HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject 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 (resumed on motion).

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (15:39): At the outset, I declare that within our party room I opposed this bill. I opposed the expenditure of the $535 million because I did not think that I, with any credibility, could support spending at least $535 million on a sports stadium when the people of the Barossa cannot get $50 million to $60 million for their hospital—one tenth of the price of this—and it is a hospital that they desperately need. If ever there were issues which show the city-country divide, it is this and the new RAH. I know this is a very good project, but it certainly has a lot of people in the Barossa very concerned. I believe that $535 million could have been better spent to the advantage of all South Australians, especially the one-third of our people who live outside Adelaide.

I know that people from the country will use this facility, but projects such as dualling the three major highways to our borders would definitely save lives and time. We could also seal the link roads in the Mid North of our state, particularly around Tarlee. There are projects really screaming for the money, and I cannot see how $535 million is going to make a huge difference to the sporting codes or sport here in South Australia. After all, the Adelaide Oval exists and already has a fantastic reputation exactly as it is—or, I should say, exactly as it was before we did the last upgrade.

We need an upgrade for our country hospitals and, dare I say it again, a new Barossa hospital. I challenge the members of this house to come and have a look at this hospital. I have been banging on about this for nearly 10 years, and nothing has been done. Nothing has been spent on it because it is not worth spending money on such an old, worn out facility, and yet it stays the same. I will be very curious to know whether there is any mention in the budget tomorrow. I very much doubt it, but I would be extremely grateful for any mention at all because it has been the single most important project to me as a member.

I also believe, in instances like this, whether support for the Keith, Moonta and Ardrossan hospitals has to be reconsidered. The amount of money we are spending on the Adelaide Oval—coupled with the money spent on the new RAH—means that finances are going to be so strapped that there is not going to be any money for these community projects. Also, there are many communities looking for vital town infrastructure right around our state, such as halls and meeting rooms. I also bring to your attention the state of some of the roads, particularly on Yorke Peninsula. Some of those roads are pretty ordinary, to say the least.

Irrespective of that, I have been here for 22 years, and I was most impressed with our meeting and debate in the Liberal Party room on Monday night. Even though I lost this battle, I now back the decision. I pay tribute to the member for Davenport. It was a great deliberation, a great paper and a great presentation. I pay tribute to that because it was very well done, and it was not divisive. The first vote was basically the only part that was divisive—the rest was almost unanimous, and that is the absolute truth. I remind the house that this legislation is not essential to enable the project to continue, and no doubt it will continue anyway.

I certainly hope that we are able to amend this bill, as the opposition's amendments will ensure transparency and accountability for the $535 million of South Australian taxpayers' funds that will be spent on this project. We support the Adelaide Oval Redevelopment and Management Bill 2011 subject, as you have heard before, to a number of conditions, including the following: first, that the legislation cap the state contribution to the project at $535 million (I hope they come under that, and it would be a nice surprise if they could); secondly, that the Auditor-General be given the powers to audit the project on a regular basis at the Auditor-General's call; and, thirdly, that the normal planning process applies and the project also be considered by the parliamentary Public Works Committee. I believe that should be automatic. With a project of this size and magnitude it should be automatic, and I am pleased that apparently the government is going to agree to that.

After consulting with the Adelaide City Council, we will introduce conditions to leave Light's Vision, Pennington Gardens and Cresswell Gardens under the care and control of the council. I cannot see that as being contentious at all. The licensed areas covering proposed car parking to the north of the oval and Adelaide Oval No. 2 will be subject to the community land management plan to be agreed with the Adelaide City Council. I have received many letters and emails in the last couple of days congratulating us on that position because, after all, the Parklands are sacred to many people in Adelaide and they are very concerned about that.

I also note a lighter side to the discussions in our party room. The member for Adelaide fought hard and strongly and won the day in relation to the retention of the fig trees and also the line of trees to the north. The member for Adelaide is a breath of fresh air when it comes to negotiating things like this, and that decision was carried unanimously in our party room. It is good to have the member for Adelaide who has her feet on the ground and is in there fighting for the big issues and the little issues. It is important, and I was impressed by that.

We have a problem with our sport at the moment, and we are all a bit concerned about our football. I do not think the Adelaide Oval is going to fix the problem so much as the performance of our teams. The Liberal Party has always supported football and our initiative is to bring football back into the City of Adelaide. I remind the house that is a Liberal initiative. But I believe the biggest solution to this is to get our teams performing better. I am sure if the Crows and Port Power were at the top of the premiership list there would be a lot more fans going to football, there would be a lot bigger crowds and there would be a lot more money to go around.

I have to declare I am one of those people who was a member of Port Power for many years and I have let my membership lapse. I think it behoves people like me to bite the bullet and, when the teams are down, go and rejoin. I think I should, and I will. I say the same to many other people in this place who I know are no longer members of either Port Power or the Crows—we should, in their desperate hours, join in, and that may encourage other people to do the same.

I think the success of those clubs, both Crows and Power, will be the success of this venture, more so than building a stadium. They have to get to the top of the table and be competitive. As I say, their supporter bases are under severe stress at the moment and therefore they are under financial stress, too. So we need to lift the supporter base of both clubs. I have made my commitment, and I will do it.

I do believe it will be better to have Australian Rules football in the city. I have to say that I have only been to two football matches at Football Park in the time it has been there (20 years) because I was not inclined to put up with the inconvenience of getting there and getting out. I have been to two matches. That certainly will change because it is much more convenient to either walk down the road and go across or park my car in the city and walk across; and, after the football, there are many facilities around here to attend and be entertained with your friends, etc.

I say again that members should not forget that bringing football back to the Adelaide Oval is a Liberal Party initiative. We might have lost the battle in relation to the two stadiums concept but we are realistic. We lost the election and, on this issue, we lost, too. I think it was our initiative in the first instance that brought the idea of bringing football back to the city and Adelaide Oval. That should never be forgotten.

I support football in the city but I firmly believe we should have built a new stadium with a roof and left the historic Adelaide Oval for cricket. As I said, it is a unique cricket arena, known and respected the world over. All will be lost. Only the scoreboard will be left in its original condition. It is going to look a bit like a pimple on a pumpkin, this lovely old heritage scoreboard sitting among these modern, futuristic buildings. We all bring different skills to this place. I would hope that mine is a business background and covering my exposures and my risks, and I feel that the government should be doing the same.

I feel that the government is now very much exposed financially especially after hearing yesterday that the new RAH will cost about $2.8 billion—that is the minimum—or $1.1 million per day for 30 years. I heard a figure today that was even up as high as $3.26 billion for the building only. It is a disgrace. If that was my business, I would be very concerned indeed. I would be looking to take out insurance and looking to cover my debt, because you would be very close to bankrupt.

If the decision was up to me, I would be bringing football back in two years, not four. Why wait four years? Bring it back in two years and get on with the job. Do not do the major upgrade yet. Yes, build the bridge. I have had a good friend of mine, Bob Ahrens, look at that project and he is very enthused. He says it could be built, it is a great idea and a great project and he believes it should be built for a lot less than what is quoted but I understand, too, before the minister interjects, this bridge has to be safe.

I know that there would be a lot of people pouring over this bridge after the match so I understand that, yes, it would want to be a very good quality bridge. I would say in the first instance, build the bridge, certainly—straightaway. Put in the car parks. Yes, put the car parks in and paint the place, upgrade the food outlets and the toilets and leave the rest of it. Test drive that venue for two to four years and, if it works, do the rest. If not, save the state from huge debt and ongoing cost.

We also have concerns about the maintenance costs, observing the concept plan there, that the white sail concept will be high maintenance and will architecturally date. It is all very swish and groovy now, but I am sure that within 20 years' time, it will look very much out of date. Also, it does not keep patrons dry which is a great concern as well. I would have preferred a much more conservative design with a roof that keeps people a little bit dry. If we only spend a quarter of the money—

Ms Thompson: It's good to be exposed to the elements. Good for the mental health.

Mr VENNING: I will stand on my record on things like this in my life. If I am about to go into a major project and I am not sure, I will go in half first to see, especially if you have got the right to continue. If you can lock it in, you should and would, but if we only spend a quarter of the money, road-test football back in Adelaide and, if it is all go, in four to six years' time you can then decide to either finish the project like it is or build the second stadium with a roof. That is a choice you can have depending on where we are and what we can afford.

Finally, I do not believe that this will solve South Australia's economic woes, but it may help our teams to have greater success. I note the Minister for Police is here and he has been a very good supporter of Port Power, I will give him that, and the Port Adelaide Magpies and I presume he is still a member. He knows the song. No comment? My membership has lapsed and I should do something about it.

We need to be positive and, even though I lost the debate in my party room, I am happy to support the team decision on this side to support the project to make sure it is delivered on time, and hopefully it will do the job. As always, I may not have always won my point of view, but I choose to be positive and I hope this will work out for the best for everybody in South Australia.

Mr BIGNELL (Mawson) (15:54): I rise to support this bill and to put on the record the fact that I and many of the constituents in the seat of Mawson cannot wait until AFL football is being played at the Adelaide Oval. It has been long time coming, and it is a tribute to the Minister for Police, the Minister for Infrastructure and the Premier that they have brought together two sides that have not always seen eye to eye for the past 40 or 50 years—that is, the SANFL and the SACA. I think the people in both of those organisations need to be commended as well for putting the past behind them and for getting on to build what will be a great asset for future South Australians.

The redevelopment ties in with a lot of other infrastructure that is being built around the place as well. By the time the oval is redeveloped, people will be able to catch a train from the Seaford rail station. It will be a brand-new station with electric rail and comfortable, clean and environmentally friendly trains that will take them from Seaford to just outside the Adelaide Oval within 35 minutes on an express train.

They will also have the choice that they do not have now, that is, if they want to go to the football, the length of time to get there depends on whether the expressway is going the right way or not. By the time the Adelaide Oval redevelopment comes around, it will not matter what time of day or night the game is, people will have the choice to take the car and get there as quickly as possible. However, I really do think that we are going to see a lot more people leave their cars behind, go to park-and-ride facilities in the south or the north, or wherever else, and take advantage of the great, new $2 billion worth of public transport that this government is investing in South Australia.

For anyone who has ever been to Melbourne, part of the ritual is actually getting on the trams or the trains and getting in to either Richmond station or the city and then walking with those great tribes down the hill to the MCG. The tribalism that comes with the football is as good as the game almost. People have the scarves and there is fantastic banter between the supporters. You might go and see a Port versus Carlton game and there will be people in their Richmond scarves or their Melbourne scarves. That is what Melbourne is all about; it is a tribal society that has a great football knowledge, and the MCG is the mecca for football in Melbourne.

I still call it, from my ABC days, the Docklands Stadium. I know there is some sort of commercial name it goes by now, but the Docklands Stadium, too, has added a new dimension to football and other events that they hold there. However, the MCG is the place that has so much history and it is the place that is so much part of the culture of football, not just in Melbourne but the rest of Australia.

I make the point that the first grand final I went to at the MCG was in 1990. Collingwood broke the drought against Essendon, and it was a great game. I stood in the old southern stand and my body was facing a different direction to my head, because we were trapped in there like sardines, and I was sort of looking over my left shoulder to where the oval was. It was too bad if you had too many cans, as you could have cans in those days, because there was no way you were getting out to the bathroom and getting back to your position in the southern stand.

Mr Treloar: So what did you do?

Mr BIGNELL: I held on, as Collingwood did that day. People so often say we cannot do anything with the Adelaide Oval because of the heritage and this and that, but I went to both the grand finals at the MCG again last year and there was not a single grain of sand or cement in the whole stadium that existed there in 1990. Every part of the MCG had been taken down and rebuilt. We want to talk about the history of the Adelaide Oval and, yes, it has a fine history and some great events have happened there, but I think just as many great events have happened at the MCG. Not only has it witnessed epic test battles and football matches but during World War II it was also where the US army was stationed.

Ms Bedford: How do you know that?

Mr BIGNELL: I have been there a few times. All the areas under the stands were full of camp stretchers where the American soldiers were billeted.

An honourable member: Nothing is too good for our mates.

Mr BIGNELL: Exactly. So, if the people of the MCG—and I can tell you there are some people there who are fairly conservative—thought it was all right to redevelop the MCG from 1990 when they pulled the old southern stand down and started work on the Great Southern Stand then it is not too much for the people of Adelaide to expect that there will be some change here. I think that change has been planned for, taking into consideration the great history that the Adelaide Oval has.

I was really happy to be at the vote of SACA members when 80 per cent of SACA members approved the redevelopment. In itself, it was a little bit like going to a sporting event. For the people there, there was this sense of expectation. Who was going to get up? There were people putting up odds of whether the 75 per cent would vote in favour or not. There was actually widespread joy in the room that night, and it was good to hear some of the people there say, 'Look, even though I was running the "no" case, the decision's been made and we'll live with that decision.' I think that, up until this point, everyone has behaved very well; respect has been shown for both sides.

It is great to have the opposition coming on board now as well, and I think that now we have to get on with it. We do have to keep an eye on the costs. Stadium costs, as we know, around the world—we look at Wembley and other places—do have a propensity to blow out sometimes, and we need to make sure that is all managed well. I am sure that the Stadium Management Authority and those people who run football and cricket in this state, along with the people in government who have been entrusted to look after this project, will be keeping a close eye on all that.

I went to Football Park once this year. I took my son down there. It was his 13th birthday. He is a mad Port supporter, so we went to see them get beaten by West Coast. I have to say that I have hated going to 'pleurisy park' for years. It is cold and it is damp. I spent a lot of time there as a sports journo in the comfort, I suppose, of the press box, but Tuesday and Thursday nights when you had to go down for training and stand there in that big, cement cavern was not a very pleasant place to be—and it is a long way out of the city as well.

I think that bringing football into town will see people going down there in their droves on Friday nights and over weekends. I do not know how many people here went to see the Rams when they played there. I do not know much about rugby league, but I used to love going to see the Rams play on a Friday night because there were people running around on an oval under lights and we could all get together, have a few beers and enjoy the sporting spectacle. I think that the Rams used to get pretty good crowds, which is not bad in a city that is not known for its support of rugby league. I think that it was actually something that people took to heart—that there was sport in the heart of the city and they were keen to get down there and have a look.

I had never been a member of Adelaide Oval until I saw the Premier and the then deputy premier walking across the grass with a few other sporting people a couple of years ago. I went online and downloaded an application form. I filled in one for myself and one for my son because I was that excited that I would get to watch footy at the highest level at Adelaide Oval.

Cricket, I do not mind it too much. I would buy a ticket every now and then to go along to the cricket. However, now that I am a member, we were down there a few times over the test match and thoroughly enjoyed the new facilities; and I saw many familiar faces in here out the back and also in the stands. The cricket is a great part of life in South Australia. I am looking forward to many summers of cricket at the Adelaide Oval and many winters of football. As I said, I support this bill wholeheartedly.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (16:02): It gives me some pleasure to speak on the Adelaide Oval Redevelopment and Management Bill 2011, along with, I would estimate, probably in excess of half the members of the house at this stage. It is good that so many members have taken the opportunity to speak on this bill that affects the Adelaide Oval, because the Adelaide Oval is very important to so many of us in South Australia.

It has been an icon for me for most of my life. I am pretty sure in saying—well, I am certain—that I am the only member of the house who was born some years after the departure of the SANFL final from Adelaide Oval. I was not there in 1973 to see Graham Cornes take that mark and win the grand final. I do not have that sort of history; I do not have that sort of memory to fall back on, but I am sure it was terrific.

There is certainly a lot to be said for the idea of football in the city. My memories first and foremost of the oval are of cricket. Although I was going for some years before, when I was about 10 my parents were kind enough to take out membership of the oval for me, but the first game that I remember was a little earlier than that. It was the West Indies playing here and Craig McDermott and Tim May were batting, and they did an extraordinary job. It was outrageous that that umpire saw that nick and paid the wicket.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr GARDNER: It did not help that he did smack it, as the minister says, but it was a tragic day for a young boy whose eyes were opening to live sport. Fortunately, I enjoyed the drama, put the tragedy out of my mind and kept going. My parents, like many migrants to Australia, were not Australian Rules aficionados. They both came from England. My mum had a passing interest in soccer, my dad a bit more of an interest in rugby.

So, again, it was not until I was about nine or 10 that I had my first experience of Football Park. One of my best friends at school at the time was the son of the North Adelaide team doctor and they took me over to Football Park to see North Adelaide play West Torrens. I just thought, 'What an incredible spectacle this is. What a game! Where have I been?'

So, for 23 years since, I have developed a passion for football—not for North Adelaide, thankfully. In more recent years, I have taken out membership with Norwood. I am happy to support the Redlegs and have enjoyed going to suburban football at Norwood Oval. I have occasionally had a Crows membership at AAMI Stadium. It is not one that I have had for a few years. Because you do not get a chance to go to many games, it has not seemed worthwhile.

Frankly, I think, from a selfish point of view, I can see great merit in football being in the city. I know many people who will be more likely to go to the games than if they remain out at West Lakes. I appreciated the Minister for Police's comments agreeing with the idea that, even though it will hurt his constituents who want to go to the football more easily, for the majority of people in Adelaide and, probably, South Australia, Adelaide Oval and, more pointedly, the city, will be better than the current arrangement.

It would want to be, for $535 million. Really, you would prefer it to be the best stadium that you could possibly have, the best outcome you could possibly have, for such an extraordinary financial imposition on the South Australian people. For cricket, for football, for all sorts of people—for the people who might want to run concerts there, for people who might want to run soccer there, for rugby—it is a second-best option.

The member for Kavel called it a C-grade option. It is not the ideal solution, but it is the one that is on the table and it is in that context that we look at the bill that we have before us. Of course, we also have to consider the fact that the government could press ahead with this anyway, irrespective of the legislation. So, let us try to make the legislation a bit better.

The amendments that the opposition has been talking about are being drafted at the moment and I look forward to them being presented, if not in the House of Assembly then, hopefully, the government will consider them favourably when they are presented in the Legislative Council. These amendments do some important things.

It is important, for example, that normal planning processes will apply, rather than making the minister, effectively, the planning authority by himself. It is very important that the Auditor-General have powers to audit the project on a regular basis. It is extremely important, given some of the recent projects that this government has put forward, that the parliament's Public Works Committee be given the opportunity to consider this project. It is tremendously important, as the member for Croydon pointed out yesterday, that we have the opportunity to cap the spend on the project at $535 million.

These accountability measures are extremely important because the fact is that not everybody in South Australia trusts everything that comes out of the mouths of ministers in this government. We are looking at a second-best option. It is second best for so many people, coming from, of course, a second-best government, on a good day.

Other measures that the opposition will insist on are, after consulting with the Adelaide City Council, we will have conditions leaving Light's Vision, Pennington Gardens and the Cresswell Gardens under the care and control of the council. Of course, the member for Schubert has already talked about the sterling work of the member for Adelaide in relation to those beautiful fig trees.

The $535 million price tag though, is very high. So, it is appropriate that the opposition has considered that the Stadium Management Authority should consider at least paying some rent—giving something back to the community for the incredible largesse which they are potentially being given and the great opportunity for making profit that they will therefore be given.

I think about some other projects or what could be done with this sort of money. If anyone is crying poor in this, it is obscene, given this opportunity. I think of the Campbelltown Leisure Centre, for example. State Swim, Squash SA, Fusball SA and the Norwood Basketball Club, and the Campbelltown council managed to raise $7 million and the state government has kindly provided $3 million. Going into the election the Redmond opposition promised $4 million, but thank you for the $3 million that you promised.

That is all a bit meaningless without a further $6 million from the federal government, which would provide a really significant indoor recreation and sporting facility in the eastern suburbs, of which there is a significant lack at the moment as has been demonstrated by so many of those groups. It would provide serious international quality fixtures for some of these sports and facilities that would be able to host national competitions for some of them—all for the lack of $6 million which currently we are hoping, cap in hand, for the federal government to provide. That is the sort of thing that the state government could consider looking at with the opportunities available.

I think of the extraordinary work that the volunteers at the Campania Club have done recently in raising an awful lot of money to build their own bocce courts. I know the member for Flinders is particularly interested in coming to the Campania Club, which is in the member for Florey's electorate but which so many of my constituents attend on a regular basis. I hope the member for Flinders comes up from Port Lincoln to play some bocce at the Campania Club.

At present the Campbelltown Memorial Oval is just a couple of million dollars short of being able to do a significant redevelopment involving hard courts for netball and tennis, extra cricket nets to service that community, directional lighting and sensitive landscaping so the local community is not disadvantaged by an increase in the use of that night-time facility, and urban design that is sensitive to the water needs of such a project. All these things could be done for a single number in the millions—less than 2 per cent of the cost of the project that we are debating today—and would have significant community use at the grassroots level for tens of thousands of people to actually play, not just to spectate.

Footy in the city is important but it is coming at an extraordinary price tag. I am not sure the government is putting its best foot forward here, but it is the option on the table and all we can do is try to improve the bill, so try to improve the bill we will. I urge the government to consider seriously and favourably the amendments being put forward by the opposition.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (16:13): Today has been quite a long day, there have been many contributions, and the public debate has raged on this Adelaide Oval project for quite a long time now. I believe that in many respects this has dominated the public policy debate at the expense of other important areas such as health, education, infrastructure and investment in small business.

Mr Whetstone: And the River Murray.

Mr TRELOAR: And the River Murray, as the member for Chaffey reminds me. Whether the government admits to it or not, football in the city was thrust back onto the agenda by the state Liberals. Our plan for a purpose-built covered stadium struck a chord not only with the South Australian people but with the football community as well. At one time the South Australian National Football League sought to develop its own covered stadium but was told by the Premier to go back to the drawing board as it was too similar to the proposal put forward by the Liberal Party. Unfortunately, on that occasion the Premier put his own political interests ahead of the interests of South Australians.

In the short term, the sporting community will lament the missed opportunity to develop the stand-alone covered stadium which we as the state Liberals proposed. I do believe that one day South Australia will move towards a second world-class stadium, and it will be in the very long term.

Eventually South Australia will not have any doubts about developing another stadium for the needs of soccer particularly, and maybe rugby, as the popularity of those codes continue to grow. Many have pointed to the example of Melbourne. In fact, it has been referred to here today with the recently built AAMI Park. AAMI Park is more of a boutique 30,000-seat stadium for soccer and, once again, the rugby codes. Although I have not been there, I understand that it is a brilliantly designed and functional stadium which coexists with the magnificent MCG and Etihad Stadium at Docklands.

I have on occasion been lucky enough to visit the MCG. In fact, I am going with my family this coming long weekend. I am just tossing up as to whether I am going to wear my old football guernsey which resembles a Collingwood guernsey. Given the weather, I probably will take it. There has been a lot of reminiscing here. I appreciate the contribution of the member for Morialta, who recognises his rather limited memory, I guess, due to his age and I also thank him for his invitation to join him in a game of bocce at some point in the future.

I remember the first time I saw Adelaide Oval as a young boy and avid footy fan, and particularly a follower of the South Australian football league. I visited the Adelaide Oval in 1974 and saw Glenelg playing some team. I cannot recall who it was; it may have been North Adelaide, but I think it was more likely West Torrens or Woodville, member for Chaffey. So, I have fond memories. I did from time to time see footy games at Adelaide Oval. In more recent years, I have spent time at cricket games, particularly test matches, although I have not spent anywhere near the amount of time there as many other members of this house.

With respect to the Adelaide Oval redevelopment and this piece of legislation, I am personally very pleased with the position we have come to as a party. I congratulate our shadow treasurer and, indeed, all of my colleagues on their contribution to this debate so far. Given that this part of the debate, at least, is drawing to a close, I do not want to rehash what others have already put on the record, although I think there are probably a few pertinent points that I need to put on the record for the constituents of Flinders.

I am on the record previously as talking about the people of Flinders and their understanding of the fact that Adelaide's population commands the lion's share of the state's resources and projects, such as this. However, the electors of Flinders were told by the Labor Party during the 2010 election campaign that the taxpayer contribution to this project would be $450 million and, I quote, 'not a penny more'. So, I understand and have heard their frustration at being deceived by the government during that campaign and when the project cost was revealed more recently to be some $535 million. This is a significant blowout, and it was a deliberate ploy. That is why I am now very supportive of capping the taxpayer contribution at that stated $535 million, and that is why the Liberal Party is seeking to include it in the legislation—because this government has shown that it cannot be relied upon to ensure there are no cost blowouts on major projects such as this.

The other crucially important point for the community of Flinders is community sporting facilities in my electorate. Local sports is the cornerstone of social activity. I have been involved for many years in local sport as a junior player, as a senior player and now as a parent. I understand and recognise the importance of local sport, particularly Saturday sport, to the social fabric and cohesiveness of local regional communities. It is not just football or cricket, it is other sports as well. Recognising that community and local sport is so important, the Liberal Party has called for an audit into sporting facilities around the state. As I have already indicated, I believe we need to invest in the grassroots of sport generally, not just football and cricket but any of the many other popular sports that are played right around this great state.

Therefore, I believe a proposal to direct rent or a licence fee paid by the Stadium Management Authority back into recreation and sports facilities grants programs is an excellent idea because most local clubs rely on grants programs to continue, particularly to upgrade their facilities which are often beyond the scope and ability of clubs in small towns. They rely on such grants programs and those programs need to be well funded by government. This is a way to do that and it makes eminent sense because the many sporting and recreational organisations in Flinders could benefit from this.

I believe the Auditor-General should be given powers to audit the project, and I believe any government should be open and accountable in that respect. We will be pushing for that as part of our amendments so that the Auditor-General can report to the parliament on those issues and with those powers. It is also important that the normal planning processes apply. Various organisations and individuals in Flinders adhere to the proper planning laws when developing projects so it is only right that this project is subject to those same planning processes.

The parliament itself needs to play a role here, as I think we are. This government seems to forget the importance of the proper accountability measures enshrined in legislation, so I am very supportive of the measures to ensure that the Adelaide Oval redevelopment is given proper scrutiny in the Public Works Committee. I believe my colleagues have canvassed the other issues in detail over today's contributions, and many have spoken about their own experiences, mostly pleasurable, and the place that Adelaide Oval holds in their memories, their hearts and the lives of South Australians. I will reiterate the importance of community and recreation and sporting groups in rural and regional areas, and trust that they will get a good deal out of this because it is vital that they do so. With those few comments, I indicate my support for the legislation with the proviso that amendments are accepted.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:22): I rise to make my contribution to the debate on the Adelaide Oval Redevelopment and Management Bill 2011. It is interesting how far we have gone to get to this point in time and I sincerely think that the only reason that we are debating the Adelaide Oval redevelopment is because the Liberals—our party on this side of the house—had a far better proposal going into the 2010 election. We proposed to build a covered stadium. We proposed to make it part of the Riverbank precinct and have an entertainment area along that strip of land next to the rail network, and it would have been a far better venture to have in the rail yards area than where the new Royal Adelaide Hospital is going.

We must remember with regard to this debate, as far as budgetary measures go, that we were going to rebuild the Royal Adelaide Hospital where it is and save well over $1 billion (and climbing as we hear different announcements from the government every day) for this state's population. Sadly, we did not win the election, so we have come to the point where, in my opinion, we are going to desecrate one of the best grounds, if not the best cricket ground in the world. I have been to Adelaide Oval for a few games of cricket—not a lot—and I can remember the days when you would sit under the historic scoreboard on the hill—

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: I notice a mention from the member for Finniss. Yes, they used to serve full-strength beer 23 years ago. I don't know whether you would call it entertainment, and I do not condone unruly behaviour, but that is why they only drink mid-strength beer there now, as several people were ejected.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: No, not at all, and I certainly was not one of those ejected.

Members interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: I will keep going, Mr Acting Speaker. The oval has always been a fantastic sporting venue, and it was certainly good in those earlier days to go and witness a game of cricket. I mean, going back into history, I know my father either played cricket on that oval or the No. 2 oval in country carnivals many years ago—

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Well, seeing as he is 91, it was many years ago. So, it has had a lot of history in this state. It is a world-renowned venue. The issue that we have here today is that the Labor Party had to come up with their own policy to come up against our A+—or better than that; A++ policy. They had to come up with something because we were winning the support from across the state, on bringing football to the city.

That is the thing; we agreed to bring football to the city, but we said, 'Have a properly built stadium where you could close the roof.' You could attract other functions throughout the year on wet days, and you could have a vast range of ways in which the venue could be hired out.

What we have seen over recent years is the different stands being renewed at the Adelaide Oval, and we have seen the members stand—where it is at the moment—go through a recent upgrade, and I think that is where some of the architectural problems with the development will start.

I am no architect, but I believe the new members and function areas will be on the east side of the oval. My problem with that is there is a reason the AFL always wants the TV cameras on the western side of a ground looking out, because you don't want to be looking into the sun.

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Well, they're on the western side.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: The TV cameras always have to be on the western side, but the function centre will be on the eastern side of the ground.

Members interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: I am talking about the media box. But as far as the function centre and members stand are concerned, with this new development, I believe they will be on the eastern side. I think that is because we have not had a ground-up development. We have a development that has been partly started, and now we are coming in over the top. I think that is an issue.

We had our briefing with the Stadium Management Authority and they said, 'We're doing all the work to make sure everything is under control and that there will not be too much glare,' but, look, as long as I have stood on this earth, the sun always sets in the west. So, if you are looking from east to west, you are going to be looking into the sun if there is an afternoon footy game or an afternoon cricket game. That is just how it is going to be, so I think it falls down in that regard.

Certainly, there have been people involved in the building of stadiums that believe that, for $535 million, we could have built a new stadium, of a very similar design, from the ground up. So, it does intrigue me that there has been $85 million spent, we have increased the ground to 38,000, and for another $450 million on top of that—because you have to remember the $85 million that goes on top to get to the $535 million forgives the SACA debt on the recent redevelopment, and their other debts. So, you have to wonder what sort of development we are going to end up with. It will be a C-grade development, and that makes me extremely sad for this state and extremely sad for Adelaide Oval.

It intrigues me—when I mention the figures of $450 million and the $535 million—the former treasurer came into this place and said, 'We are only going to spend $450 million and not a cent more.' There were also questions as to whether he had spoken to Leigh Whicker, and he had forgotten that he had only had lunch with Leigh a week or two beforehand. So you have to wonder what messages this government was not bringing to this place.

But then, suddenly, there was a brainwave and they said, 'Hang on, it is $535 million,' so I wonder whether someone in the maths department forgot to add the $85 million of debt that was to be forgiven. I ask these questions because it is important for the citizens of this state to know where their money is going. They were told in one instance that $450 million was going to be the spend and not a penny more.

At the end of the day, it is going to happen, but I have talked to a lot of people involved in football circles and a lot have said to me off the record, 'We would have liked another development, we would have loved a closed stadium, but we have been offered $535 million,' so you cannot blame them. You would not look a gift horse in the mouth. You cannot blame them for taking the money. I just hope people are not disappointed in the end with what they get, because I fear they will be.

I am sad about the position Port Power is in. I must note my interest. I am a Port Power supporter and have been for many years.

Mr Pengilly: I'd say it quietly.

Mr PEDERICK: No, I say that quite proudly in this place. I have been a Port Adelaide supporter. I also note my interest in football. I used to play for Border Downs at Coonalpyn, who were black and white before they amalgamated with Tintinara and went to Crows colours in 1992.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: The jumpers are quite all right, thanks minister. They do stretch. I could tell you a funny story about an oldies match, but I will not go into it.

Mr Treloar: Tell us.

Mr PEDERICK: Okay. We have plenty of time so I will briefly digress. We had an old players' match one day and we did not have enough jumpers to go around. There was a bloke who was a bit bigger than me and when I came off the bench we had to swap the jumper. That was quite a scene for everybody to put up with. Some good strong players come from the bush. It was a great day, and that is what country footy is all about. It is not just about your good playing days when you are young and fit. I played for the juniors from about 1975 until the time I played my last game of football in a reserves trial game in 1993, I think it was, when I smashed my right knee.

An honourable member: Are you that old?

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, I am that old. I have had a lot of interest in the sport, and I am proud to say my two lads are now playing at Peake and doing a great job in the under 9s and under 13s. It is always a joke at the local footy that the under 9s is the real game at half time in the A grade match, and those kids do a great job.

While we are talking about football and the progression of regional sport, I must say that it is great to see all the kids involved, as I do pretty well every weekend when I can get there. You see the young girls as well in the Auskick competition, and they can play footy as hard as any lad, and probably harder. The girls have to be reminded that they are not supposed to tackle. That is great for country sport.

I hope country sport gets something out of all this, after we go through the pain of the money coming out of the state's coffers and from the taxpayers. What we have heard in our briefings with the Stadium Management Authority and others involved in the Adelaide Oval redevelopment is that, if this did not go ahead, regional funding of regional sports was at risk. I just hope it is not at risk. I hope it is expanded. We are putting up amendments along the lines that money should be channelled into regional sports right around the state.

In my electorate there are towns such as Pinnaroo, Lameroo, Karoonda, Peake and Meningie. I have the northern side of Meningie in my electorate. There are places such as Jervois and Murray Bridge, where we have two teams—Imperials and Ramblers. There is Mypolonga, and there would be a few Mannum players who come from the east side of the river where my electorate is who would play for Mannum. I hope those teams all get their fair share of funding. Not only that, I hope all the cricket teams that are aligned with those same towns and others get their sports development, and not just those sports but all the other sports that are in regional areas: soccer, hockey, basketball, etc. I just want to make sure that our youth have something to do, so that it keeps them actively involved and gives them something to look forward to during the week and on the weekends.

I am concerned about this proposal. I am concerned that it will not be anywhere near as good as it could have been and I know that the concerns are echoed right throughout the state from people who are suffering at the hands of this government. There are the people in the South-East who are facing the sale of the forward rotation of the forests. With regard to that—because the sale of those forward rotations has been linked to the upgrade of Adelaide Oval—I just hope that the government comes to its senses and cancels that flawed policy because, at the end of the day, the little bit of money it will get back from fast-tracking 111 years of forestry could probably be got back in less than 10 years if it kept the forest and put the normal profits back into Treasury, as it could, if it retains them.

I truly believe that that is so because the current rate of return for those forests is $43 million and it would not take long for that to grow to double or even further. It would not take long to get the perhaps $600 or $700 million that I believe they would get for the forward sale of the forests. It is a heavily discounted figure, I believe, for what they are really worth, in the government's fire sale of these assets. I know that there are corporations scouring the South-East trying to snap up a bargain.

Also, I talk about the public servants and certainly the ones from primary industries and the 179 jobs that supposedly were targeted voluntary separation packages. I have not talked to too many who have lost their jobs that were actually voluntary, but they were certainly targeted. I would like to think of the rural industries across the state that are going to have to find more and more money to pay for this government's blunders, more and more money just to operate their businesses and to contribute to sectors in rural industry like the $3.5 billion grain industry when we have a good year, as we did last year. It just hurts me.

I look at the road funding that could happen out there. I keep seeing the Dukes Highway that runs past my place at Coomandook and it keeps getting some more overtaking lanes and some more rest stops. They are a very good interim measure, but we are still only just frittering around the edges. Instead of keeping on investing money in these things, we should be putting in dual lanes all the way to the border—191 kilometres—and whether it costs $1 billion in time, perhaps that is the cost we have to pay to make sure that we get roads with the right capability.

I do feel for the people of this state who do have to put up with these cuts and who have to pay for these policy measures. They have to pay for the desalination plant which is another big impost on the people of this state. It will be somewhere around $2.2 billion when it finally gets going, and I am not holding my breath for that. It could have been built for less than half the price and half the size, and it would have been good enough for this state.

There are a whole lot of issues that need to be dealt with, but I am concerned that we are going down the wrong path with what will be constructed. However, the people of this state have to realise that we did our best and, yes, we fell short at the last election so the Labor government here is inflicting on us what they will. Our party had a very good meeting the other night for several hours, and we put together quite a range of amendments that will be moved in the parliament in the near future.

These amendments go along the lines that the normal planning process will apply to any planning matters involved with the Adelaide Oval redevelopment; the Auditor-General is to be given powers to audit the project; the legislation will require the Adelaide Oval project to go to the Public Works Committee, because we have seen the Royal Adelaide Hospital dodge that committee.

We want the legislation to require that a licence fee be charged to the Stadium Management Authority to make sure some return comes back to the state. We want to make sure that the legislated cap against the state contribution is $535 million, because rest assured we will find there is need for another $40 million or $60 million to finish the project off.

We want the legislation to require a sinking fund to be established. We also want to see Colonel Light's Vision, Pennington Gardens West and the Cresswell Gardens removed from the licence so that they remain under council care and control and are managed in accordance with the Community Land Management Plans, with the Development Assessment Commission resolving any disputes. There will also be other amendments that the member for Davenport will bring forward.

We must also remember that the AFL are very keen for this project to go ahead because, at the end of the day, because of the financial problems with the Power and the Crows, they will end up with the two licences. We get assured in the media that that will not make any difference to the Stadium Management Authority because the SANFL and the SACA will still have a say. I wonder what will happen, because you will have the AFL with their billions of dollars—and good on them, they get those TV rights; that is good business—come in over the top and want to wield the big stick. Andrew Demetriou has said, 'Well, if there's any shortfall, we will fill it in.' Why wouldn't you? You are getting a $535 million free kick for a stadium to play footy at.

For what we are going to get, I hope it does do the job. I do not think it will and I just hope we do not have a major disappointment, which I believe could happen. I certainly hope that both Port Power and the Crows do prosper. Whether or not the Adelaide Oval is the magic pudding—because it may not even be that—is something we will see in the future. I am yet to be assured whether it attracts the crowds or not, because the price of going to the football is pretty high and going up all the time, and it is getting too easy for people to sit and home with the Foxtel, pay your subs and just get your footy beamed in at home. That is my contribution for the Adelaide Oval Redevelopment and Management Bill.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (16:43): I thank all of the members for their contributions. I do think I got to hear every member of the opposition speak. As a charitable man, I am not going to rate them, although I must say that my view is that a reshuffle on merit would be an interesting thing, but I will not go any further than that.

This is an extremely important bill for both South Australia and me personally, having invested a great deal of time in the last year in the process. I do feel personally very strongly about the bill we have brought to the house. I will say at the outset that, despite all that has been said and many arguments and because both I and our government are very deeply committed to achieving this outcome, we have sought to minimise what we do with this bill to minimise the likelihood of conflict or the likelihood of it failing.

I will make it absolutely clear that, despite what was said by a number of members of the opposition, we do not have any plans for a compulsory acquisition. We do not believe it would work. If this bill fails, there will not be the return of AFL football to Adelaide Oval, if we cannot achieve the minimum that we have set out in this bill.

For the benefit of the house, I remind you that that minimum is to get a long-term lease for the Stadium Management Authority, to be able to give licence rights to the two codes to play there, to get the capacity to build in a timely fashion and to give some certainty about car parking to football in particular when it makes the move there.

Can I say that we have had very constructive discussions on occasions with the council, which, by and large, supported a great deal of what we have sought to do, and that issue of car parking has been one. I have said before, we have known in the past with the Victoria Park issue in particular, that the council in that case gave us planning approval to build a stand but then the same council would not give a lease. That has occupied people's minds. Whether it is unfair to hold that against the current council, there was a view and there remains a view that you simply must have some degree of certainty. What we have sought as a minimum is not all of the car parking that currently exists; it is car parking only where it is done at the present, in the northern stand on oval No. 2, but we do need to give some certainty to those people.

I have heard a great deal and I will say this: I want to avoid engaging in too much criticism of the opposition, even though I think that some very unfair things have been said. I must address some of them because we do want to achieve this. Frankly, for all that I have heard about whose idea it was and all that, I do not care who gets credit for this. I just want it to happen because it is very good for the state, it is very good for the sport and it is very good for the city. I will point out that, if I can use my humble efforts to get this through this chamber and the other house successfully, I will never claim credit for it. I will be happy to give it to any number of people, because, frankly, I think it is a bit bigger than all that.

On that basis, can I say that I do not have the suggested amendments of the opposition before me. I understand from the member for Davenport why that is the case, but I might indicate to him before I make some further comments the government's views on those amendments as we understand them.

First, I did have a bit of a giggle about the amendment to cap the government contribution at $535 million. I am not in the least bit fussed about that, as long as we are not going to play any silly games of what it is for, and we are talking about a $450 million construction cost for the oval, for the built form of the oval, and $85 million for the compensation to SACA.

Can I say that I have no problem with that cap. In fact, I would invite you to put that in and, perhaps, move an amendment that obliges me as minister not to get any taller, because both are about as necessary. I am not likely to get taller and there is absolutely no likelihood of the government providing more than $535 million. I make the point if that is what will lead to the opposition progressing this in a timely fashion. We do need this before the long break in the middle of the year so that we can go out to tender and start construction. If that will help the opposition support this in a timely fashion, then we will not have difficulty with it.

With respect to the amendment suggested to make the project susceptible to examination by the Auditor-General, not only do we have no difficulty with that but our officers of our own accord approached the Auditor-General, I think, some two months ago. They had a meeting with the Auditor-General about this project fully expecting it to be audited. I think that we were a little surprised that the Auditor-General suggested, perhaps, on initial view that it was not a project that he would audit. In our view we have done everything every step of the way with a view to it being audited by the Auditor-General.

The only word of caution I would say about any amendment is that I know from past experience with the Auditor that, if you suggest that the Auditor should review it on an ongoing basis and give any oversight to the project on an ongoing basis, he will not do that. Successive auditors-general have made it clear to us that they examine what has been done: they do not give advice on what you should be doing. With that word of caution, we have always expected it to be overseen by the Auditor-General or audited by the Auditor-General, and we have no difficulty with that at all.

As for the proposed amendment that it should go to the Public Works Committee, again, no difficulty whatever. It was always our intention that a project should go to the Public Works Committee. We think that it is a good project, and we have got no difficulty in that regard at all. I note that some of the amendments are impossible for me to address at the moment. With some suggestions about management plans and stuff, I will have to see the detail. What I will say about management plans, in terms of the Parklands, is that our bill imposes obligations on managing the Parklands that, we believe, are stronger than those that exist at present. So, we have no fear about anyone licensed to do car parking having to do it to a proper plan; that was always going to be a licence condition.

Just on that, with what was said about the minister being able to do anything they like, the only thing that we have sought to do outside of the core area is allow the government minister, the minister at the time, to give licences for certain activities. One of them is car parking. The other will be that—we have been very open about this—because cricket wants to play while there is a build going on, we may have to license some temporary activities in the surrounding Parklands to allow the build to go on. If you cannot be in the stadium when they are playing cricket, you are going to have to be somewhere.

Some areas, I think, the opposition has referred to as wanting to give to the council. The only activities that have been contemplated for those gardens in issue are those that already happen during test cricket matches. I think there is some entertainment and some marquees on game day. You might want to set up some stalls on game day at the football. These are temporary activities and I think they simply enhance what goes on. I am not fussed about how that is done, as long as there can be certainty that you can actually maximise the event for South Australians going to the football.

I want to stress that everything that we have done with this bill seeks to maximise the Parklands setting for the football and cricket. To that extent, you will see that there are obligations in there. We will impose any licence obligations and, in fact, have already had a number of discussions with the two codes to achieve a very significant contribution of funds to landscaping from the two codes, to improve the robustness and the quality of the Parklands as they are at present, prior to activities taking place. Make no mistake, as time will tell with this, everyone involved—and I think they are very decent people—has a genuine belief that the beautiful Parklands setting for Adelaide Oval is what gives it such great value. So, in terms of a management plan, we will not have a difficulty with that.

Finally, I think there was something said about the ordinary development processes. Can I say that I am more than happy to accept an amendment that would make the Development Assessment Commission the assessing authority for a planning application. That is all well and good and certainly fine by me. Given that I take the opposition at its word that it will support this development, what I would have difficulty with is if we were to be required to undertake a ministerial rezoning before we could make that application. If that is done as a standard rezoning, you will add around 12 months. The only way to shorten that is if, in fact, you have an interim effect of that rezoning, which will still add two to three months.

My argument is, given that you agree it should proceed, I cannot understand why you would not do that with this bill as it would be an absolute necessity before we can make an application anyway. Can I say, my fear would be that, even if we used the interim effect, to get the planning amendment going, we either need the request of council, which we would have to rely on them doing, or use a head of power of significant social importance.

Now, we could do that, but what concerns me is that that, in itself, may be challenged by judicial review on the part of anyone disaffected. We have seen that there are some disaffected. I would say to the opposition that, if it wants to cap the cost, if it is concerned about the cost, do not impose unnecessary delays in the process because delays in the process will increase the cost.

The real issue about the cost—and most of us think the $450 million for construction is around the mark—is escalation over time and, in particular, I am very concerned that, if we get out into that period when the mining industry is hotting up and Olympic Dam is underway, we will have capacity constraints. I just say to the opposition: if it genuinely supports it, I am happy to take an amendment which makes DAC (shall we say) the assessing authority, but do not put some unnecessary rezoning in when we can do it simply in this bill. I cannot understand why that would be the case.

I indicate that although we plainly have the numbers in the lower house and we have some support from the crossbenchers upstairs, we are going a long way to accepting what we believe have been the concerns of the opposition.

I want to come to the issue of rent: I cannot agree with the opposition on this. Football and cricket have been rather unfairly maligned in this process by members of the opposition. Some people in the opposition like the idea of rent for two reasons—we will get a kind of kneejerk response from those who do not think about it too much, but it is also a way of punishing sports for having had the temerity not to do what the opposition wanted them to do.

Whether I win this argument or not I make it clear that these are not for-profit organisations that are making money and paying dividends to shareholders; they are running sports and they are funding sports. Football puts $6.2 million a year into community sports, including Indigenous, regional, youth and women's football. The money that is made by football goes out to the clubs and into sports. I point out to the member for Davenport that the Sturt Football Club (of which he is a passionate supporter for a number of very good reasons) has had support from the SANFL for financial issues in the past—that is what they do.

What we said to the codes is we expect that when they have this built form they will put that money into the Parklands and into a sinking fund for the maintenance of these assets. Frankly, I prefer that these people put the money into sports, into junior sports, into the Parklands and into the assets, rather than into my friend Jack Snelling's coffers—I think that is a better outcome.

I acknowledge you may win this on some sort of kneejerk response, but it smacks of punishing the codes for having the temerity to resist what you believe should have happened. We have no problems with a sinking fund because it is in the licence conditions anyway. If you take all of that into account what the government is saying is that it accedes to the vast bulk of what you say you want to amend, so I ask that you are therefore genuine in your support and you help us to achieve a speedy passage through both houses of parliament and we look forward to seeing your amendments in the other place.

I want to now address some of the issues raised and put on the record a few comments, because this is a very important occasion for sport and football. Having listened to every member of the opposition speak, if this is support for a bill I would not like to see opposition because there was a welter of negativity from a number of members.

I will separate some of them out. The member for Davenport has a difficult task and is doing it well. The member for Goyder, the member for Chaffey and the member for Waite all made contributions—I will pay credit to the member for Waite. I disagree with a lot of what he says but he does at least have the courage to stand by what he said a long time ago.

For a number of other members on the other side I am reminded that I think it was Oliver Wendell Holmes who said that, 'A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.' What I have heard is that we should not be spending this money on the stadium because there are other priorities, but we should have built a stand-alone stadium more expensively somewhere else. Now, I have difficulty reconciling those two viewpoints. I have heard from the opposition that we cannot be trusted with the Parklands, that we are attacking the Parklands with this development, and we should not do it. What we should do instead is build a new stadium somewhere else in the Parklands where there isn't one.

I will give the member for Davenport credit for being the only person to suggest that that is at the back of Adelaide High School. I cannot reconcile how building a stadium where there is one is attacking the Parklands when building a stadium where there is not one—where there is only Parklands—is not, but perhaps I am too simple for that logic. A number of other things have been said.

The other thing I thought was more an issue of bipolarity than anything else was the notion that this was all their idea in the first place—they will take credit—but it is a really bad idea. I have struggled with that as well. I invite anyone who thinks I am exaggerating—should they have the courage—to read all the contributions in the Hansard. I think a number of members of the opposition have been very genuine about this. I think the member for Adelaide, from her perspective, genuinely prefers something else to happen. That is perfectly understandable, but I cannot let go of some of the comments, particularly by the Leader of the Opposition.

It has been said over and over that they are going to put all these things in because they cannot trust us. I have drawn this from the website today. It is still on your website—the State Liberals' Plan for a New Stadium at Riverside West. It states:

...a world-class stadium either by renewing Adelaide Oval or, if this proves untenable, by creating a new purpose built facility.

This is in 2009, and Adelaide Oval was a great idea in 2009. I will come back to some other things, but it goes on, and this was the position:

If the AFL, SANFL, SACA and Soccer can agree on this solution—

and they are talking about Adelaide Oval—

it would fulfil the State Liberals vision for a world class stadium in the city and would receive our full support.

If this is the full support, I would not like to get partial support from the Leader of the Opposition who has, I think, been quite unfair on sports and, in particular, on football. In the same document, which has the Leader of the Opposition's name on the front cover—at least it has isobel redmond.com.au—it states:

The SANFL is a top 100 company in SA with turnover of around $44 million and which directly sustains over 120 jobs.

That was what she said then. Actually, I think it is closer to a top 50 company. Just two weeks ago, when there was some question of a bailout, the Leader of the Opposition went out and said, 'Why put money into these two sports, both of which are going broke?', or words to that effect.

Can I assure the Leader of the Opposition that the economic position of the SANFL is much stronger than, for example, the economic position of the Liberal Party. The fact that the SANFL has debt that it services on its books does not mean that it is in any danger of going broke. What it does mean and what it did say about certain bailouts is that, if it was to add more debt, then it would, of course, have to reduce expenditure on other activities. That is a different thing. However, I assure the Leader of the Opposition that the SANFL is in a much more superior position to the Liberal Party in terms of its financial state, and its supporters I might say, too, but I will not go there. I want to avoid picking a fight, but I think we need to get clear on some things.

Again, I do not want to go far into this argument, but the notion that we suddenly thought of getting all these people together to play football at Adelaide Oval after the Liberals announced it is just not right. Evidence has been given in committees by Ian McLachlan and other people about how long ago these discussions started. As I say, I think it would be better if we all stopped trying to take credit for it and just got a good project up for the state and for South Australia.

One criticism is that we need two stadia. We have more than two. You do need two stadia: you need a main stadia and you need ones to play other events. I think SANFL has more stadia than it can deal with realistically at present. AAMI stays under this model for the foreseeable future as a home base for the Crows where they have the Crows Shed and their training facilities, and it is more than ample for any alternative venue needed for things like NAB cups. It is simply not an issue.

Before I talk about some of the really important features of this, I want to place on the record my appreciation at having worked over the last year with a number of people on this. One of the things that everyone in this place should remember is that football was played at Adelaide Oval for a lot longer than it was not played. I ask people to consider why football stopped being played at Adelaide Oval. Because it was an unsuitable venue? No. Football stopped being played at Adelaide Oval because of a fight between human beings. One of the problems with that argument is that the people involved were some of the great South Australians with great abilities, great stature and, when they had a fight, it was a great one.

One of the things that I think is terribly important about this whole process is not just getting football back at Adelaide Oval, which is fantastic. My first memories of football at Adelaide Oval are as a Port supporter—got the duffle coat on, got on the train at Alberton station. I do not know why you had to wear a duffle coat. It did not matter what the temperature was, you had to wear a duffle coat and it was bloody stinking some days. We got on the train, we went up to Adelaide Oval and it was packed to the gunnels, and I saw the great Barrie Robran just take us apart two years in a row, and then Cornesy got North Adelaide the next year, I think, in 1973, taking the most memorable mark.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Who kicked the ball to Cornesy?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Who kicked the ball to Cornesy? No mate, you are too good for me.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Marriott.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Craig Marriott. So, all of that was there. I think the great thing about getting the football back there is not simply seeing all of that again; it is the final resolution of this argument between great South Australians. Like I said, it was a great argument because they were all such big personalities, and if you think about some of the personalities who were involved, there are some big names there.

Can I place on the record that what is very pleasing in this process that we have been through is that both the family of Don Brebner and the family of the great Don Bradman are reconciled. In fact, they have voiced their support for this return and I think SANFL has a letter from Don Brebner's family pointing out that, before he was no longer able to, the man himself supported this move. I think it is great to see that reconciliation between—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: People like the member for Croydon have longer memories than others. I think an important part of this is that reconciliation—maybe not between everyone—but the fight between some great South Australians that had to come about for this to be possible.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: If I could be protected from the member for Croydon! I make that point strongly. The thing that stopped football at Adelaide Oval was not that the venue was not right. Of course it is right. It was people arguing, and it is great that that argument has been resolved after all of these years. That is not to say that there may not be arguments in the future but let us hope we manage them better than we did in the past.

I would like to put on the record my respect for some people in this process who deserve credit for what has gone on. I think too many people in here are throwing their shoulders out trying to pat themselves on the back. I would like to give credit to some of the people out there. I will give credit to one person in here: Kevin Foley got this thing started, and there is no doubt it would not have started without Kevin Foley. Kevin is, by any standard, an interesting character, but I will say this for Kevin: whether you like Kevin Foley or whether you do not like Kevin Foley or whether you hate Kevin Foley, there will be people going to football at Adelaide Oval if we get our way. In a few years' time they will be going there because Kevin Foley had the guts to get it started.

Mr Marshall: And then you sacked him!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: See, you can't get far in this without some churlish comment, can you? You just can't. The member for Norwood is an expert on everything in this place. I listen to him at question time: if the question is on water, he has the answer; if it is electricity, he has the answer; if it is the Burnside council, he has the answer.

Can I say, the member for Norwood has delusions of grandeur. I have never seen a bloke sit further back and make more noise. It is small-minded in the extreme, in a debate that we have just been having without rancour, for him to pop in and then start yelling. The mouth goes long before the brain engages, with this bloke. Frankly, I think the people of Norwood deserve a lot better. They deserve a lot better than this—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: And they had a lot better before.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: And they may well get better, because let's face it, Liberals in Norwood don't last long. Can I put on the record my appreciation for some decent people who do not just come in and make noise, but put the work in. When we started out on this process—

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: He's still going. If we could only share his opinion of himself. I would just like to meet someone, one day, as smart as the member for Norwood thinks he is. That would be interesting. Will you please be quiet now? Good; thanks, son. I would like to put on the record my appreciation for the people in football and cricket who have worked enormously hard on this matter.

When I first went down to see the league commissioners and the league directors—it is a large body of people who runs the various things in the SANFL—there were, as a result of those relationships over time, a great deal of suspicions about what was happening. It has been a genuine pleasure to see that turn around over the period of the last year and see the way that football has whole-heartedly and enthusiastically embraced this opportunity.

In recent times, getting the phone calls from the footy guys to check whether everything is going all right has been a real turnaround from where we had been when we started, and can I say that they work with enormous—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Thank you, member for Croydon. I want to come to that issue of cost in a moment, because the genius of Norwood has a view on that too. It would be nice if he could just be quiet while we are talking about his betters, you know. Those people at football worked enormously hard while SACA had its vote on.

I will to turn to SACA. I have been through this process sitting with John Olsen and Ian McLachlan for most of the time. I look around and I cannot find anyone other than a former Liberal premier or a former Liberal minister as far as the eye can see—Rob Kerin is down there. Those people did enormous work to convince people in SACA and the nay-sayers in the state of the value of this project. They did a terrific job.

Ian McLachlan led a travelling roadshow where he went out and told people the truth and the benefits of all of this. We had people telling less than the truth about the dangers of it, but he did a terrific job, and they have to be given credit for us being able to be here today. Make no mistake; I said to these people that I think it will be very hard for us to achieve legislation on this unless there is genuine support from the sporting community and the broader community. We have that, and that is why I believe we will be successful in getting legislation. It could not have been done if those people had not put in that work and developed relationships of trust—I would not go far as to say 'warm friendship' yet—and friendship, and I am sure they will grow over time.

The member for Norwood talks about the cost or talks about us giving them money. It is funny, isn't it? Again, I will talk about the bipolarity of some members on the other side. Apparently, this is too much free money for sports, but a stand-alone stadium for one sport, with a roof, would not have been too much. The only problem would have been that they would not have started it until 2015, according to their documents, and finished it in about 2019. I am not quite sure how many football clubs would still be around waiting for the stadium that was going to be provided.

But I want to put this on the record, also. I am grateful that I have a university education and some people consider me somewhat of a snob in some areas, but the truth is this: we as a government fund massive infrastructure projects at the moment, this is not a big ticket item, and the benefits of this project to the broader city easily outweigh the present cost of it. Before you even think about the sports, the benefits to the broader city outweigh the cost.

Can I just point out that we have $2.6 billion rolling out in public transport, billions in roads and billions in health. The recurrent budget of health is approaching $5 billion a year. This is not a big ticket item. But I will go further and point out what I am talking about regarding snobbery. Every year we as a government, quite rightly, fund the art gallery, the museum and the opera. You would like to see how much subsidy you need to put a bum on a seat at an opera, as opposed to a football match. I can tell you it is considerably—

The Hon. K.O. Foley: A hundred bucks a ticket.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Yes, a hundred bucks a ticket, not a few bucks a ticket. It is considerably more. We put on the Ring cycle and it is a wonderful thing as long as you don't have to watch it. It goes longer than this debate went for, for goodness sake. From my perspective, why would you want to go and see Wagnerian fake heroics over a long period of time, pretend heroics, when you can go and see real heroics at the football ground? You can see Roger James smother the ball in the dying minutes of the match against St Kilda to put us into the 2004 grand final, which we subsequently won. Sport has been giving me and many South Australians great memories for many years, and I do not apologise for the fact that it should get some support from the government as well. I can confess it has not given me an enormous amount of joy in recent times.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: No, you don't win all that often, do you?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No. But I do not apologise for the fact that things that ordinary people like and some of them live for and take a great deal of joy from every single week should be supported by the government. We do it for the high arts, so why can't we do it for sports?

I have to say this about sport, also. I am going to be happy if my children go to grand finals of sport because it is healthier than some of the other activities they may engage in, so we will not apologise for that. The benefits of this are far broader.

The argument about two stadiums is one thing but, in terms of the location of a stadium, having been through this project, you could not pick a better one. If you were to start from scratch with a stadium near a city that you could deliver people to in an appropriate location, with the bridge, you would pick where Adelaide Oval is. When that footbridge to Adelaide Oval is built, I think the distance will be 300 metres between Adelaide Oval and North Terrace where the main rail station, tram stations and bus stations are, and it will be even closer to the riverfront precinct, which will come to life under this plan.

That is much closer than any other stadium in Australia—the MCG and Etihad Stadium are further from public transport—and it is closer to the CBD and the entertainment district of this city than anywhere else in Australia. You could not pick a better site, which I suspect is why Adelaide Oval is where it is, particularly when the footbridge is there. It means it is right next to where we deliver most of our public transport.

Believe me, the day of the motor car is going away. Getting people to games by public transport is the future, and there is nowhere (including the member for Davenport's site on West Terrace) where we can deliver more people by public transport than Adelaide Oval. The central rail station and the tram station are there, and we will be putting extra money into public transport. Please do not count on the $535 million, because that is our job, anyway: we run public transport. We will be putting on extra buses and we have a capacity to do what we started at AAMI Stadium, that is, putting public transport on ticket prices and running free buses. We cannot say we can do it yet, but certainly we can do what we could never do at AAMI Stadium, and that is increase that dramatically. We could get 50 per cent of people there, if we can change the culture, and we will be seeking to do it.

In regard to the argument about car parks, there is an enormous number of car parks in the city that often are not used at game time, and modern technology has the capacity to direct people there. So we are very excited about that. I want to close by talking about the opportunities for this precinct. We have a line-up of people in the private sector wanting to talk to us about the possibility of investment in the precinct. There is no-one in this house who has not heard over decades ideas for revitalising our riverfront area, and it is a great idea. John Olsen was one. The member for Waite had a plan for it. We have all wanted it to happen. The game-changer is people going to the football. Whether people like this answer or not, Martin Hamilton-Smith had the courage to say this and he knows it: the game-changer is bringing those people regularly to the football, and it will trigger investment on the riverfront precinct.

We have a new convention centre going in. The Casino, despite Ashley Porter's quite bizarre stories, has confirmed again yesterday its willingness to invest up to $250 million. There is the Intercontinental and a number of private sector people. We are master planning at the moment some very exciting stuff about a strip of entertainment, restaurants, that sort of thing, on the riverfront. This is a great outcome for the city.

I am going to wrap up in a moment, but I wanted to get all this on the record, but that is the reason I say to you with some passion that, despite the fact that many of you think me a most difficult and obstreperous fellow, I am going to bend over backwards to try to accept as many of your amendments in good faith that will allow us to get this a speedy passage through the house. I have said that I do not like the rent one; you may win it anyway. I will have to talk to the codes when you do that. In relation to the planning, I just ask you, if you are going to impose a cap (and I agree with a cap because I cannot get any more money anyway), at least give us the ability to do the job in a timely fashion and control escalation.

For all those reasons, I will accept as many of your amendments as I can and I have outlined acceptance of a great many of them. What I would ask in return is that the opposition gives us a speedy passage of this bill. In particular, it has to pass by the time we go to the long break so that we can go out and start letting contracts to do this. Can I say, if you are worried about the election in 2014, there is no prospect. The footy season in 2014 does not start until after the election in any event. I think the NAB Cup is on then so there is no concern about that. I know the member for Norwood wants Isobel Redmond to toss the coin. I hope the codes have forgiven her by then and invite her if she is in that position, which I hope she will not be, of course.

In all genuineness, we will support as many of your amendments as allow us to achieve those minimum things that I say we have to achieve, and what I ask is that we get a speedy resolution. I will close by saying that I assure you that, if we cannot get a bill that does those minimum things, it is all over. There will not be a process. I cannot imagine how we could make compulsory acquisition work because we might get the oval, but we cannot get a long-term lease and then we have to do all the things surrounding it and I just do not think there is any prospect. In fact, I do not even know what the handicaps are because I have never thought about it.

My great fear is that, having come this far, having SACA vote for it, having sport support it, having broad community support for it, the nay-sayers win and somehow this is defeated and we do not do it, because I can tell you that this would be terrible for the psychology of Adelaide if we cannot do something that is so obviously in Adelaide's benefit, and I think people elsewhere in the world would shake their heads in bewilderment that we would refuse to do it. My great fear is that, if this falls over, it would be a terrible psychological blow and would just reinforce those painful nay-sayers who like to think that Adelaide as a city has some baleful, animistic influence on how we do things.

We can do anything in Adelaide that the rest of the world can do and this is one of the things we can do. I stress that $535 million for this outcome may seem a lot of money, especially if it is used in knee-jerk arguments, but the truth is that, when you look at the annual spend of a state government and the long-term return you get for this, what happens in the city, what happens in the state, the maintenance of our football, I make no bones about it—football is in big trouble if we cannot get something like this for them.

With all that, what I would say is that this is a very good sound investment, and I pledge to the opposition my genuineness in supporting amendments that we can support in pursuing those minimums and what I would ask them is to be genuine in the speedy passage of this bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I move:

Page 3, after line 12 [clause 3, definition of Adelaide Oval Licence Area]—after paragraph (c) insert:

(ca) land that is laid out (on the commencement of this Act) as Light's Vision on the corner of Pennington Terrace and Montefiore Road, North Adelaide; or

I indicate to the house that the series of amendments that I am moving are as a result of discussions with the Adelaide City Council and attempt to address some of the concerns that it had about our ambitions in the oval. The first amendment merely gives the protection to Light's Vision on the corner of Pennington Terrace and Montefiore Road that was mentioned by the council both to us and the opposition.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: On behalf of the opposition, we are supporting this amendment, because the principle is that it takes Light's Vision out and leaves it under the care and control of the council, which is something the member for Adelaide argued very strongly for. We are pleased the government has agreed to that provision.

Ms SANDERSON: I want to clarify that Light's Vision not only is the car park area at the top of Montefiore Hill but also includes the line of trees along Montefiore Road, because the council specifically requested that.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I think you will find that a subsequent amendment deals with that anyway. My amendment No. 2 defines the areas for car parking, which will exclude the area on Montefiore Road I think you are talking about, and there is a map attached to the amendments.

Ms Sanderson: I could not tell.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It is not easy but, yes, that is the intention of that amendment. The intention of the next amendment is to define where parking will occur, and that is where it occurs, in that northern car park, at present, in any event.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Clause 4 deals with the Adelaide Oval core area, which in simple terms is the stadium area proper. Under the particular provisions under clause 4(3), the minister must ensure that the area vested in the minister, which is the stadium area proper, continues to be named Adelaide Oval. I am just wondering how flexible that clause is. Is it able to be named, for instance, Telstra's Adelaide Oval, or some prefix before the words 'Adelaide Oval'? To quicken the process, I will add in the second part of the question. Why has the government decided not to allow football to continue to have naming rights?

I can understand why cricket does not want naming rights because Adelaide Oval is its brand worldwide. However, modern football always has a branding for football. I am just wondering why, given that you are dividing the lease area up into two distinct seasons, the government has decided to restrict for both seasons and not just the cricket season?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: We did consider during football season allowing it to be called Port Adelaide oval, but we could not get agreement on that. The truth is that Adelaide Oval was Adelaide Oval when football was played there before. It can be Adelaide Oval. Can I say that the answer to the first question is no, it is not going to be called someone else's Adelaide Oval. It is going to be Adelaide Oval.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Under the act, is it possible?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No. My understanding is that it is not, but, if there were any doubt, we would tidy it up. As far as we are concerned, this is Adelaide Oval and it will not be anything else. We believe that what we will do with this will put football and cricket in a sufficient position to run their codes without the need for selling naming rights to our oval.

Maybe if you are charging them rent they might want to start selling naming rights to make up for the rent; but, no, it is our view that that should not occur. The answer to the second question is: no, we do not believe that it should be called anything else at any time. We do not believe that they need to sell naming rights.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Clause 4(3)(c) refers to the fact that 1,200 square metres is to be retained as open space. I asked this question during the briefing, and Mr Delgado was good enough to get back to us and confirm that the current area is 1,400 square metres, which I understand to be grassed. Can the minister confirm that the 1,200 square metres designed to be retained as open space is going to be continued as grass, or will it be paved or concreted?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: That is the grassed area that we are speaking of. In fact, I think that you will see in the paper today reference to being able to kick the footy on the grassed area, and things like that. The 1,200 metres is the grassed area. The full 1,400 metres involves some other stuff. It will be 1,200 metres grassed area.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I do not want to get technical on this, but we are—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: No, I just want to clarify. I always look at legislation as to what someone with the power can do in 40 or 50 years' time, when all the good intentions in the chamber may not necessarily be here and some smart lawyer gets holds of it. The '1,200 square metres of open space' does not dictate grassed area. If the intention of the government is to make it grassed area, then it should clearly state that, because you can bitumise it, you can concrete it, you can put any treatment you want on it in 20 or 30 years' time and you still meet the provisions of the act.

The reason that the member for Goyder asked the question, I think, was to establish that principle. That is something we can talk about between houses if the minister wishes, but I am sure that the SACA members did not vote for it on the basis that it was going to be concrete or bitumen but open space.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I understand what you are saying. We will take advice between the houses. If it is necessary to put 'grassed' in there, I am perfectly happy with that. My view is that the attraction of it is the grass. It is not going to be as attractive if you do something else, and the people running the stadium do not have an interest in making it unattractive. But I will take advice. When I said that you always do check the technical points, I am not complaining. I think it is the role of everyone in this place—particularly the opposition—to make sure that the parliament gets it right and does what it intends to do.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Thank you for that, because there are lots of suburban ovals that used to be grass that now are terraced, bitumen and open space. Clause 4(4) is the clause that allows temporary buildings to be placed on that area from time to time for events, and I understand why that provision is in there. I assume that it is the SMA that makes the decision as to what is a temporary basis in relation to subclause (4)(b), which provides 'on a temporary basis for the purposes of a special event or activity prescribed by the regulations'. There is no time frame in relation to that. So, if, in 20 years' time, the SMA decides that a temporary activity is for the whole of the football season, they could theoretically erect a stand there for six months. The way I read it, it is that open. So, who makes the decision and how is it restricted?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: To be fair to parliamentary counsel and these people, they are trying to write a bill for things that are not foreseen at present; for example, a World Cup that might involve you playing there for more than a month and require something else. So, that is the intent of it.

If it is a power made by regulation, it remains in the power of the parliament, of course, to put some restrictions upon the regulation. What we do not want to do is make the people running the oval unable to do an event because of an unnecessarily restrictive piece of legislation that would require changes in here. I think it would be unfortunate if there were a major international event and we had to go and change the act because the oval could not accommodate it on a temporary basis.

So, the provision exists for those things not foreseen that may come up. I cannot give you an example because they are not foreseen yet. Unless you want me to quote, who was it? Dick Cheney. Who did the known unknowns?

The Hon. K.O. Foley: Rumsfeld.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Rumsfeld and the known unknowns. This is an unknown unknown, I think.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The minister will be pleased to know that I do not know what you do not know either. An example of a temporary structure that takes six months is, of course, the Clipsal grandstand.

Ms Chapman: No, nine months.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Nine months?

Members interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I think the house is trying to get up by 6 o'clock so, in the interests of trying to help people out, we might get on with it. I just make the point to the minister that my reading of that clause means that, as long as the SMA thinks something is temporary, it can be there as long as it wants. I do not think that is the minister's intention.

If the SMA decides it wants to put up temporary grandstands for football for the whole of the season, it can and it still meets the provision. I am not sure that that is what the minister intends. All I am saying to you is, between the houses, you may want to look at that provision because a smart lawyer in 30 years' time is going to say, 'Well, we have kept the open space.' I know that the clause says for 'a special event or activity', but that is a special event or activity in the opinion of the SMA. As long as it thinks it is a special activity, it is in.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No. There are two protections. One is that it is on a temporary basis. You might argue that we are all temporary and everything ends, but it is a temporary basis and it is 'for the purposes of a special event or activity prescribed by the regulations'.

I am quite happy to examine it for loopholes in between, but what I cannot do is make it so restrictive that we find that we cannot do something. You would know that the first part of that clause is for things like test matches where they put—I have been in one—really good temporary facilities at the northern end, looking back behind the bowler's arm. This is for corporate facilities for the Ashes match or something like that.

The other thing may be something like a World Cup soccer match, where you may have three games over a period of several months, and you need facilities. I do not know, but I am happy with the intention, as we have stated, and we will check for loopholes.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I have a question on subclause (6). It relates to the finalisation of the lease between the Adelaide City Council and the SACA. I ask this question on behalf of SACA members who have spoken to me in my electorate. I understand that the existing lease has some 48 years still to run, I think, but, other than the exclusivity of—

An honourable member: Forty-seven.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Forty-seven? Okay, I stand corrected. Other than the exclusivity period of use, are there any conditions proposed in this lease that we will refer to later on with a diminishing of opportunity for the SACA? I am not sure if I have expressed it overly well, but it is just where the conditions attached to the lease are less than what they have at the moment, other than exclusivity of use.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No. I hope this helps, I am not quite sure. The lease to the SMA in itself is principally about being able to place the assets on the balance sheets of the SMA or the codes, because obviously a leasehold for a long period of time satisfies accountants. It is a bit artificial in the sense that the balance sheet for these sorts of things is far more about the revenues they can show than any asset values, but the principle of that lease is to place asset values—so the long-term lease to the SMA. The rights of SACA to run cricket are set out in the licences that are given to the two codes for that period of time.

In many ways, while they shorten it in time, the lease and licence arrangements probably leave them freer of any interference than they would be at present with the Adelaide City Council. It certainly gives them the exclusive capacity to run cricket during that time. The MOU and those licence conditions were the subject of some lengthy discussion. If you are seeking to protect the rights of SACA, I can assure you that they spent many, many months doing so themselves.

Ms SANDERSON: I know we have already covered clause 4(3)(c) but, for example, with the 1,200 square metres I was wondering why the Moreton Bay figs were not included in that particular area or if they are going to be included somewhere else.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I understand you have an amendment to include them.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: By their individual names!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: If you help me any more I am going to have you evicted! The original intention about the Parklands—and it obviously has not satisfied people—was that we are going to impose by licences some very strict obligations on them. Your preference is to have the fig trees mentioned in the legislation; that was not our original contemplation. I am going to look at it and if it is workable we have no problem with it, because our intention is to protect and to improve the Parklands.

As I said earlier, there will be very significant investment made by the two codes in landscaping and making them more robust before anything starts, and I think that is a good thing. I have no problems with protecting the fig trees; what I cannot do, as much as I think very highly of myself, is prevent things that God controls like them getting diseases or something like that, so I warn you about that!

An honourable member: Ringbarking!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: We will not be doing any ringbarking. Obviously, the Moreton Bay fig trees are an essential part of the look and we believe that adds to the value of the whole precinct. We will have a look at the amendment you suggest. Our intention is to keep the fig trees in the best state of health that we can.

Ms SANDERSON: Could there be a specific entry to protect the war memorial oak? I know that if our amendment to remove Cresswell Gardens and Pennington Gardens is successful then it will be protected, but is it worth having it specifically mentioned because it is a very significant tree?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: We are happy to have a look at what you suggest, but we have tried to steer away from trying to pick out plants and stuff like that. Our view is that we will impose very serious obligations on the protection of the Parklands. If people feel that is not on, we are happy to look at it. I think we are concerned about things that are not at risk. We want the Parklands preserved through this, and I stress we believe that not only because it is a good thing in itself but it adds to the actual value of the oval in its setting if the Parklands are as good as they can be, and the precinct for that matter.

Clause passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Clause 5 allows for a lease for 80 years. Is it the intention of the minister to do the lease for 80 years and, if that is the intention, are you going to put into the lease set periods of review so that the lease can be periodically reviewed during the 80 years?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It is our intention to give a lease for 80 years. There will be terms in the lease like in any other lease. I am not quite sure what you mean by a review. It was not our intention to have a rent for the lease, so that—

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Well, I think we have to realise what the purpose of the lease is. The lease is purely for putting assets on the balance sheet. So the real guts, if you like, of the rights of the oval are the licence rights for the two codes. All of the activities at the oval will actually be governed by that.

The SMA, of course, runs the oval for events other than football and cricket and manages them. As people have probably noticed, there will be capacity to make revenues through entertainment, functions, special events, concerts, and those sorts of things, at the oval, and the SMA would do that. However, our intention would be that there is a lease with terms given to the SMA for the 80 years. I am not quite sure how much would need to be reviewed in that because, as I say, the activities are governed by the licence conditions, and the licence is given to the two codes.

Ms SANDERSON: If, for example, in 20 years cricket and football have a falling out and it comes time to make the decision whether they are going to sell AAMI Stadium—because I believe they are planning on keeping it for about 20 years—and they are in an 80-year lease, how would they get out of that? Is it wise to not have any review period, like a 20 plus 20? In 40 years, soccer could be the main sport; cricket could have died off. We do not know. Eighty years is such a long time to lock us all in.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: The leases to the SMA are owned by the two codes. I think cricket is going to be at Adelaide Oval for ever and ever. God forbid that anything else should ever happen. Say you convince football to go somewhere else, under our model, the lease would revert to SACA to play cricket at the Adelaide Oval. You cannot make people play football if they do not have the money or the interest anymore, if football goes broke or they do not want to do it. In those circumstances, it is fully reasonable, too, I should say, for a government to revisit the circumstances.

However, I think the most likely outcome is that both parties are going to be there for a very long time. If football were not to play there any more, SACA would go back to running Adelaide Oval. And before anyone gets too agitated about 80-year leases, I do not think anyone contemplates that SACA would not be at Adelaide Oval. Goodness me, what a terrible thought. It would upset an awful lot of people.

Ms SANDERSON: Just one more question on that. Under a normal commercial lease—being a business owner who has been involved in many commercial leases—80 years means that you are locked in and, if there is a fee, a licence fee or rent, if SANFL wants to get out of this in 20 years, it would have to pay for the next 60 years. SACA might say, 'Well, you still owe the other half of our rent. So you've got to pay for 60 years if you don't have a 20 plus 20.' You cannot just change who is on the lease very easily, so I think 20 plus 20 would be wiser and safer.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I come back to the fact that we do not have a rent in the lease. You might wish to impose one, and I note that you have a provision to review it. The truth is that this is a long way from being a normal commercial lease. In fact, the entire model is unlike any lease model in that the lease is almost an empty shell for transferring assets onto a balance sheet when the lease, as under the legislation, is conditioned by the licence rights, and the rights are in the licences.

The issue you raise—would the government force them to pay a rent if they had to leave early—I do not think that is a real risk to anyone. I point out that it is not us: we have never suggested imposing a lease on the rent, and I stress the nature of this is not anything related to a commercial lease. This is simply the method to satisfy the accountants by getting the assets on a balance sheet. The real rights of the parties are those determined in the licences.

Ms SANDERSON: I believe that even the wine centre, now owned by the University of Adelaide, pays $1 million a year, so I think it would be wise.

The Hon. K.O. Foley: $1 a year.

Ms SANDERSON: I heard it was more for the wine centre. I think it is fair for the people of South Australia funding this project to expect some kind of money back to the coffers.


[Sitting extended beyond 18:00 on motion of Hon. P.F. Conlon]


The Hon. P.F. CONLON: In answer to the honourable member's question, there are two reasons why you pay rent under a lease: one is for the value, and the other, in terms of the National Wine Centre, is to give consideration so that there is a legally enforceable lease, because, no consideration, no contract, no lease. We have here a legislative lease so we do not need the consideration because it is created by legislation. What we have said, and my understanding of the consideration of the wine centre is $1 a year. That is purely by the nature of a peppercorn to give it legal effect.

Our view is that this development will return massive opportunities and increase revenues in the city of Adelaide. That is the return for us out of this investment. It is much more than the small amount that you would impose as a rent anyway. We also believe that the sports do a good job in sports, and that sport in itself is a valuable thing, and it is good for our kids.

As I said earlier, SANFL at present spends $6.2 million a year on community football with Indigenous kids, with kids, out in the regions, including $1 million from the AFL. We know, for example, from cricket—you see the letters from Ian Ravenscroft, he is a great bloke, and the former publican of the Moonta Hotel, and the head of regional cricket—who has said how important this is for getting money into regional cricket. We believe that that is a better use of the money than paying rent to Jack Snelling, but you will have that argument upstairs, I assume.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I think what the member for Adelaide was trying to establish in her earlier question was, is there going to be an exit provision available for football in the licences so that if football in 20 years' time—do they have the option to say, 'Thanks for this, it hasn't worked for us and under the licence we give some notice' and they can exit, or is there going to be some provision like that?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Perhaps I should have pointed out before and, again, as I said, the real guts of the stuff is in the licences, the rights. Our view there would be to make—particularly in football's position—the licence for 20 years renewable, which would address the issues that you are talking about.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: It is difficult to imagine an occasion when this might arise, but would you envisage the SMA being able to assign the lease? Could you imagine a circumstance where it might seek to assign the lease and, while I do not see anything in the bill, would there be anything in the lease itself which would constrain an assignment of the lease?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Again, of course there are lease conditions, and one of the conditions that we would impose—which is a common one—is that you could not be assigned without our permission. So, you would need our permission, and you would need football and cricket (who own the SMA) to agree to assign it to someone else. I cannot imagine circumstances in which that could happen. I cannot imagine getting SACA out of Adelaide Oval without dynamite, so I do not see it happening; however, the safeguard is that a lease arrangement can be assigned, but the condition on our lease would be that it could not be assigned without permission of the minister or the government of the day.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I suspect I know the answer to this question, minister, but for the sake of getting it on the record: in relation to the two periods where football controls it for six months and three weeks, and cricket controls it for the remainder, if there is some event that wants to come to Adelaide and neither of the sports wishes to cooperate with the government to allow that event for some reason—who knows what the administrators are going to be like in 40 years' time—I assume there is a government override?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: The arrangements with them is that the government would be allowed three events per year at cost, because we are contributing significantly to this. We do not know what those events would be. We asked for five, expecting to get three, so they demanded three and we said yes, so we thought that was rather good. So there are those. There are also other events, of course, that the government may not want, but that the SMA or the two codes may agree to do in each other's period.

Most of these things would be so much in the interest of the two codes that they would want to do them anyway, but we have reserved the right for the government to have up to three events per year, run at cost—for them not to make a profit, but we would cover the costs of the event if costs were incurred, but we would have the right to have those three events. Of course, anyone dealing in it would have to be reasonable, and you would not pursue an event that so undermined the other parties' use of the stadium that it destroyed its value. These things have been thrashed over for a very long time—who leaves the ground in what condition after events, etc. The entire arrangement has to be structured so that everyone's rights are protected from the activities of others.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Minister, you mentioned that the licence between the SMA and the clubs might be 20 years. I am not sure whether you just postulated that figure. Am I understanding correctly that there is nothing in the bill that might stop the two football clubs in the future, for instance, getting together with soccer and deciding to move to a second stadium they might seek to build? I am not imagining that that would happen in the near future, but in 10 or 20 years' time, is it your understanding that they could walk away from the arrangement and leave the SMA with cricket as its only customer at the oval, or is there something in the bill or the proposed licence arrangements that would bind the two football clubs to the Adelaide Oval and SMA no matter what?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: My understanding of it is that, if they want to stop playing AFL football, they can go somewhere else, but if they are going to play AFL football, they are going to play it at Adelaide Oval for the duration of that licence agreement. So, if you have a licence agreement for 20 years and you want to play AFL football, you will play it for 20 years in the licence.

Clause passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Clause 6 deals with the development authorisation. Essentially, the bill gives the minister power to authorise any development on the site. In fact, the bill, as I understand it, says that any development approved by the minister is authorised.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: In the core area.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Yes, this is the core area, which is essentially the main stadium area, as distinct from the Parklands parking area. Once this is passed, of course, that means that any building work at all can be undertaken there and it is automatically approved.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: We intend building a stadium, that is all: not anything else.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Fine. I just think it is an extraordinarily broad power. In giving the power, if the parliament so decides, we are taking a deep breath that the codes and the minister are not going to come to some arrangement to build something there that we have not envisaged. Most of us have seen the model, but even the model did not have the final roof structure design when we were briefed on it and, of course, there is no guarantee that is the model we will end up with. For instance, in Perth they are talking about apartments and office blocks next to the WACA. What is the intention? AAMI Stadium has the Crows facilities and tavern with poker machines. Is it the intention to allow poker machines at this venue?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No-one has asked us about that, but can I say that the only reason this is here is to overcome the risk of substantial delay in the planning process. I have indicated to you that I am quite happy to substitute DAC for the minister's sign-off on it. Our intentions would be that I would have done this on the advice of DAC, anyway, as it happens. What I would say is: if you want DAC to do the authorisation, I am quite comfortable with that.

I stress that what we do not want to occur is the lengthy process of rezoning, or what can be a lengthy process. As I said, the ordinary process is 12 months, interim effect of two to three months; and, given this project, there is a danger of someone seeking judicial review and holding it up. If we lose a year on this, it will cost us much more. Escalation is the single biggest issue. I am quite happy between the houses to look at some process whereby DAC can sign off on the application, but what I would say is, if we agree we should build a stadium there, let's not go through the rezoning process for no reason.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I seek some clarification on this, and I come from some planning background within local government. I presume that the majority of the core areas are appropriately zoned already and that it is only the areas in schedule 1 identified as A, B and C in which the zoning is wrong?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No, it is not. Regrettably, the core area is Parklands and it is seriously not complying. I do not know why it is that but that is what it is, and that is what I am told by the planning officers that it is and that is what has to be changed. Apparently, the fact that there is an oval there and it is current use does not apply. There is an extension of the eastern grandstand into the Parklands, too, but the oval itself is Parklands. So, we can keep what we have there and we can build on it, but whatever we build is non-complying at present.

All we are saying is we should make this build complying, where there is an oval already, and then DAC can authorise it. I would not dare, as a minister, authorise this on my own advice, anyway. I reckon I am a smart bloke, but I know bugger all about planning.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: My question relates partly to clause 6 but also to clause 8. It has to do with any future decision by the SMA to build underground car parking. For example, if the SMA finds at some point in the future that its business operations are profitable and there is revenue and it is working, and they make a decision to build underground parking, for instance, either under oval 2 or under the tennis courts that are between the Next Generation gym and oval 2, and they are able to find the funding for that—noting that that is outside the $535 million—is there any clause in the bill that would prevent them from making such an application?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: There is no clause that would prevent them, but there is nothing that assists them either. They will just have to front up to the processes at the time. The authorisation processes that we have suggested for the core area expire on 31 December 2015, so there will be no benefit from those, but there is nothing to prevent them. There is nothing more to prevent them than exists at present. There is nothing created in the bill that would prevent them, so they will just be where they are at present, and I am sure people will deal with that on its merits at the time.

I might point out about this, for the benefit of the member for Davenport, that when they first sent this development authorisation section to me wanting to make sure that it was comprehensive, it would have caused you more questions than it does now and I asked them to pare it back. I had the right to authorise something by regulation somewhere else and I thought, 'I don't think they'll like that, and I think we'll take that out,' so it is already pared back from the first model that was suggested to me.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I just want to explore clause 6(7) which provides:

The expiry of this section does not affect—

(a) any development completed before the expiration; or

(b) any development commenced before the expiration,

and the Minister may, despite the expiration, vary any conditions applying to an authorisation under this section by notice in the Gazette.

That is a confusing clause. I am just interested to know: at what point does a development commence? For instance, what I am trying to cover off is this point: can a minister approve a development and have a forward date for that development to kick in?

If the answer is no, because the legislation says that it runs out on 31 December 2015, where it provides that a minister can, in the future after the expiration, go back to the decision and vary the conditions applying, can that provision override that date? What I am trying to cover off is that a minister cannot forward approve developments for years 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 somehow without going through what would be the proper process.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: The intention of the two together—'any development commenced before the expiration' is just in case the thing is not finished. If you have something unforeseen and the matter is not finished, then we want to be able to bring it to completion. I am reliably assured that the meaning of the subsequent words are such that, if there is an expiration and something has not been completed, the minister will still have the ability to have appropriate controls over the thing that has not been completed. Is that the best way of putting it?

If you did not have the provision after subclause (7)(b), then the thing could continue but the minister would not have the ability to have proper controls over what was occurring. It is to make sure that, if something is continuing after the expiration date, the minister has an ability to have the appropriate controls over it. I am quite happy for people to give you a more detailed legal explanation as to why it is drafted that way, but that is certainly the intention.

Mr GRIFFITHS: This question relates to clause 6 and clause 11. Clause 11 deals with the closing of Victor Richardson Road and then that reverts back to Parklands, but it impacts upon the car park access. I believe that 400 car parks will be created under this new eastern side structure. If the road access to the site is being closed, how is it intended that these will get into this car park? Is it over some area of Parklands which you have to assign some right to?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I need you to look at the schedule. There is a drawing there. You will still need the road access, but it will not be anywhere as wide as the Victor Richardson Road is now. If you have been in there, it is very wide. I think there is some angle parking on the side. It is realigned a little bit, so there will be a much smaller road. There is road access, of course, to the car parks, but it is a much smaller one. In schedule 1 you will see the Victor Richardson Road as it will be. The intention was to return as much of that bitumised area to parkland as was possible while leaving a road access.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am still confused. So schedule 1 is how Victor Richardson Road will be, not as it is at the moment?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It will be closed as a public road, but it will allow access to the car parking on a much narrower strip.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am confused, because clause 11 says that Victor Richardson Road is closed and reverts back to council control.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: There are many driveways that are not roads, if you know what I mean. I am not allowed to drive on your driveway, for example.

Mr GRIFFITHS: You would be welcome any time. Who has legal responsibility then? What if an accident were to occur driving down this road, track or whatever it is to get into the car park? Who has to accept responsibility for it, because I cannot see that it is actually defined in schedule 1.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Most road accidents are primarily controlled by the ordinary laws of negligence, conditioned by the Road Traffic Act in terms of damages, and I do not understand why that would be any different. It is no different to going down Pennington Terrace, as I pointed out. These things have existed for a very long time. Accesses that are not public roads have existed for a very long time in various places.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Piccolo): Member for Goyder, you are indicating you are not quite sure about that answer.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It is very good. There is a lot more parkland than there used to be.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am not querying that. It is just that I would have thought that a roadway provision would have still been required to access the underground car park, under the Roads (Opening and Closing) Act, not just a right of way across some Parklands.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: There is a Roads (Opening and Closing) Act and you have to close it under that. This bill gives access. This bill allows you to get access. So, it is not a road for the purposes of a public road, but there is legislated access.

Ms SANDERSON: I have a quick point on that. 'Realign' was a word you used a minute ago. Does that mean it could actually move to the left or to the right of where it already is, therefore taking out some of the trees and gardens that are already there?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It will be a smaller piece of road than there is at present. I am not quite clear on the explanation myself. I might try and get someone to give you a proper briefing in between, but I can guarantee that it is much smaller than the current bitumised area.

The ACTING CHAIR: Are you asking whether it is within the existing alignment?

Ms SANDERSON: Yes. If it is within where you already have it and it just got smaller then that is fine, but if you have moved over to the left or right then it takes up existing lawn and trees.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I think it is, but I will have to get you a briefing on it. I cannot see why it would not be, but I will have to get a better answer.

Ms SANDERSON: Is there a definition of 'commenced', and I refer to subclause (7)(b) 'any development commenced before the expiration'? Does 'commenced' mean that you have signed a legal document, you have discussed it at a lunch, you have had a briefing, you have got plans drawn up but you have not made a decision yet? What does that mean?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Our understanding is physical work commenced on site. It has not started. It has not commenced on site. It has not commenced. Again, I am quite happy to check that for you. We will check it for you, but there is common law around planning in those terms, and we will get it for you.

Clause passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I move:

Page 6, after line 14—After subclause (4) insert:

(4a) Public car parking provided under subsection (3)(a) must be limited to the area designated by the letter G according to the map set out in Schedule 5.

This amendment is an attempt to make the Adelaide City Council more comfortable—and others—about the parking. It merely makes clearer which part of the licence areas would permit a licence for parking, and I point out that they are the existing northern car park, what is colloquially referred to as the northern car park area, on oval No. 2.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The opposition is happy to support it in this house and look at it between houses, as we are with a number of amendments with the government; but, for the sake of progress, we are happy to support it.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I think that this amendment improves the bill considerably, but I ask whether the government considered in the long term some sort of a sunset clause for this granting of the right to park in this particular section of the Parklands if the SMA decided at some point in the future that it would rather build an underground car park? Having since 2007 visited a number of these stadiums, particularly Etihad Stadium, which has, I think, a car park for 2,000 cars underneath that stadium and relies more heavily on public transport, it would seem a better vision (given that this is an 80-year term we are talking about) for us to put some pressure on the SMA if it runs a profitable business to build that underground car park under the tennis courts or the No. 2 oval, cover it over, restore it and then, perhaps, give up this site so that restoration can be made as sort of Parklands, not used for car parking. Has any consideration been given to that?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: The way that it would be dealt with is that, of course, the act itself does not automatically give a licence to the SMA to do car parking. That is then a licence with conditions and for a term given by the minister. So, it can be for a term and it can have conditions; and it certainly will have, I gather, conditions about protection of Parklands, for example, and an ability to revoke a licence if those conditions are not met.

Certainly, there would be a capacity to undo that in the future. There is a capacity to set it for such term as it is viewed. For the sake of certainty, I would imagine that the first term would be considerable. I mean, we would not be giving them just a couple of years because people have to have some certainty, but you could do that.

My view is that you will find over time that more and more people use public transport rather than park; and, because of the ability to evacuate the cars, more people will prefer to park in the city than they will there because it is much easier to get out of the city than it is to get out of a large crowd around there. I think that you will see that over time. The one proviso I would say is that it may well be that you will want to keep the option, if there is some really big special event, of using that in the future.

In short, we would control it by the issue of licences on conditions and terms at present. It may well be that people do not want to park there. My fond hope is that far fewer people will go in cars than do at present because I think that is a good outcome. Certainly, there is an option in the future for a licence to be cancelled, revoked, altered by agreement—all those sorts of things.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: You have mentioned 20 years again. Is a 20-year licence the expected licence term in the first instance? How would you respond to the point that, by granting this space in schedule 5 to the SMA as virtually a free open space for car parking, we might be granting them space for a good car parking business and thereby taking away the incentive for developers to build those car parks in Adelaide that you speak of, or perhaps up O'Connell Street on the Makris site and those sorts of things?

In your first licence, you could say, 'In 10 years from now, access to this area for car parking, except in really major events like the World Cup, will be reviewed,' and there could be some financial imperative put on them to look at the underground car parking option. Would you consider doing that and, if so, what time frame do you think would be appropriate?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Firstly, we have not really had the discussions about the length of time for a licence for parking yet. I am not sure we have the right yet. Obviously, that would need to be in sufficient time to give the codes certainty that they were going to have that right. There will be issues about renewal.

Can I say, our view is that—and I think the codes share this view—the obligations that are going to be imposed upon the maintenance of the grounds will make it not such a great business. There will be revenues but not as much as if you were just to charge for car parking without putting the money back in. There will be quite high standards imposed on the management and landscaping. So, because of the cost of management, we do not think it will be a major part of anyone's business there.

My own view on the issues you raise, having been through this for a very long time, is that people are going to find it more attractive to park on this side of the river. The riverfront precinct itself may well deliver a large number of extra car parks which will be available on game days. So, it may well be that what you talk about is the case.

As I say, I think that, with what people will experience with the traffic—if you have been to the Twenty20 match you will know that getting out from around the oval itself is much harder than getting out of the city, which is designed for large volumes of traffic. So, I think there is the possibility of what you say occurring, in that it will not be as attractive to park there.

I do not think it is going to be a strong enough business or a strong enough part of their revenues for you to fear it being an incentive to invest elsewhere. I point out that our discussions with the private sector indicate a very keen interest on developing car parking on this side of the river which, I think, would be a more attractive undercover proposition for people.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Just on the car parking, clause 7(3)(a) talks about the capacity to provide for car parking which, obviously, the facility needs. Is it the intention to allow 24/7 car parking or just event-based car parking?

The way I understand it at the moment, the SACA is essentially restricted to event-based car parking. So, if they have an event there you can car park but, once this is established, it appears to me that there is nothing in this bill, at the moment at least, that says that you cannot do a park-and-ride there on the days when there are no events. I am just wondering how you are going to restrict that.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: We give licences with conditions and they will be very specifically about events such as football events. The ordinary day-to-day car parking for non-events will be the 400 underground. Really, if you have not got an event, that is pretty much all you need.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Minister, clause 7(3)(c) talks about, under the licence, allowing, 'other activities that are ancillary to the redevelopment or use of Adelaide Oval.' Doesn't that need to be other activities that are ancillary to the redevelopment or use of the Adelaide Oval core area? I think you have restricted it to the oval proper and I would have thought it was the broader area.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It is certainly intended to refer to the Adelaide Oval core area construction. If I can go through the licence rights sought: for car parking, to assist construction (particularly if cricket want to play) and there are also others to do with putting up marquees on event days which happens at present at the cricket, and some of the stuff we talked about in the gardens—stalls or selling footyBudgets, all of those things you do. It has been a long day; can you remind me what the point of your question was?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The point was, and it is a simple point, that your legislation says that you are going to allow under the licence the other activities that are ancillary to the redevelopment or use of Adelaide Oval—this is under the licence.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: As I say, it refers to Adelaide Oval but some of the—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Can you answer all the rest of your questions!

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: No. The member for Adelaide wants me to ask what is the proposed surface treatment for the car parks. Have you talked with football or cricket about whether they are going to bitumise it? The fear is that they are going to bitumise it, and that is why I ask. There is a community concern about the treatment of that.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I thought I had made this clear—I will. The first step before any parking occurs is that the codes, through the SMA, will undertake extensive landscaping to make the grassed areas more robust, but it will be grassed areas and there will be significant funds expended before anyone parks (on the best possible advice) to make sure that that grassed area is as robust as it can be and suitable for parking, and that money will be spent before anything occurs.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Sibbons): I draw members' attention to a clerical error in subclause (7). The word 'part' should read 'chapter'.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 8.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Clause 8 talks about development authorisations, and specifically there is a reference to Adelaide Oval No. 2, where there will be automatic approval of certain development on Adelaide Oval No. 2. I want to get on the record that my understanding from the briefing is that the government's intention is to allow half the Clem Hill Stand to come down to Adelaide Oval No. 2 and to put some change rooms/toilets underneath. Is that the only development envisaged?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: The only development contemplated is to make use of that. There will be more activity at Adelaide Oval No. 2 and they want to use it there so it makes good sense to us.

Clause passed.

Clause 9.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Piccolo): I draw members' attention to clause 9 where there is an error. The word 'part' in subclause (3) should read 'chapter'.

Clause passed.

Clauses 10 and 11 passed.

Clause 12.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Clause 12 deals with the identification of land. It gives the minister power to, by instrument deposited in the GRO, identify or delineate any land in connection with the operation of this act. Can the minister explain what the purpose of that clause is, and does it allow him to bring land not adjacent to the precinct under the control of this particular provision?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: The provision has to be operated in conjunction with the act and under the terms of the act. It is for the purposes of any confusion in identifying the areas. I cannot change the areas. It has to be the areas determined by the act. I cannot go beyond the act. I do not know in what circumstances it would need to be done. I think it is some sort of boilerplate clause, as far as I can ascertain.

Clause passed.

Clause 13 passed.

Clause 14.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: When do you envisage the SMA actually taking over the control of the precinct? I am not sure where this fits in the bill, but at what point is the SACA debt going to be paid off—immediately on the passing of the act or three years down the track? Is there a date when SACA will get its money?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Well, there are two questions. Firstly, we are in discussions at the moment. It will not be for some time that the SMA will take over from SACA. In terms of the $85 million, it would not be immediately upon the passage of the bill, but we would contemplate some time in the next 12 months. As soon as we have a more pointed answer for you, we will get it.

Clause passed.

Clause 15 passed.

Schedules 1 to 4 passed.

New schedule 5.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I move:

Page 12, after Schedule 4—After Schedule 4 insert:

Schedule 5—Car parking area [with plan]

This merely describes the area that we referred to in amendment No. 2 about the car parking licence area. With the forbearance of the committee, I will take this opportunity to thank two people I should have thanked before: Rod Hook and Manuel from my office, who worked enormously hard on this for the last 12 months. I would also like to thank Richard Dennis who, believe me, was amending and drafting at very late notice right up to walking into the place. He is, I think, the doyen among our parliamentary counsel. Thank you for that, and thank you to the rest of you.

New schedule inserted.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (18:34): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

As my second reading speech went for some time, I will not add anything more at this point.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite) (18:34): I just want to support the bill as it has come out of committee, but I will make one observation, and that is that, sadly—and I know this is a function of the coordination in this parliament—we have not had the chance to move our amendments as an opposition, and debate them fully in this house. I know this is a trend that is emerging into a pattern of consistency which I think is not good for the House of Assembly. It is partly a consequence of the fact that, on our side of the house, we have country members and it is a bit harder to organise a joint party meeting.

I commend the member for Davenport, who has handled this bill and has done an outstanding job. However, the problem is getting our people together in time to consider the matter, process the amendments, and then have them debated. I say to the government that in future instances it would be great if a bit more notice could be given, because if we have a week before our party room meeting we could draft the amendments and then we could debate them in the house. Without that, it means that, sadly, we, the members of the lower house, do not get to fully explore those issues with the government.

I think this is something, in the business of good law-making, that we could do better. I know our friends in the other place will do a great job but, unfortunately, we in the House of Assembly will not get to enjoy the debate surrounding those amendments. Having said that, I think the minister clearly knows where we are coming from with the amendments. I just say to the minister; please don' t mess up the building of this stadium, because I am sure the opposition will be holding you to account on the costs and the timeframe.

Mr Odenwalder interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Piccolo): The member for Little Para should be in his seat if he wants to be heard. Does anybody else wish to speak? Minister, if you speak, you close the debate.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (18:36): I thank everyone, and can I say that, not to disparage the Legislative Council, I would really have enjoyed debating the amendments down here. The problem is the way our friends in the other place work: if I cannot get the bill up there this week it increases the difficulty in getting it out before the long break. I would have been quite happy to have a longer debate on the amendments here. I think it would have been very helpful. I regret that we have not been able to do that, and I understand the comments. I would have preferred to have more time myself.

Bill read a third time and passed.


At 18:37 the house adjourned until Thursday 9 June 2011 at 10:30.


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