HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-04-02 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ADELAIDE PARK LANDS (FACILITATION OF DEVELOPMENT OF VICTORIA PARK) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 13 February 2008. Page 1671.)

The Hon. M. PARNELL (20:18): It will come as no surprise to honourable members that I oppose this legislation on behalf of the Greens. I strongly opposed the corporate facility often called a grandstand in Victoria Park, and I therefore oppose any legislation which seeks to remove from the Adelaide City Council the rights it has had over Victoria Park.

There is an interesting argument that comes through this bill and that is that there are some areas of South Australia that are very important at a state level. The honourable member's bill suggests, 'Well, let's take it off the local council and give it to the state government.' My question of the honourable member is, 'Well, will we have a Glenelg beach act where we take Glenelg beach off the local council and give that to the state government? Will we take North Terrace, that cultural precinct, away from Adelaide City Council and give that to the state government?' Where does it stop?

My belief is that whilst the Adelaide City Council over its history has on occasion made some bad mistakes in relation to the Adelaide Parklands, the fact is that the parklands are still there. I think a large part of the reason for that is that the Adelaide City Council has been a reasonable custodian.

This bill, I guess, puts it to the government that it should use whatever powers it can get to override the local council, and I do not think that is the appropriate way to go. I think the project for a corporate facility in Victoria Park was ill-conceived, and it is to the credit of groups such as the Parklands Preservation Association and local residents groups that they fought hard and long to stop yet another alienation of this important public space. With those brief words, I oppose the bill.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN (20:21): The bill submitted by the opposition provides an ability for the treasurer of the day to fully occupy the Victoria Park precinct by gazettal and then grant rights to anybody for any event.

The scope of what this bill proposes is very broad. It does not only cover Victoria Park and the proposal for a multi-use stand but could include anything else so long as it comes under the guise of an event and covers any area much larger than Victoria Park. In addition, the Hon. Mr Stephens, in his contribution in moving the bill, said that where the government is not using any of the land for the purpose described the surplus land would be returned to parklands.

Let us examine this situation in detail. First, the Victoria Park precinct, under this bill, consists of any land occupied by the Motorsport Board or the South Australian Jockey Club during most of 2007. Consequently, it covers not only Victoria Park but also the Parklands from Wakefield Road to Bartels Road and most of the Parklands from Bartels Road to Rundle Road. Secondly, once a gazettal notice is lodged to cover the significant part of the East Parkland, it would remain available for the treasurer to manage for up to 99 years. Despite what the opposition says, it is not a matter of whether or not the government is using the land as to whether it returns to parklands; rather, it is what is covered by that gazetted notice.

So, this bill gives the right to a government, present and future, to take control of most of the East Parklands and lease it out to whomever it wants for any event it likes. This is just a prelude to the opposition's proposal to take control of the whole Parklands.

The bill goes on to allow the treasurer to enter into these arrangements for other events without the consent of the council or reference back to parliament. We may well ask: where is the transparency and accountability? Is this what the citizens of this state would have to endure if the Liberal Party is elected at the next election?

One would think the opposition had learnt from the ineptness when it presided over the Underdale fiasco, whereby they allowed the University of South Australia to sell the former university campus at Underdale without excluding about 50,000 square metres of the Torrens Linear Park: the opposition even allowed that portion of the river to be sold. Fortunately, it was this government that negotiated its return to the public realm and its improvement for the public.

In addition, the bill overrides the role of the Development Assessment Commissioner (the independent body), whose role it is to assess proposals against the City of Adelaide's development plan.

So, here we have the opposition wanting to create sufficient powers for a future Liberal government to take control and then turn the East Parklands into an event space for 99 years without the approval of council or parliament and despite whatever may be in the development plan or the Adelaide Parkland's Strategy.

This government passed legislation which provides for leases of 10 years or more over the Parklands to be brought before parliament for approval. The opposition proposes unfettered power to have arrangements for up to 99 years with whomever it wants for whatever it wants under the guise of achieving a grandstand for Victoria Park.

Let us now look at the opposition's understanding of what it is trying to achieve. The Hon. Mr Stephens said that the bill provides for the approval of the lease for the development. Not quite so. It purports to allow the development to proceed, but there is no recognition of the proposed lease that was being negotiated with Adelaide City Council over the site. Rather, it would allow the government, having got control of the land, to enter into any lease or licence with any person or body over the land if it so chooses.

In addition, while purporting to allow the development, the bill in fact gives the council's reference number for the development rather than the actual Development Assessment Commission's reference number. Further, the commission has not even given full development approval. Only provisional development planning consent was received for the Victoria Park redevelopment. The lack of understanding goes on. The Hon. Terry Stephens stated:

As the bill provides approval only for the facilities described in DA/500/2007, additional buildings or any other variance would need to go before the Development Assessment Commission.

While they may go before the commission, the power for approval under this bill actually rests with the planning minister. They are trying to remove the decision-making powers from the independent commission, created by our legislation, and place them with the planning minister.

We also question the poor timing and efficacy of the bill in light of two recent and significant events. First, why introduce a bill when the government announced in December last year that it had withdrawn its plans to construct the permanent grandstand at Victoria Park and instead would spend in the order of $20 million for a demountable pit building, shade structures and other track and site improvements?

It is my understanding that the design and planning for the new demountable building and other works are well under way, and that the South Australian Motorsport Board is on target to have them in place for the 2009 Clipsal 500 race. Secondly, why have a bill that gives rights to the South Australian Jockey Club at Victoria Park when the SAJC recently announced that, after some 160 years, it is severing its ties with Victoria Park and will consolidate at Morphettville?

In conclusion, the opposition has produced a bill which it does not understand, is flawed, and gives an advance warning of its style of leadership for the parklands. The public of South Australia deserves better. What it is being offered by the opposition is: less accountability, less transparency, and a glimpse of what the citizens of the state would suffer under a future Liberal government should the state have the serious misfortune of electing one at sometime in the future. The government does not support this bill.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (20:27): In concluding, I thank members for their contributions. It does disturb me that the Hon. Bernard Finnigan obviously does not have the faith that he should have in his Treasurer and his planning minister, because the Liberal opposition, on this particular occasion, believes that those two fine gentlemen could handle this particular development quite well.

In response to the Hon. Mark Parnell, this bill is quite specific about Victoria Park and a proposed development at Victoria Park. There is no mention of Glenelg or any other part of South Australia. This bill was brought to this chamber out of the frustration that many South Australians feel about the lack of activity in this state, the lack of our ability to actually go forward, and the lack of ability to protect not only the South Australian Jockey Club and its long-term plans, but to protect what is now an iconic event in this particular state.

To be honest, I was there when the Hon. Kevin Foley said that if the Adelaide City Council did not comply he would bring legislation to parliament and we would get this job done. Can I say that at that time I was actually quite pleased to hear the Hon. Kevin Foley make that particular statement. I am sick, as is my party, of us being the laughing stock of Australia, for being a backward state that just will not make things happen. A significant thing that people are forgetting with regards to the proposed development in Victoria Park is that the actual footprint on Victoria Park was going to reduce. Those who are concerned about this particular development will not acknowledge the fact—

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan: Name one thing you've supported.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: We still do not support the trams; it is a joke—$30 million. With those few remarks, I am happy to close the debate. I look forward to the committee stage and the speedy passage of the bill. I look forward to members' general support.

The council divided on the second reading:


AYES (9)

Darley, J.A. Evans, A.L. Hood, D.G.E.
Lawson, R.D. Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I.
Schaefer, C.V. Stephens, T.J. (teller) Wade, S.G.

NOES (8)

Bressington, A. Finnigan, B.V. Gazzola, J.M.
Holloway, P. (teller) Hunter, I.K. Parnell, M.
Wortley, R.P. Zollo, C.

PAIRS (4)

Dawkins, J.S.L. Kanck, S.M.
Ridgway, D.W. Gago, G.E.


Majority of 1 for the ayes.

Second reading thus carried.

Bill taken through committee without amendment.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.

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