HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-12-02 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Question Time

ADELAIDE OVAL

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (14:22): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Urban Development and Planning and Leader of the Government in this place a question about the government announcement in relation to the AFL.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

Leave granted.

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Mr President, can you ask him to shut up, please?

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Hon. Bernie Finnigan cannot control himself.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Mr President—

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Last week, the Liberal Party launched a well researched, comprehensive plan for a redevelopment in the city, including a multipurpose stadium with a roof, with 5,000 car parks underneath the stadium—

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: No, listen. You should get the wax out of your ears and listen. The plan provides for 5,000 car parks under the stadium and another 7,500 throughout the rest of the development. Today, we heard the government make an announcement on the run. In fact, the opposition believes that this was to be announced last week, but issues that were prominent in the media overcame the government, so it decided to delay the announcement until this week.

It is interesting to note that this is a $350 million development that appears to have no roof, no direct public transport access and no car parking. My question to the minister is: when there is a Friday night football game, when the car parks in the city are full and it is raining and wet in the Parklands, where will patrons park their cars?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (14:24): I can well recall going to a finals match at Adelaide Oval one year (I think it was Glenelg and Sturt that were playing) at which 60,000 people attended, and those people managed. But, fancy members opposite talking about public transport when, of course, we know that their policy was to scrap public transport. They are still attacking the tram. If you lived in the electorate of the member for Morphett, for example, you would not have any chance of hopping on a tram to get down to Glenelg. You would not be able to do that if members opposite had had their way. In fact, the Glenelg tram line would have had to be closed down because they did not support any upgrading of the equipment.

Let us go through this question. First, they said that their proposal was 'well researched'. Those were the words they used. In fact, it was so well researched that they did not talk to the football or cricket bodies. Fancy coming out with a stadium when you have not spoken to the football league or the cricket association! What on earth is the purpose of coming up with a proposal for a new stadium if you have not even spoken to the people who might use it and make it viable?

In fact, as the statement released by the Premier today reveals, the Treasurer has been working on this matter for 18 months. He has been talking to the football league and SACA for 18 months, while members opposite have someone working in a back room with a computer doing flyovers of big buildings scattered across the area. We have actually been talking to the cricket association and the football league (the AFL), because they are the people who actually matter. That is why today's announcement was so important—because it is finally an agreement between football and cricket to look at using Adelaide Oval. Finally, we have reached some agreement in relation to that. That is progress.

The opposition is suggesting that you can just wake up one morning and say, 'This is a good idea. The Advertiser has been calling for a stadium so, if we come out and offer it as well, it will give us lots of publicity'. That is essentially what has happened to members opposite. They will come up with a stadium and say, 'We won't bother about the details. We won't look at the details; we won't look at how we are going to pay for it; we won't look at who is going to play there; and we won't look at whether it is viable or not. But we will make up a flier and that will look good and people will think that we know what we are doing.' But, of course, they do not, and it never had any credibility.

Part of this proposal was to shift the terminal at Keswick. That has to be one of the greatest examples of squandering $200 million (I think that is the cost) that I have ever heard in my life! It is a completely absurd proposal. Do members opposite know who uses the long distance train line? Do they know who comes in on the train? Do they know who actually travels on it? Have they ever been on an interstate train? If you want to take the Ghan to Darwin, for example, and you have all of your luggage, what could be more convenient than being dropped at Keswick where you can actually get onto a carriage?

Those trains are about 800 metres long. You will not accommodate them. What is more, you would have to have shunting. Why do members opposite think the terminal was moved out there in the first place? It is because there is nothing that they proposed that would address it. It would make it far more difficult and would serve no-one. Also, why would you want to arrive next to an empty stadium? To make it even worse, if you want to go to a hotel, or something like that, you are actually no closer to where—

An honourable member: Build a hotel right there!

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: You are going to build a hotel on the parklands, are you? Anyway, we will get to that later. It has to be one of the dopiest proposals and one of the greatest squanderings of money I have ever heard. It is totally impractical and a complete waste of money. What is more, they were going to sell the land that they do not even own, but that is another story. They have not done their homework.

This lot opposite thinks you can get some graphic designer to pick any part of Adelaide and come up with lots of new buildings and something futuristic. But, do not talk about who might use it. Don't actually deal with any of the details, and don't worry how you might fund it—and they think that is a policy. Well, I have news for them.

In relation to car parks, as I have said, there have been much larger crowds at Adelaide Oval in the past. This government has upgraded public transport—and what this lot is going to do is cut back on public transport. With the new bridge that is to be constructed, it will be far more convenient—and closer—getting to Adelaide Oval from the railway station and from the tramline, which this government is extending. Members opposite want to do away with public transport. They have never believed in it.

We talk about the car parks. Mr Lucas was on radio yesterday totally embarrassing himself talking about 13,000 car parks, I believe it was. Of course, already we see that it has come back to 5,000 today.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The fact is that, in that particular area of the city, it would be much harder to get a car park than it will be around Adelaide Oval. Not only is the government offering a well thought out, sensible proposal that is practical and workable but the AFL and the cricket association actually agree with it. That is the big difference. The fact is that anyone—

The Hon. T.J. Stephens interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Is it? Okay. So, you have agreement with your—

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: Pull me up?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I wouldn't bother pulling him up. Everyone knows that he is a joke. Why would I bother? Is the Hon. Mr Stephens saying that the AFL and the South Australian Cricket Association agree with your proposal?

The Hon. T.J. Stephens interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Are you saying they are going to play on your proposed oval? No, you can't.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Stephens will retract that remark. It was very unparliamentary, and he knows it. I will not tolerate that behaviour. If the honourable member wants to behave like that, perhaps he ought to stand for the other place. I ask the Hon. Mr Stephens to withdraw that remark.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I withdraw.

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