HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-06-22 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ADELAIDE OVAL REDEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 21 June 2011.)

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (12:22): I rise to briefly speak to the Adelaide Oval Redevelopment and Management Bill. I attended a briefing with other members of the Legislative Council about the redevelopment of the Adelaide Oval, and I have to say that the concept of what we saw is very exciting. I think it creates a new kind of precinct for South Australia that will basically draw people into the city and, at the same time, move us up in the scale of how our capital cities are seen.

However, in saying that, I have been opposed to the redevelopment of the Adelaide Oval or, in fact, even the building of a new sports stadium, and I put that on the record as early as last April, when the Hons Dennis Hood, John Darley, Robert Brokenshire and I were dubbed by the media as the Legislative Council's gang of four when we were talking about the razor gang that was going to slash jobs from the Public Service.

Yesterday, the Hon. Kelly Vincent spoke quite eloquently about the priorities that should and need to be dealt with in this state before we start building big monuments to governments, and that is how I see this redevelopment. The timing of it is nothing more than something that people can drive by and see, touch and feel before the next election. It is at the expense of people with disabilities and it is at the expense of injured workers who, for a number of reasons, are dealing with that dysfunctional system and who are left hanging like shags on a rock, without income and without enough money to feed their family and for medications.

There are a whole range of people in our community who are disadvantaged, sick and vulnerable who are going to have to go without so that this government can put this extravagant monument in place now. As I said, the whole concept is all very exciting. I saw the designs, and I am impressed, but I do not believe that, for this state right now, this should be considered to be a priority. I know that what we are debating here is about the divvying-up of the Parklands and car parking and all of that. The Adelaide Oval will go ahead regardless of the views of Kelly Vincent or me or anybody else in here.

It is very difficult to make any comment on the actual bill that we are discussing when I have not seen amendments as yet. Until I can consider those amendments and what they mean, it is very difficult to comment on whether I will be supporting them or not. I have met with members of the Adelaide City Council, who have expressed their views, and I am taking those into consideration, as well.

I just wish this government, at some stage, would get back on track. As Monsignor David Cappo said, it has lost its moral compass. I believe that to be absolutely true. We crossbenchers have put up bills in this place to try to bring about some sort of reform to the child protection system but to no avail. 'Unintended consequences' is what we get thrown at us all the time for whatever bills we put up.

What are the unintended consequences of this development going ahead now, when this state is obviously broke and the government is using every opportunity to claw back money from those who can least afford it? I think that this is a shameful thing—I really do. If it had been in four or five years' time and we were in better financial condition I would be all for it but the timing is so wrong for the people of this state.

I was speaking to somebody yesterday who said they were flat out getting 38,000 at a footy game, and they do not even think they will get that. We are going to have a stadium down there and we do not even know if we are going to fill it yet. We do not even know if it is going to be utilised to its potential, but there is a rush on to have this huge complex built and have the money spent on it now that we cannot afford.

As I said, I believe it is so that the Hons. Mike Rann and Kevin Foley and this government have got something to point at in 2014 to say, 'Look what we did', but not listen to the voices of people out there who are actually hurting. With that, I conclude my comments and look forward to the committee stage.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (12:27): Obviously, the Hon. Rob Lucas is the lead speaker for the opposition on this bill, but I do wish to make some comments. Initially, I want to pick up on a couple of comments the Hon. Ann Bressington made, and particularly one of the ones—

The Hon. A. Bressington: Bressington!

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Bressington.

The Hon. A. Bressington: Don't I get an 'honourable' or an 'Ann'?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I did say the Hon. Ann Bressington.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order! This is not a conversation. The Hon. Mr Ridgway has the call.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Thank you for your assistance, Mr Acting President. The honourable member made the comment that she did hope that, at some point in the future, this government would get back on track. I would like to remind her that this government will never get back on track, regardless of who is in charge.

I know there are a lot of people (Leon Bignell and others) who are agitating for a change of leader, and I suspect we will see some change and I suspect even a proroguing of parliament and what will be portrayed as a new beginning when we come back in September, but make no mistake: it will be the same horse with just a different jockey heading down the same forlorn race that they are on. Do not ever be misguided that they will ever get back on track.

The Hon. Ann Bressington also made a comment about a better financial position. As we look at the budgets over the last nine years we should be in a better financial position; we should not be in the position we are in today. Sadly, we are, and that is symptomatic of this particular government. It is interesting to look back over the history of this proposed development. I am reminded of the courageous, bold and visionary policy that the Liberal Party released about having a covered stadium in the city and bringing football into the city. Of course, at the time, the government poured a bucket of cold water on that.

In fact, during the last election campaign in the seat of Playford (which is the now Treasurer's seat) where we had a very good candidate, Kerry Faggotter, running for the Liberal Party, she provided me with copies of letters that constituents had received from their local member, Jack Snelling, talking about Labor's great achievements. The great achievements were about law and order, health, education, the mining boom and all of the wonderful things that this government spins about all the time, but there was a PS on the bottom of it saying, 'We will not be spending any of your taxpayers' money on ridiculous football stadiums in the city.' How things have changed.

I have had a number of meetings and I know the opposition has had a number of meetings with various proponents, whether it is the cricket association, the South Australian National Football League or the AFL. I do not really wish to go over most of what the Hon. Rob Lucas said, although I think that it is interesting to note one of the meetings the Leader of the Opposition and I had with Andrew Demetriou from the AFL in Melbourne. I suspect that his sentiments were that he was not interested. We know he is extremely well paid to represent football, but he had no concern for soccer or any other particular activities that may take place at this particular venue.

I know he is well paid and he is there to do the AFL's bidding. Sadly, he is not a South Australian taxpayer—or maybe that is a good thing—so he does not have to have a view or be concerned about what other activities might take place at this new venue, and whether it is an appropriate design and a wise use of taxpayers' money. In fact, I was almost a little offended that, given there were a number of people at the meeting, he accused me of being a stooge for soccer when, in fact, I have been an AFL football fan for some decades now.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: A long-suffering Carlton supporter.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Hon. John Dawkins calls me 'a long-suffering Carlton supporter'. The suffering is not so great this year. In fact, in third spot, I think we are well placed to have a reasonable showing in the finals. Having said that, I was a bit disappointed with the approach from the AFL, in a sense, because they certainly did not care about any aspects, other than Aussie rules, at this particular venue.

I recently attended the UDIA's (Urban Development Institute of Australia, South Australian division) lunch where Leigh Whicker gave a presentation on the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval. With him was a public servant who is very well respected throughout government and the community, Manuel Delgado. My understanding is that he is the project manager within DTEI for that particular project. I sat next to Manuel and we talked about a whole range of issues in relation to transport and pedestrian studies. He and I both felt that it was appropriate and proper that I write to the minister and request a briefing from Manuel on some of the aspects of the design and what the government is planning to do.

Clearly, there will be a lot of scrutiny of the actual design of the stadium and grandstands, but I was more interested in transport movement, transport planning, pedestrian planning and pedestrian movement. That meeting was arranged for last week and it was to be held at the Stadium Management Authority's office. I was a little surprised that Mr Leigh Whicker, from the Stadium Management Authority, and Mr David Johnson from Mott MacDonald were there, but, sadly, no Manuel Delgado. He may well have been ill and not able to come, but I was still disappointed, having made the contact with him.

He was the person I wanted to speak to. He has been involved in this particular part of Adelaide as a project manager for this government and the previous Liberal government when it had a Riverside redevelopment project underway. While those things have all changed and evolved over time, he is someone who has been intimately involved for a long time. I would have liked to have had an opportunity to discuss some more details about exactly how we are going to move people in and out of this precinct.

It is interesting to look at some of the design issues in relation to this stadium, particularly transport. We know that the government is trying to sell this as linking people to public transport, yet we had a proposal that put a stadium right where all the railway lines meet. Sadly, we are having a hospital built there, which is not using the train network to take people to or from it. It seems a bit strange that you would build a hospital right where you could have a wonderful transport orientated development, yet you do not use that transport network to transport people to and from the hospital.

In terms of transport planning, the numbers that have been quoted for the crowds and the numbers of people who will come and go by trains, buses or trams are quite significant. If we look at the design of the railway station, everybody has to walk across a bridge that is yet to be built. We are not quite sure who is actually paying for that bridge, but it will funnel in people. It is between Parliament House and the Railway Station and Casino, or in the end door of the Railway Station entrance. I really think that there needs to be a lot more work done to the Railway Station.

Members would be aware that, often, there are two trains at each platform but, as a pedestrian coming into the Railway Station, you will have to walk to the end train to fill that first before it leaves and if you are on the first train you will have to sit and wait for the next train to fill. I did raise with the two gentlemen at the briefing whether any work had been done on a second entrance into the railway station at the other end of the platform so that you could fill all the trains at the same time. I was surprised.

Because Manuel Delgado was not there, there may well have been some work done, but Mr Whicker and Mr Johnson looked surprised, and said, 'Well, that's actually not a bad idea, but nobody's thought of that.' As members would know, I do not come to this place with any great expertise in planning or transport, but I was a little bit surprised to hear from people that it has not been thought of before because, certainly, you would get better use of your asset and the facilities if you could load trains from both ends.

Car parking and, in particular, bus parking are also of some concern. In the Budget and Finance Committee some months ago a number of issues were raised. It really looks as if there were some costs being shifted from the stadium budget to the transport budget, particularly in relation to bus unloading and loading areas. It is similar to what we see at Football Park, where, while it is a long way from the city, bus transport to and from AAMI Stadium does work well. I will tell members about an experience I had.

My son and I went to the football. We were sitting next to my colleague the Hon. Terry Stephens, and his wife. My son and I had taken the bus from Mitcham. Terry and Donna had driven their car to Footy Park and parked in a friend's driveway. At the completion of the match my son and I made a beeline to the bus, jumped on the bus and headed back to Mitcham, with the understanding that, when we arrived at the Torrens Arms Hotel, I would ring my wife and we would wait there.

So, I rang my wife, ordered a beer, and then thought I would ring Terry to see how far he had progressed. He was still in his car in a queue outside AAMI Stadium. Clearly, the bus network delivered me back to my suburb in about half an hour, and the car network was somewhat clogged. Clearly, public transport has worked well with the buses at AAMI Stadium, notwithstanding the problems on a Friday night, when all the buses are being used around the city to take people home on normal bus routes rather than being out at Football Park, and the need to hire extra buses to deal with that.

I am also a little concerned about car parking. There is one suggestion that I thought a government should take up—and I know costs are always a problem. We have the parade ground across the road, and maybe that needs to be a joint venture between a federal government, the state government and the RSL. That could be excavated to put a multistorey car park below ground. Once some of the costs have been sufficiently recovered, that should be bequeathed to the RSL to provide some income for our returned servicemen and the great work that the RSL does. It is a perfect site for a car park.

By doing that sort of work to it, it would mean that the surface would be preserved for the normal RSL activities and other activities that happen on the parade ground. I have been there for the Lord Mayor's Australia Day ceremony, and it is often used for a range of other activities—meeting points before the City to Bay, etc.—but at the end of the day there would be an income stream for our RSL, which, I think members would all recognise, does a wonderful job in our community. They are always somewhat strapped for cash. So, in a roundabout way, some sort of arrangement may well arrive at the RSL having some income derived from that. Again, that was something that I do not believe has been considered at any great length, and certainly no consideration has been given to cutting the RSL in on the deal and giving them a share of the action, so to speak.

The pedestrian access is something that concerns me. I recall a few weeks ago that Melbourne Victory were here playing Adelaide United at Adelaide Oval in a soccer match. I think that, while this state is a passionate supporter of AFL football, we know that soccer fans can be extremely passionate. We saw on that particular evening the Melbourne Victory fans and the Adelaide United fans having a crack at each other, challenging each other, jibing each other, and I know that police had a barricade between the two crowds—something like the barricades we see at roadworks on the sides of roads—so that there was an access route between them. The police were patrolling it. It was about a metre or two metres apart.

As the crowds became more and more agitated, because they were the plastic-type barricades, the police were able to move them further apart. It ended up towards the end that they were some 30 metres apart. There were projectiles being thrown from one group to the other, and I am not sure who was throwing. The police have advised me unofficially that there were $2 coins, $1 coins and 50¢ coins being thrown into the other crowd, but I am not sure who was doing the throwing.

In the end, the tension was so great that a decision was made by the Adelaide Oval authorities and the police to open a fence or a gate and allow the Melbourne Victory fans to exit the Oval out onto Morphett Street towards the Morphett Street Bridge. They then closed off that road for about 45 minutes to an hour to allow the Melbourne Victory fans to exit the precinct without there being a riot or punch up and people being injured and a civil disorder happening.

My concern is that this project is being proposed as a multipurpose facility for footy, soccer, cricket and concerts. How do they propose to manage that type of crowd behaviour in this facility? There is no way to put barricades around it, or are you going to close off part of the stadium's seating as a natural barricade to stop them? How are you going to get the people out of the stadium in that fashion? Will there be the capacity to segregate the crowds and have, in this particular case, the Melbourne Victory exiting over the new bridge over the Torrens and Adelaide United fans down across the King William Street Bridge or the Morphett Street Bridge? I think that members do not really understand that this is being portrayed as a multiuse facility, but in the end it has been purely Aussie Rules that has dominated the design of it.

I would also like to touch briefly on planning, in particular on some of the decisions that this government has made. While we are not talking about hospitals, I will just quickly indulge myself and go back to the planning decision that was made for the Royal Adelaide Hospital where no expert advice was sought by the government. I think we all accept that the current government wanted to build a new hospital, and they are going ahead with the new hospital.

I think where they really failed this community was in choosing a site that clearly everybody you speak to says it is not the best site for a hospital—whether it is the developers, planning experts, some of the consultants I met on a recent TOD tour. Without a doubt, they all say that it is not the best site for a hospital, that it was a poor planning decision to locate it there. In fact, I have been at a function—in fact, at the soccer watching Adelaide United play at Adelaide Oval a couple of years ago—when I spoke to two senior union officials who said to me, 'Actually your idea is better than ours, but we are locked in with the current government's proposal.' That is what really upsets me. I am quite relaxed about the government choosing to build a new hospital, but it should not choose a site that is inappropriate, locking us out of future opportunities.

Clearly, if the government had been truly visionary and on track—as the Hon. Ann Bressington would like to see—it should have realised that we were going to have footy in the city. We agree with footy in the city. If the government had given a bit of ground and chosen a different site for the hospital, and if it had chosen the site that we chose for a stadium, we would have had a better outcome. Sadly, we did not have that.

It is interesting to note that Jan Gehl, a Danish urban design expert, came to Adelaide 10 years ago and did some work for the then Liberal government and also the City Council—a little joint venture on reconnecting the city with the Torrens and bringing that all in together. It worked 10 years ago. In fact, Jay Weatherill, who was the minister for local government and planning, went to Sydney, I think, and collected a national award for that particular body of work.

Sadly, none of the recommendations that Jan Gehl provided have been taken up by this government, yet he is coming back as a Thinker in Residence. I did not actually have discussions with him on the location of the hospital but I did with some of his staff, who indicated that they were not entirely certain that a thorough independent assessment had been done of the best possible uses for that particular piece of land.

I will quickly talk about planning. That is an issue that will be covered in our amendments, but I think people should be reminded again that it was this government that made it very clear that it wanted proper planning processes to take place if anything happened in the Parklands, and that the state government should not override our important Parklands.

At the Stadium Management Authority meeting last week, they were somewhat concerned about the planning proposals and that our amendments may slow the project down. I reminded Mr Whicker and Mr Johnson that it was premier Rann and deputy premier Foley—I do not think minister Conlon was involved at that stage—who were at the Adelaide Oval in December 2009, with the AFL, SACA and the SANFL announcing what they were going to do. If they were really serious and it was more than just an election stunt to try to nullify the opposition proposal, they would have instigated a rezoning and had all the planning approvals in place to start that in December 2009. They have not started it at all, and you have to ask yourself exactly how serious they are.

Likewise, when we learnt that the South Australian Cricket Association had been negotiating behind the back of the SANFL with the AFL, we assumed that maybe they had done some work and had some discussions with the government, realising that they would need to have some rezoning and development approvals. One would assume that that work would have started being done by SACA but, clearly, it was not, and I think this is why we have this particular proposal today.

Just on SACA, I am a member and I voted electronically, but I am somewhat disappointed. I am very relaxed with the result. I am not concerned with the result, but I am very surprised that SACA has not released the details of the ballot. I just cannot understand why it would not do that. I will now formally ask the minister to provide details of the SACA vote to this chamber.

The Hon. P. Holloway: That's up to SACA.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Hon. Paul Holloway interjects that it is up to the SACA. I just think that—

The Hon. P. Holloway: We don't conduct SACA elections.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: You like to think that you are part of a transparent, accountable government, yet you have a group that will not release the details of its ballot. I am a member; I pay my fees and I will be a member of the new group. I want to know, and I am asking the minister today to provide details of that.

While I am talking about SACA, and in particular their negotiations with the AFL that I think go back about three years, what I am really quite surprised about is the actual design of the stadium. We have seen SACA spend $85 million, or more than that—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: $115 million.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: $115 million, I am reminded by my colleague the Hon. Rob Lucas—on the Western Stand during the period they were negotiating with the AFL to get football there, knowing that they would need to spend significantly more to have a facility that would hold 50,000 people.

Mr President, I know you have travelled our state extensively. I do not know of any country football ground that has its main stadium, the biggest one, facing west into the wind, the rain and the sun. I do not know of any. The only one we see is the one at Victoria Park that nobody has used for 100 years because it faces the wrong way—and now we are spending some money to renovate it, and I am not quite sure what that will be used for. That is what surprises me about this, Mr President. Clearly, the most sensible place to have your biggest grandstand is on the western side. That provides protection for the patrons from wind and rain and, of course, in the middle of summer, from sun.

I have often joked about this, and I know it is not possible, but I know there will be some wonderful corporate facilities provided in this new stadium and, because the Hons. Kevin Foley and Mike Rann, Mr Whicker, Mr McLachlan and others all think we should have the biggest grandstand on the east, facing the sun, the rain and the wind, maybe we should as taxpayers provide them with a fully serviced, fully catered set of seats, right out in the sun, the rain and the wind.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: At the front.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: At the front, so they have a really good view. If they think it is good enough for everybody else to sit in the sun, the rain and the wind, maybe they should be out there with them. I am reminded of the number of times I have been a guest in facilities at the Adelaide Oval and watched the people in the Chappell stands squinting and looking into the sun. I have been there myself as a guest, being burned to a crisp or with the rain blowing in on me.

So I am really not convinced that we as a state and as a group of people, when we have been negotiating with the AFL on that grandstand for three years, behind the back of the SANFL, should not have come clean and said, 'Let's do something big and grand and get it right.' Clearly, this stadium will have difficulties because the people sitting in the eastern grandstand will be facing the wind, the rain and the sun.

This is notwithstanding the drip line. I am told that 77 per cent of patrons will sit under the drip line. We are not in the tropics. When it rains here, it usually blows a bit of wind as well. In the tropics it tends to drop straight down, but you will get wind swirling around and I am sure there will be a far greater number of people than 23 per cent getting wet when it rains, and I am sure in the middle of summer when it is 42º and the sun is beating into that eastern grandstand it will be pretty hot and uncomfortable in the stand.

Notwithstanding that, I think there is 45 millimetres more leg room in this stand than at the MCG, Etihad Stadium and some other stadiums. While I know the designers are doing the best work they can to make the stadium comfortable, I suspect that may be a recognition that it will get pretty hot and sweaty in the middle of summer.

While I accept that the project is going ahead and I am sure it will be a first class development and a lot better than what we have at AAMI Stadium, I think it is recognition that the Liberal Party was right that the community wants footy in the city. It is a shame the government could not see that and show a bit of statesmanship and acknowledge that it has the opposition on board. We only get one opportunity in a lifetime, or several lifetimes. AAMI Stadium was built in the 1970s and it has taken 40-odd years to get to this point. I suspect, whatever the future holds for sporting venues in the city, it is 40 or 50 years further off again for anything that might happen in the future.

It is a shame that, with regard to this once in a two or three generation decision, this government, that likes to think it is forward and visionary thinking, did not say to the opposition at the time, 'We understand now that everyone wants footy in the city. Let's sit down and work out the best possible solution and maybe come to a compromise.' It is a shame the government did not come to the opposition and say, 'We will shift the location of our hospital, but we want your support.' The Hon. Paul Holloway smiles. I suspect you would be very surprised—

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Hon. Paul Holloway says that you could fit an oval there; the work has been done, but that is your narrow-minded, closed-minded view of things. If you were a statesman, not just a mining legend, you could have been a proper legend and come to the table and sat down with the opposition and said, 'Right, we have two things.'

You had the opposition prepared to spend a billion dollars or more on a rebuilt new hospital on the current site. We had everybody arguing about football in the city. So, both major parties wanted footy in the city, and both major parties wanted to spend a billion or more on a health facility. Surely, it would have made sense to bring the groups together, sit down—

The Hon. R.P. Wortley interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: You are the poodle of the state parliament with that haircut. Where did you get it done—at Dora's Dog Dressings? We had an opportunity—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I might be jealous that he has hair but not of his hairdo or his hairstyle—but I am being distracted. We did have an opportunity with both major parties and, I believe, the Greens. From my discussions with the Hon. Mark Parnell before the election, the Greens were prepared to listen to the concept of a new multi-purpose stadium in the city that embraced public transport and cycling.

For once in this state's history, we actually had all major parties somewhere on the same page but, sadly, this government could not see that. Their arrogant, narrow-minded, selfish approach to it has meant that we will now end up with something that will not be as good as we could have had. The Adelaide Oval redevelopment is significantly better than what we have at AAMI Stadium, but it will not be as good as we could have had, and it will be 40 or 50 years more before we revisit any future sporting facilities.

I think the legacy of this government is the decision it has made, especially when you revisit the letters that I saw Jack Snelling had written to his constituents stating that they would not be sending a cent of taxpayers' money on ridiculous football stadiums in the city. Clearly, this was a knee-jerk reaction from a government that was ahead in the polls at the time and did not really think that they—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Well, exactly. We know that the AFL and the government are very close together. But having said that, you had everybody on the same page—

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I had a meeting with Andrew Demetriou. His concern was that we could not be in government for another four years.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Andrew Demetriou's concern with the opposition's proposal was that it was four years further away. He wanted something straightaway; he was not prepared to wait for four years. If both could have been delivered in the same time frame, I know what one he would have chosen, because football wants its own facility; it does not want to share with SACA.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Hon. Paul Holloway is getting his knickers in a knot. What I said is that we had all the major players: football wanted to come in, the current government wanted football in the city, the Liberals wanted football in the city, and the Greens were prepared to look at it. When we had everybody on the same page, that is when this government should have stood up and shown some leadership and said, 'Let's come up with the best possible outcome for South Australia,' instead, we have the second best possible outcome.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.


[Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:18]


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