscape. One was that we failed to win the World Cup bid—a sad day for Australia but, as a result of that, the investment that would have flowed from a successful World Cup bid was not there. The third thing that occurred was that there were floods in Queensland and various other financial disasters, mainly of the federal Labor Party's making, that predicated that the federal Labor government had no money to invest in a stadium and a number of other projects, having cancelled others such as, for example, the O-Bahn development.

This trifecta of Labor winning the election, our failure to win the World Cup bid and the federal Labor government's financial mismanagement causing an absence of funding meant that plans for a new stadium and a new hospital were shrouded in gloom. I note that the government has decided to go ahead with its hospital plan—a costly plan and one that I think will prove too costly. However, it has also decided to go ahead with its Adelaide Oval plan, and that reflects the three realities that I mentioned earlier.

The good news is that football will be coming to the city, and I must say that I completely agree that there will be benefits from that. People will have their own view on the economic case set out by the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies. I note that it talks of a nearly $700 million additional benefit over the coming 10 years. Billions of dollars of economic activity will be generated at the new city stadium, and I think it will be a good investment.

I completely concur with our position that it needs to be capped at $535 million. I would have hoped that it would be significantly less, but that is where we are. If the state government can get money out of the federal government and the AFL and put extra money in, that is their call, but I do not want to see a single dollar more than what has been pegged being spent.

However, I would simply say that if it is good enough to spend $394 million on a Convention Centre which is there for the tourism, conventions and entertainment industry, if it is good enough to spend more than $300 million on a ship lift down at Osborne, which is there for a particular industry, the defence industry (and I think it has been a very good investment), if it is good enough to spend $50 million more recently at the Entertainment Centre and hundreds of millions of dollars before that at an entertainment centre for rock bands and concert performers, and if we see those investments as being good for the state of South Australia, then why can't we see this investment also being good for the people of South Australia? I think it is good and I am pleased that our side will be supporting the bill.

I also make this point: if the stadium remains active and vibrant for 80 years of the proposed lease, the amortised cost per year in 2001 dollars of the $535 million investment being made by the government will have been around $6.7 million per year. Even based on a 40-year life of the AAMI Stadium, the investment being made would be around $13.4 million per year. If you look at the life of the project and the benefits in terms of economic activity that will flow from it, I think the case looks much stronger indeed.

Cricket and football are important and powerful businesses in this state. Thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions—in fact, billions—of dollars of economic activity over the next 80 years will be generated around them. I think the plans for the oval are exciting. They are not as good as the plans would have been for a separate stand-alone stadium. All those arguments have been put: it is not a covered dome; I think, in the fullness of time, it will be crowded down there with the AFL, cricket and soccer looking for new venues for international fixtures; it is one stadium. All of those arguments have been put by my colleagues.

If people had had the opportunity to see the exciting proposal we would have put, I think it would have blown the Adelaide Oval proposal away, but the fact is we are where we are. What this option will do is achieve the goal of bringing football back into the city, which was always the state Liberal's goal. We would not be here today discussing this bill were it not for members on this side of the house. Were it not for us taking a lead on this issue, we would never have football in the city.

Not only can we claim credit for this decision but we forced the Labor government to get a result. Otherwise, we would still be here talking about their endless spin on bikies and the various other subjects that they were dribbling on with in their first two terms of government. We forced them to focus on revitalising the city and a vision for the city and the riverside precinct. It would not even be on their agenda were it not for us, and we can take full credit for this decision. It is not as good as it could have been, but at least it will bring football into the city.

I am proud to represent a party that is a champion of the Parklands. I also support the amendments that we propose to put that will help to protect the Parklands. I think this is a debate this parliament and this state need to explore more fulsomely over the next few years. The perception that the way things have been done in the last 150 years should be the way they are done for the next 150 years I think needs review. I think state governments, regardless of political persuasion, need to be much more active in supporting and preserving the Parklands, and in funding them.

I see a vision for the Parklands that puts them into the status of a major world parklands, along the lines of Central Park or any one of the major city parklands of Europe, but that will require a greater role from state government. That needs to provide for things such as the Adelaide Oval redevelopment and the Victoria Park redevelopment that was the subject of debate in the last parliament, because the Parklands, whilst being beautiful and whilst being preserved, still need to be used. They still need to have fixtures and infrastructure within them that attracts people to them, whether it is for the Clipsal, motor sport, horseracing, the zoo, cricket or football, but they also need to be preserved and protected as a green belt around the city.

I congratulate the SANFL, particularly Leigh Whicker, John Olsen and all of the board of the SANFL, for the effort they have put in to bringing football back into the city. I also congratulate the two clubs. There has been some bashing of football and cricket during the course of this debate. I am a complete supporter of football and cricket. I think they are fantastic for the state. This will be to their benefit, but will be to the benefit of us all. I congratulate Ian McLachlan and his team at SACA for the extraordinary effort they have put into this as well.

Although I am reluctant to say so, whilst acknowledging that we would not even be here debating this if it were not for the state Liberals, I offer some small congratulation to the minister. I struggle to say this. I am having difficulty with this, but I do want to pat the Minister for Infrastructure and the former treasurer on the back for one thing, and one thing only. That is that I suspect they have carried the debate in Labor caucus that has seen this initiative remain alive within the government.

I know there were forces within the government that would have been happy to rip it up, and the worst possible outcome would have been nothing. The worst possible outcome for South Australia would have been for cricket to have to go back to its corner, football to be left at AAMI Stadium with a struggling business plan, for the clubs to fall into chaos and for South Australians to get nothing at all.

To that extent, in the fact that the government has not gone weak at the knees on this, I give some small congratulation. I finalise by saying that this is a great proposal. I am pleased that we are supporting it, I look forward to seeing it built and let us now get on with it.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (12:00): I will take just a few minutes to make some brief comments in relation to the Adelaide Oval redevelopment bill. I think that speakers before me have outlined the debate and the issues quite comprehensively, but there are some points that I would like to make in relation to the bill.

I am no different from a number of members who were young boys in the 1960s. Some of us were born in the late 1950s and were young lads in the 1960s. We have all got fond memories of going to Adelaide Oval and watching what was then a really first-class level of football competition, the elite level of football here in South Australia, and those great teams of the 1960s with Sturt, Port, South, Glenelg and Norwood.

Clearly, I have fond memories of going to the finals and the grand finals at Adelaide Oval with my father, my grandfather and my uncle and viewing those great games. Also, at the end of the games, the actual ground was opened up and you could walk across the ground, over to the other side and walk off up to where the car was parked.

I have fond memories, as have a number of members in this place and no doubt thousands of South Australians, of what was the elite level of football, being the SANFL, and those great teams, as I said, playing at Adelaide Oval. We all know the history that took place, that the SANFL had issues with the South Australian Cricket Association, and they were not able to overcome their issues so that, in the 1970s, we saw Football Park built.

I still have a clear recollection of the very first time I went to Football Park. I drove past it and I was just amazed at the size of the stadium. It was only a very small part of what the infrastructure is now. The grandstand to the western side of the ground was the first part of the construction. I remember driving down and parking and, when I walked into the stadium, I was absolutely amazed at the purpose-built stadium to house football here in this state.

I have been a keen follower of football all my life, a keen follower of football at Football Park. I clearly remember the state games that were played between South Australia and the Victorians. I remember the game when South Australia beat Victoria; that was absolutely tremendous. I remember all the grand finals between Port and Sturt, Port and Norwood (again), Sturt and Norwood and Glenelg—all those great SANFL final series down at Football Park.

Let us fast forward a bit from those halcyon days of the SANFL to when South Australian-based teams entered the AFL. The scenario for football in this state changed significantly. The local situation did change significantly, but it did not change football's resolve, obviously, to stay at Football Park, or what we now call AAMI Stadium. As the member for Davenport and, I think, the leader yesterday said in their contributions to the debate, there was a document prepared by the SANFL only a couple of years ago that confirmed their commitment to staying at West Lakes.

Now, let us fast forward again to the period leading up to the 2010 election campaign. We have just heard the member for Waite outline some of the history in relation to that period. I believe that the government was panicked into doing something in relation to the Liberal opposition's plan to bring football to the city. In doing that, I believe it prematurely announced the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval and bringing football to the Adelaide Oval, because it did not have the stakeholders on board.

The SANFL was vehemently opposed. The Crows did not like it. I remember radio interviews conducted with Steven Trigg, the CEO of the Adelaide Crows. The Crows needed a lot of convincing that it was the right move. The government did not have the stakeholders on board and it has taken this period, from late 2009 to now, to come to this position.

We all remember the photograph on the Adelaide Oval. One of the media advisers or whoever told everybody that they should smile so that everybody looked like they were having a good time and everybody was agreeing with the proposal. We know that that was far from the case. There was still some quite strong opposition to the proposal to bring AFL to Adelaide Oval.

As time progressed, and the government committed its '$450 million and not a penny more', SACA did become attracted to the proposition, with a view to having its debt repaid. As we know, $85 million was added to the $450 million to repay the SACA debt. Hence, we come to the current position where the cost will be $535 million. In my opinion, SACA was obviously attracted to it because it was getting its debt paid off.

This is a half-baked measure. It was the Liberal opposition's proposal to have a purpose-built covered stadium for football and other related ball sports. This is a half-baked measure. Personally, I think it is taking the state in the wrong direction because, at the moment, as has been outlined by previous members, we are a two-stadium city and we are going to a one-stadium city.

I do not know how anybody can actually say that that is progress; you are reducing your stadiums by half. The member for Davenport, in his contribution, outlined that every other capital city in the country has two stadiums, if not more. I have been to Etihad Stadium in Melbourne and looked at that. I have been to the MCG a number of times for VFL grand finals in the early days, then AFL grand finals, so I have got a good understanding of the facilities that are provided.

The question I would ask is: when the Adelaide Oval redevelopment takes place, what is going to happen to Football Park? What is going to happen to AAMI Stadium? I do not think the SANFL teams will play there every week. They want to play on their home grounds. Port will want to play at Alberton, Sturt will want to play at Unley, Norwood will want to play at the Parade, Centrals will want to play at Elizabeth and the Bays will want to play at Glenelg. So, what will that mean? They will obviously play the finals series there and the grand final. What will that mean for Football Park? Will it be in mothballs? Will it be left dormant for 11 months of the year and only come to life in September and early October when the finals series are played?

For a multimillion-dollar facility and the multimillion dollars worth of infrastructure that have been invested in that facility over the last 40 years, is that a good use of infrastructure? Clearly, the answer is no. I have seen the SANFL plans and I know that down the track it will be reduced down to local sport and then some will be sold for residential development. Over the next decade I think that is quite a poor use of a multimillion-dollar facility.

It is evident that there has to have been some pressure placed on the SANFL for them to change their position. I heard the Minister for Police say yesterday that once it realised the benefits and so on of moving into the city that it gradually changed its mind, but there must have been some pressure placed on the SANFL in some way for it to change its position. As I stated earlier, it was vehemently opposed to it less than 12 months ago so there must have been some pressure, some coercion placed on the SANFL for it to change its position and agree to have football come to Adelaide Oval.

I want to talk about the SANFL competition and how that relates to football played around the state. In the Hills Football League competition, players are being paid to play in that competition at a higher level than some in the SANFL. They are getting more money to play country football than the players in the SANFL are.

That raises the question of what the SANFL is doing to promote the competition at the league level—when you have quite good league players (who are playing in the first 22, in the ones at the league level) leaving those clubs and going to play for country clubs and getting more money. I fully understand that players are attracted to the SANFL because it provides the avenue into the AFL, but that is not the case in every instance.

There are lads who get picked up from interstate country leagues—the VFA comp, and over in the west, but also from the country competition right around the nation—particularly states that have Australian rules football as their predominant winter sport. It is not necessarily the only avenue for lads to enter the AFL, but I know it is viewed as a good way of being identified and drafted or picked up and put into the AFL.

The majority of those players who play in the SANFL have aspirations to play in the AFL, where the lads who have left the SANFL comp and gone to the country have perhaps made a decision that they do not aspire to the AFL. I think those points are relevant.

What we are getting for our $535 million is a C-grade outcome for an A-grade game and event. We all know that the AFL is the elite level of Australian rules football, but what we are getting in the redevelopment of the Adelaide Oval is a C-grade outcome.

We are still going to get rained on. It is played in the wintertime and it rains in the wintertime—everybody knows that. As the member for MacKillop said, when he was at the soccer last Sunday he was more towards the rear of the stand than he was to the front of the stand and he was getting rained on.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: We all know that down at the South-East it rains 300 days of the year and drips off the trees on the other 65! Be that as it may, we are getting a C-grade outcome, where people will still get rained on when games are being played.

The other question is: how do we pay for this $535 million price tag? Call me a conspiracy theorist, but it seems less than coincidental that the day after the SACA vote was taken—and SACA members voted at the meeting to support football coming to the oval—the Treasurer announced the sale of the South-East forests. That will mean that the economy of a significant part of regional South Australia will be placed in jeopardy to pay for the Adelaide Oval redevelopment.

The member for Flinders says they are being sacrificed. We have seen two massive rallies held on the steps of Parliament House here on North Terrace opposing the sale of those forests. So, what we are seeing is a significant part of South Australia's regional economy being placed in jeopardy to pay the $535 million—100-plus years of income from the South-East forests is being used to pay for this. As I said, the Treasurer coincidentally made that announcement—and I know the member for Davenport made some public comment himself in relation to this—a day after the SACA vote. Anyway, we are where we are. The project is progressing.

As has been pointed out, this legislation is not absolutely necessary or absolutely required for the project to proceed; however, we find ourselves here in this situation. What the opposition intends to do through its amendments is really make the best of a bad situation.

Mr MARSHALL (Norwood) (12:17): I rise to speak on the much anticipated and, I would argue, much overdue bill on the redevelopment of the Adelaide Oval. I am strongly in favour of football moving into the city. It was, of course, a Liberal initiative in the first instance. It was a Liberal policy position leading into the 2010 election, and it remains a Liberal policy to this day. Of course, this policy has brought a vision to redevelop and regenerate the Riverside precinct here in the centre of Adelaide.

This is an area in which the government has been negligent over the nine years it has been in office to date. The state government has a valuable role to play in continually revitalising our infrastructure in South Australia. This goes back to governments of both persuasions over a long period of time—Steele Hall, with his initiative to establish the Festival Centre; Don Dunstan, outdoor dining; John Bannon, of course, with the ASER project for the Adelaide Station and Environs Redevelopment; and the Brown and Olsen governments, with their manifold redevelopments within the precinct of Adelaide. This is an area where the government has been very poor. It has not done a lot to revitalise our city, Adelaide. The initiative to bring football into the city is much overdue, but we applaud the government for finally getting around to making a move on this.

There is no doubt that football in South Australia is in a very lacklustre state at the moment. We are one of the only places in Australia where attendances are falling for AFL, where viewer numbers are falling. Our two teams are at the bottom of the AFL ladder, and supporters are disenchanted with the performance of football in South Australia.

There is no doubt that we must urgently progress the move of football into the city. I note with this proposal that the government is always talking about rushing this through with great alacrity. The simple fact of the matter is that the first game is going to be played in 2015. I hardly call that a speedy response to what is an increasing imperative for football in South Australia.

The current proposal by the government is undoubtedly a compromise. It is a sub-optimal option for this imperative to move football into the city as quickly as possible. They would have been far better off sticking with the Liberal proposal for a separate stand-alone FIFA compliant stadium. A two-stadium option for South Australia, quite frankly, is the only way to move forward. There is no doubt about that in my mind whatsoever but, unfortunately, politics got in the way. The Labor Party could not see itself accepting another policy suggestion from the Liberal Party and implementing that so it had to come up with an alternative. This is, as one of my colleagues pointed out yesterday, a 20th century solution to a 21st century opportunity, and South Australia deserves more.

The government proposal was, of course, very hurriedly put together in announcing the lead-up to the 2010 election, and many of my other colleagues have gone through the history of our announcement which preceded the government's by more than a year. The government's initial response was to continually restate that South Australia could not afford to move football into the city and that AAMI Stadium was the home of football. In fact, it spent a lot of money. Originally it proposed spending $100 million redeveloping that site. I understand that it spent something like $10 million on the early stages of that before it finally gave up on that failed and flawed policy in response to our initiative, and it capitulated to the overwhelming support of general members of the public for moving football into the city.

As I said, it is undoubtedly a compromise; it is undoubtedly a rush job and it falls down in several major areas. First, it is not a covered stadium, and, secondly, there is clearly not enough parking for this project. There is no obvious opportunity for expansion. As I said, this is a very short-term response for our city. What are we going to do when we want to expand this down the track, or are we saying that we will never ever need to move beyond 50,000 people sitting in that stadium? So, what do we do? Do we get rid of the scoreboard; do we get rid of the Moreton Bay figs?

There are limited opportunities now on this site to expand the capacity beyond the 50,000 that it is proposing with this current project. We are still no wiser as to what the total costs of the project are. We have been told that there is a new cap of $535 million but we do not really have a clear picture of what the total cost of bridge, car parking and other incidental items are going to be.

We also have very little knowledge about what the environmental impacts will be for this project. My understanding is that there has been no environmental impact statement released and, in fact, no environmental impact statement has even been commissioned. We also do not know what the effects of this project are going to be more broadly, not just on the Parklands but also in terms of historic preservation, and the Minister for the Environment has been particularly silent on this project to date.

In round terms, this proposal is to spend $535 million to move from a 30,000-seat stadium to a 47,000-seat stadium undercover. We have already heard this weekend that many of these so-called undercover seats are not really weatherproof. They might be shade-proof but we heard yesterday that many people attending the Socceroos games were wet in the western stand. Hopefully, that will be rectified as we move forward with Adelaide Oval.

My biggest problem is the equation of value for money. When the federal government spends money on infrastructure, it is required by legislation to actually do a cost benefit analysis for any infrastructure spend, I think, over $10 million. There has been no cost benefit analysis done on this project to my mind and it would be good if it could be done. The reason why it could not be done is that I do not think it offers a sound cost benefit result for South Australia.

How could you say that it is a good result for an extra 9,000 undercover seats at a cost of $535 million? In round terms we are talking about spending $60,000 per additional seat. These are the most expensive additional seats in a stadium anywhere in the world I would proffer here today in the parliament. So, that is nearly $60,000 per seat and, of course, these seats are not going to—if you go on current crowds and attendances—be used all that often. So the cost every time somebody places their derriere on the seat is going to be very high indeed.

I also think that this is not a stadium which will stand the test of time. To my mind, I would be happy to put money on the fact that, within the first 20 years, we will be unequivocally talking about moving football from the redeveloped Adelaide Oval to a new, separate, stand-alone stadium in the centre of Adelaide. There is no doubt that this the way forward; there is no doubt that is the 21stcentury solution—one which is obvious to most, except for the government. What will that actually leave us at the Adelaide Oval? What it will leave us with at the Adelaide is a massive stadium and capacity for cricket which, of course, is not really something which cricket has been seeking for their cricket spectators, so I really worry about the long-term affects there.

Let's have a quick look at the legislation which the government has finally brought to the parliament. The government introduced the legislation towards the end of the last sitting week. The Liberal party room met on Monday night, in our very first party room meeting after the legislation was introduced to the parliament, and we resolved to be supporting this legislation in this place. The government basically wants to position the Liberal Party as this big bunch of blockers and knockers—people who do not want to see football enter the city. Well, nothing could be further from the truth.

The simple fact of the matter is that it was a Liberal initiative from day one, and this government had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to also support this concept of bringing football to the city. They love to actually present us as being the ones who have been slowing down this process. The simple fact of the matter is; they announced this policy position back in 2009. They said, in the lead-up to the 2010 election, that they would be finalising the deal—a $450 million public spend—by 30 June 2010. Do you know what? It is now June 2011, and they have finally brought some legislation to this parliament.

They rabbit on all the time in the media about, 'Are the Liberals slowing down this process?' and, 'Why did the Liberals spend three hours in their party room to discuss it?' They have actually taken 14 or 15 months to bring the legislation to us. I think it is completely appropriate that the Liberal Party takes three hours to consider the legislation which they have brought, and I completely refute the government's suggestions that we are in any way trying to stifle or slow down this process whatsoever. It was a Liberal initiative and the government—if they were doing their job properly—should have brought in this legislation many, many years ago.

This legislation basically gives government the ability to effect their proposal to enter into a long-term agreement with the Stadium Management Authority, to control the Adelaide Oval and the surrounding parklands and also, importantly, to override the existing planning laws in South Australia.

I personally believe that this is particularly poor legislation, and there is no doubt that there are amendments which are necessary, and it is a pity that the government did not see this in the drafting. As I said, they have had plenty of time since the March 2010 election—14 months—where they could have been considering this, and the legislation is deficient in many areas.

The Liberal Party has already put on the record in this place that we will be proposing a series of amendments, and they are being drafted at the moment. The legislation as it stands at the moment certainly gives too much power to the minister for the period 2011 to 2015. We will propose that the existing state planning laws are followed in this case. The current proposal is in direct contravention of the Adelaide Park Lands Act 2005, which was of course introduced to this parliament by the current government.

In fact, the proposal in this legislation is far less satisfactory than even major project status, which is already a method that allows planning to move from orthodox planning to a fast-tracked planning situation. This proposal moves even further away from existing laws. We cannot see any evidence put up by the government as to why we should bin all our planning laws in South Australia to fast-track this proposal.

We will also be insisting upon the ongoing scrutiny and reporting by the Auditor-General's Department on this project. This was an idea first suggested by the Labor opposition in the lead-up to the 2002 state election when it put this idea forward for ongoing public scrutiny by the Auditor-General's Department of infrastructure spends in South Australia. It was a good suggestion and, of course, it is one that the government has not implemented since it came to power in 2002, and we certainly will be insisting upon this concept of public scrutiny being incorporated into the final legislation. It is an important safety mechanism to ensure that this project is delivered in a way that is not detrimental to the people of South Australia.

We will also be insisting that this goes to the Public Works Committee. Again, when this was raised by the Liberal Party yesterday, the government said, 'Of course it is going to go to the Public Works Committee. Are the Liberals crazy, or something? Of course it is going to go to Public Works.' Let me tell members that the Royal Adelaide Hospital has not gone to the Public Works Committee. There are plenty of things that have not gone to the Public Works Committee under this government, and they should. There has to be full parliamentary scrutiny of these projects when taxpayer money is being spent.

The government has also made comments in the media about the Liberal opposition's suggestion that a rent should be paid. We do not think that it is outrageous when the government is planning on spending $535 million worth of taxpayer funds. The interest payments on that (because, of course, we do not have $535 million sitting in the Treasury) are going to be in the order of $20 million, $25 million or maybe $30 million a year. We do not think it is completely out of order that the people who are going to be the major recipients of this capital investment in their sports should not make a contribution back to this state.

Also, a major area of our concern reflected in the amendments that we are moving relates to Parklands preservation. This is an area that is of particular importance to me in Norwood. Many people have contacted the office regarding this point in particular. We believe the Adelaide City Council remain the best people to control a large part of those Parklands. They have looked after the Parklands and been their custodians on behalf of the people of South Australia for a long period of time and I believe they have done this particularly well. So we will certainly be adjusting the full apron that this project will be sitting on and making sure that the most sensitive areas remain under the control of the Adelaide City Council.

We will, of course, also be insisting on a legislated cap to the project to protect any further blowouts occurring from this already mismanaged project. Finally, we will be insisting on a sinking fund. Again, yesterday during discussions in this house, the minister said, 'Yes, of course that is going to be part of it.' We would like to see it legislated to make sure that it is incorporated into the legislation.

I believe that all the amendments which are proposed by the Liberal opposition and being drafted at the moment are reasonable. I do not think anybody could say that in any way we are trying to stifle or slow down the progress of this proposal. There is no doubt that these are important safeguards and measures for the people of South Australia. Many constituents have made representations to me about the project and I thank the people of Norwood for making those representations. I have had meetings, phone calls, emails and a lot of letters on this issue. Many people think that this is not something that we should be spending money on at the moment.

I think the basis of their concern is that many infrastructure projects in South Australia have been neglected over a long period of time. Many services have been neglected. I do not subscribe to the view that $535 million should not be spent on this so that it can go directly to other services and infrastructure projects. I think this is an important project for South Australia. It is an important project for Adelaide. Whether we like it or not, people evaluate and judge cities by the stadia that they have, and I think that this is an important development for South Australia.

I do think, though, that we need to ensure that there is adequate funding for ongoing grassroots sport and recreation in South Australia. This is another area where this government has failed over a long period of time. In my electorate, the Norwood Cycling Club is a fantastic institution. We still do not have a permanent criterium track here in South Australia. There are seven in New South Wales and none in South Australia.

The Norwood Swimming Club has completely inadequate facilities. Yes, the government has put infrastructure into the Marion swimming centre, but that is hardly centrally located and, really, Norwood is a large swimming club with very poor facilities. The Norwood Basketball Club has quite rightly been making representations to all levels of government over a long period of time asking them to address the severe lack of indoor recreation facilities in South Australia.

I do not think we should stop spending $535 million on the Adelaide Oval to spend money on this. I would encourage the government to look at its spending and cut out waste so that we can support worthy projects like grassroots football, but I certainly do not for one minute suggest that we should not be going ahead with the Adelaide Oval and bringing football into the city.

I understand that the project will not be finished until 2015, so there has already been a delay on the project since it was originally announced that it would be completed by 2014. It is going to be completed in 2015. I think it is ironic that the Labor government—which I personally do not believe will be sitting on those benches in 2015—will not be actually tossing that coin. I think it is completely appropriate that Isobel Redmond who will be premier in March 2014 will be the person who tosses the first coin for the first game.

It is after all a Liberal initiative to bring football back to the city and I cannot think of anything more appropriate than to have Isobel Redmond, the first female premier of South Australia, tossing the coin for the very first game held on the redeveloped Adelaide Oval.

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (12:37): I rise to speak on the bill at hand. I reiterate that I am still definitely against the view that this was the right use of public money. I think that going from two ovals to one and being the only mainland state to have just one oval is a backward step and certainly not a forward-looking step. I am desperately saddened that we do not have a second oval that has a roof, that is a multifunction and multipurpose stadium and one that does not require parking on the Parklands but actually has its own parking available.

The Liberals, after our three-hour meetings—which have been discussed a few times—have made the best of what is a bad situation or a bad deal for South Australians. The Liberal Party was united in that it wanted football in the city, and I still want football in the city. I just do not think this is the best way and the best use of public money. For not much more, we could have built a covered purpose-built stadium that is multiuse and does not rely on the Parklands.

All that being said, we have made the best we can of this legislation. The Parklands surrounding Adelaide do not belong to the Adelaide City Council, nor do they belong to the state government. The Parklands belong to the people of South Australia and have been managed by the Adelaide City Council for some 160 years. Following a council meeting on 22 February this year, the Lord Mayor announced the council's unanimous decision to support the redevelopment at Adelaide Oval, stating that the council was looking forward to negotiating with the state government and other stakeholders.

The government's bill as it presently stands means there will be little need for the government to negotiate at all with the Adelaide City Council. It would seem that the council has been blindsided by the Rann state government and that, under this bill as it stands, the council will lose control of a significant portion of the Parklands to the Stadium Management Authority and the rightful owners of the Parklands—the residents of South Australia—will be silenced.

I presume that none of the councillors, when they unanimously supported this decision, predicted that the government had planned through legislation to seize this precinct, protected by the council for so long, and hand it over to a private consortium. Ironically, it is now the Liberal opposition to whom the council and the public of South Australia turn to protect the Parklands from this development. To quote the Lord Mayor:

[The Bill] is over-reaching with respect to the powers provided to the Minister to effect the Development. As a consequence, the Bill is not considered by Council to provide legislation that would be for the benefit of both present and future generations of all South Australians.

The federal government's Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities recognises that the Adelaide Parklands and the city layout was a masterwork of urban design and signified a turning point in Australia's settlement. It did this by bestowing the Adelaide Parklands with Australia's highest heritage honour by including the area on the National Heritage List on 7 November 2008.

This government clearly does not acknowledge the national heritage recognition of the Parklands and this government is content for the Parklands to be handed over to big business, to private hands and be turned into a car park. So much for moving forward. This state is moving backwards under the care of this Labor government, and in the process we are destroying a beautiful world-renowned oval in a nationally heritage listed area. What is the point of being nationally heritage listed if a minister can come in and redevelop the whole area, including changing the form of the land?

After consultation with the City Council and in consideration of interested parties, the Liberal Party seeks to put forward amendments to this bill. It insists that this project become more accountable and have the regular planning processes applied. That is, third party involvement by the Development Assessment Commission to ensure that there is an independent assessment of the particulars of the development. The bill in its current form gives carte blanche powers to the minister to do as he pleases without consultation or consequence.

We also require the Auditor-General be given powers to audit the project and regularly report to parliament, and that the legislation requires the Adelaide Oval project go to the Public Works Committee so it is placed under the same scrutiny as any other public works. We also believe that it is fair that the legislation require a licence or rental for the SMA to be charged.

For example, in 2015 that would be $250,000, rising in 2016 to $500,000, and $1 million by 2017. This should be reassessed every three years by the Treasurer as to whether this is the appropriate amount. I believe SACA are currently paying $25,000 per annum to the Adelaide City Council, which is less than you would pay to lease a small office in the city area.

We also believe it is in the best interests of all South Australians that the legislation cap the state's contribution to the project. This includes the amount for inside the licence and the core areas, including any contribution to SACA debt, and that this should be capped at the $535 million that the Labor government has already said it should be capped to.

We believe that there should also be included in the legislation a sinking fund, to be established to ensure proper maintenance of the facility and capital being available for future works. The Auditor-General should oversee the sinking fund and recommend amounts required to be placed in the fund, and the Treasurer should have the final say on how much the SMA put into the sinking fund.

Items that we think should be removed from the licence area include Colonel Light's Vision and the line of trees south of the vision and the area that runs adjacent to the roads. They should definitely be removed so they remain under the control and care of the council. The Pennington Gardens and the Cresswell Gardens should also be removed from the licence area and remain under the council's care and control, and managed in accordance with the Community Land Management Plans, with the Development Assessment Commission resolving any disputes. This would also enable the protection of Australia's oldest World War I memorial tree. There is also a requirement to protect the Moreton Bay figs.

We also support the council's request to legislate that the council must licence the minister for the two licence areas on an 80-year maximum. I would recommend that a 20 x 4 term would be the best way to go. The minister must manage them in accordance with the Community Land Management Plans, including 1,450 car parks as agreed with the council. If there is a disagreement on the plan, the legislation could provide for an appeal to the DAC as the final authority who would approve the plan. There would be no third-party appeals. Any development in the licence area must be in accordance with the approved management plan and approved by the DAC. That legislation also should be amended so that the core area have a maximum of 80 years—again, preferably 20 plus 20 plus 20 plus 20.

My office has received numerous pieces of correspondence in relation to this proposed legislation, and I just would like to read into Hansard some quotes. I quote the Park Lands Preservation Association:

This association has grave concerns about this outrageous bill...This bill represents an audacious attempt to privatise and commercialise Park 26...for cricket and AFL/SANFL football interests. This represents the biggest alienation and desecration threat to Adelaide Parklands in living memory.

I quote from one of the many letters from an individual constituent:

The Parklands are held in trust for all South Australians and I do not believe that a body should take them over and make money out of the car parking on a frequent basis. This will cause great damage and ruin the ambience of these Parklands.

Finally, I will end with a quote from the South-East City Residents Association:

It is astonishing that a democratically-elected government could produce such an undemocratic and draconian document. To place this area of Adelaide's unique heritage-listed Parklands under the control of an unelected commercial entity, the SMA, which is free to do what it wants with them, is in effect privatising that area of the Parklands. This action is abhorrent and not in the interests of the people of South Australia.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (12:46): Many of my colleagues have run through the detail of the legislation. I would like to spend some time talking about the politics. The situation we have at the moment reminds me quite a bit of the situation that we had at the federal level in the lead-up to the 1993 election. We all remember that John Hewson had put forward his GST package well in advance of the federal election, and, of course, what that did was to give the new but still tired Keating government the ability to counter what the then Liberal opposition at the federal level was doing with a new vision for Australia—a new tax package.

The government decided that it was going to oppose the GST. It ran an enormous scare campaign, and I think that was a lesson for many political parties about going out too early with your detail. What was interesting about that, of course, was that, immediately after the election, the very first budget after the election when that Labor government promised no GST if it was returned, we saw wholesale changes to wholesale sales taxes in South Australia.

I remember that because I was in the furniture business, and that was a victim, if you like, of a very complicated and recessive wholesale sales tax regime that the GST was going to replace. What we saw, in typical Labor style, was all the wholesale sales taxes lifted. Wholesale sales tax is a hidden tax. Most people do not know that it is being paid because it does not appear on the retail price ticket, it does not appear at the retail level. It is paid from supplier to retailer or from wholesaler to retailer, and appears as a separate item on the invoice. They know they are paying it.

It does affect the price, of course, and it taxes every business. We know what is happening there. It was very visible for business people but it was not visible for the public. What the Keating government did immediately after the election, when it promised no GST (because GST would affect the cost of living), was to broaden the net for the wholesale sales tax system. The government took it out into much broader areas and lifted the rate.

If we come back to the Adelaide Oval debate, when we made the announcement nearly two years out from the election that we wanted to bring football to the city, the then sports minister, the Premier and all the key players in the Rann government and football itself said, 'No, West Lakes is the home for footy. The Liberals are dreaming. People don't want football in the city. West Lakes is where it is going to be; and, by the way, SANFL, here's a $100 million cheque to upgrade your stadium.' We all remember that.

Of course, it obviously engaged Hawker Britton, the focus room started and the feedback was coming back that no, people want footy in the city. The SANFL, we know, wanted its own stadium. It put a submission to the Premier that it wanted its own stadium in the West Parklands. His response was, 'No, you can't have that. It is too much like the Liberals' plan. Come up with something else. Cobble something else together.'

Cobble something else together, a bit like Keating did after the GST election. He played around with what he had rather than a new vision and a new start for the Australian tax system. He just tinkered around the edges and that is what we have got here. We have got the result of a government reacting and responding to a good policy from the Liberal Party, from the opposition, and coming up with a second-best choice for the people of South Australia.

We need to understand the way that the Labor Party works and to understand the hypocrisy of the legislation that the government says it needs for this to go forward. We know it does not need the legislation. There are other things open to it, but we agreed to the legislation, with some amendments, because we want to be in the tent on this. We want to see what the government is up to. We want to be there to critique the government. We want to be there to hold it accountable.

If we go back to the promises, remember the 2002 election? The Labor Party did not have the seat of Adelaide. It wanted the seat of Adelaide; it preselected Jane Lomax-Smith as its candidate and then it produced 'Labor's plan to save the Parklands'. Remember that? 'Labor's plan to save the Parklands'. There is an executive summary here on the front. I will not go through that because it is not as exciting as some of the points that it made in its policy. The executive summary starts off:

Labor acknowledges the need to protect and expand appropriately open space throughout metropolitan Adelaide and beyond, including the Hills Face Zone and the coastal region.

What is one of the first things they do when they come to office? They sell off half of Glenside—a key area. I mean, that is in metropolitan Adelaide. It is open space. It is in a part of Adelaide that is under pressure from urban consolidation. There is less and less private open space in and around the Unley area, through Glenunga, Glenside and Parkside. Of course, one of the first decisions they made was to sell off a big chunk of open space that is there for the public to use.

That is what they said in opposition, and we know that what they say in opposition and at election time is completely different from what they do when they are in government. They then go on to say that they will 'change the law to block state governments overriding proper planning processes'. And here we are. It suited them when they were in opposition.

This came from, of course, the 14 pages of Hansard that the then leader of the opposition, Mike Rann, used as a political tool in the Wine Centre debate when he decided that that was a strategy for winning the seat of Adelaide. They won the seat of Adelaide, of course. The member did a very poor job in representing those people and that is why they now have a very good member for Adelaide. She was thrown out with a 15 per cent swing at the last election. Remember that: a 15 per cent swing.

Now, of course, Labor has worked out that maybe they do not need the seat of Adelaide. So, let's screw them,' they say. 'Let's ignore everything we said when we were in opposition because we are not very genuine. We are pretty disingenuous as a political party. We say things we need to say at the time we want people to listen, but don't ask us to deliver, don't hold us to our word because, when we are in a position to do that, we will do what we like as long as it keeps us in office.' That is the way that this government operates.

If you want to get some idea as to just how much this government milked the Parklands issue in the lead-up to the election, here we have a Sunday Mail article, titled 'Rann picks up pace of reform'. This is where he is introducing a range of measures to protect things such as the River Murray and the Parklands—legislation to protect the Parklands from future development—so it was a key platform. How do we know it was a key platform? Because here we have a Sunday Mail article on 20 January 2002 in the lead-up to the election, 'Labor's greening plan':

A $1 million Youth Conservation Corps and the protection of Adelaide's parklands from further development are the centrepiece—

not just a side policy—

of Labor's plan for a greener city.

Of course, the then opposition environment spokesperson, John Hill, vowed to change the law to block state governments from overriding planning processes to build on the Parklands—that is what he vowed to do. I wonder what sort of involvement the current environment minister has had in this project.

On 24 December 2001—we are going in reverse chronology here—we have another story in The Advertiser on 24 December, so a bit of a Christmas present to us all, I suppose:

A state Labor government would investigate a World Heritage listing for city parklands and would give a single minister responsibility for the River Murray issues, Opposition Leader Mike Rann said yesterday.

This is why he says it is important to have a single minister for the River Murray—I digress here but it is in theme with the management of this state by this government and, consequently, the management of this Adelaide Oval project and why we are insisting on our amendments:

Mr Rann said he would be pressing other states to follow SA's lead and believed having Labor governments in SA, Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland would lead to a more unified approach to management of the river.

That is what he said, and here we are 10 years later further behind where we were when he made that statement on managing the River Murray. After having Labor governments both federally and statewide, that is where we are. We are further behind where we were when he made that statement.

Back on 19 September 2001—this was actually a press release from Mr Rann, the then opposition leader:

State Labor Leader Mike Rann says the proposals—

to protect the Adelaide Parklands—

will include legislation blocking the state government from imposing developments on the parklands, working out a program to return land to parklands and investigating the creation of a new independent body to manage the city parklands.

We have that part of it, I suppose—the SMA, an independent body owned by the SANFL and SACA—quite a profitable independent body, and, of course, part of one of the most profitable businesses in the country, AFL football.

In typical Mike Rann style, and you can just imagine him pounding on the podium when he is making this speech and addressing this release:

That's why we've put forward this draft plan for community consultation, because the Parklands belong to the people and to future generations.

Among the key proposals are:

Blocking state governments from overriding proper planning processes by the use of Major Project Status to impose developments on the Parklands.

I can just imagine him getting stuck into that at the podium while he was making that announcement.

So, you can see it was a big part of their plan to win the seat of Adelaide, and it worked—congratulations, it worked. But now that they are in a position where they can go forward they are telling the people of South Australia, 'What we told you in opposition is no longer relevant.'

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. P.F. Conlon.


[Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00]


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