HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-07-06 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ADELAIDE OVAL REDEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: There were some outstanding issues that were raised through the second reading and negotiations around amendments that I think it would be helpful to put on the record at this point in time. As the Minister for Infrastructure has indicated in the other place, the government has shown a great deal of genuineness to accept any amendments which will still allow the project to be delivered within a reasonable time frame and at no greater cost.

To this end, the minister would like to thank the member for Davenport in the other place for his willingness to deal in good faith with the government. The minister is also grateful for the openness of many crossbench members of this council for their goodwill. It must be said that cricket and football have always sought—and continue to seek—greater control over the precinct, but it has been the Minister for Infrastructure's view that the government's role is to find the right balance.

I understand that other members still have amendments today, so I will briefly outline the government's position to the amendments already filed. In relation to changes which provide legislative certainty to the Cresswell Gardens and surrounding areas, the government is accepting of these amendments. In relation to the vehicle which gives the minister control over the core area, the government remains of the view that vesting the land in the hands of the minister and then allowing an 80-year lease of the stadium asset to the SMA is still the desired approach by all parties. The opposition disagrees, and all members can obviously make their points during the appropriate clause.

Amendments from the opposition relating to the grassed northern mound and the protection of Moreton Bay figs will be accepted, as the intent was always part of the government's plans. The government remains concerned about the amendments which specify a transfer date between SACA and the SMA, simply because this matter is still the subject of negotiation between the two sports, the Department of Treasury and Finance and also the Crown Solicitor's Office. So, I will await the comments and reasonings during the debate of these clauses.

Amendments regarding the sinking fund are acceptable to the government because, again, this important work was already underway and simply not part of the bill. The next set of amendments have been the subject of a great deal of work from parliamentary counsel, and I would like to acknowledge their assistance, particularly Richard Dennis. These amendments relate to, and in fact replace, clauses which allow for fair timing and the transparent development approval process for the stadium itself. The government will hear the contributions of other members, but it is comfortable with the current compromise, subject to final legal advice.

Consequent amendments relating to licence terms, parkland controls and the role of the Development Assessment Commission are also acceptable to the government. Amendments relating to the 535 million-dollar taxpayer cap and the role of the Auditor-General are still of some concern to the government. However, I want to be clear that there is no argument over the intent. The government has been adamant that the full taxpayer exposure to the project is $535 million, and any involvement deemed necessary by the Auditor-General is certainly welcome and expected. The member for Davenport is aware of what the government's technical concerns are, and I am happy to discuss them further during the debate.

Finally, the government remains opposed to the amendment which requires rent or a licence fee to be returned to Treasury. The government is of the view that sport should be allowed to be successful and invest profits in junior and country sport. Nevertheless, if the opposition persists with this clause, the government believes that an amount should be set and indexed over a 20-year term to provide sports with certainty beyond the fifth year. The government also believes that any agreed amount should be spent on junior sport rather than simply accept it as general revenue. That is the government's position.

In closing, I understand that the Hon. Mark Parnell is seeking greater detail and controls over public transport planning, and I am informed that the minister as well as the Chief Executive, Rod Hook, are keen to continue these discussions and assurances. I am not yet in a position to respond in relation to the amendments filed by Mr Parnell this morning, as the department is providing advice as we speak on agreeing to the public transport matters. However, the government is opposed to the amendments that provide the Adelaide City Council with the ability to refuse a licence, as it has been a baseline commitment to football and cricket that they have this level of certainty for their business models.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I thank the minister for her response to a number of issues raised in clause 1. I must indicate that I was taking a telephone call when the minister started, so I actually missed the first part of her contribution. I wonder whether it would be possible—if she has not already indicated—for a copy of the statement she read on behalf of the government to be provided to interested members. I know that I am one, and I suspect that other members might be as well. If that was possible through the minister's officers, that would help expedite our consideration of the government's position.

There were certainly, as I heard the second part of the minister's contribution, different words and phrases used in relation to various amendments, ranging from supporting some, not opposing others, awaiting further debate and taking further advice. The government's position clearly in relation to some of these amendments is slightly nuanced in relation to whether it is either outright opposing, supporting or prepared to support at some stage the amendments. If that was possible, it would certainly expedite the debate. Secondly, our understanding is that the government might be seeking advice in relation to amendments to some of the opposition's amendments. Can the minister indicate whether that is the current government position?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: In relation to the first request to make available the outline of the statements made this morning in written form to those members who would like a copy, we are certainly happy to do that. I have been advised that, as I have put on the record in relation to the transport assurances requested by the Hon. Mark Parnell, further advice is being sought in respect of that. In relation to the opposition amendments, I am advised that we are working with parliamentary counsel on contingency positions, depending on the final position of the opposition.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Certainly the current final position of the opposition is the amendments we have drafted, so let us make that clear. If, however, the government comes back and shares possible amendments, we have indicated that we are prepared to consider amendments, but obviously we will need some time for that to occur. My questions are in relation to how we will continue to handle this particular debate, given that set of circumstances and given that we are about to head into private member's business this afternoon and we may well return to government business after private member's business this evening, at the moment my suggestion would be—and I will give some other reasons in a moment—that a sensible course of action may be that, if the government has amendments to some of the opposition amendments, there are two courses of action.

Obviously one is to have those discussions with the member for Davenport and me, and we will see whether we are prepared to incorporate them into our amendments, which would seem to be the cleanest and neatest. If we do not agree with those, the government then has the stage 2 option of moving amendments to our amendments anyway, but it would need to flag those not just to us but to the Independents and minor parties, because they have been briefed and are aware of our amendments at this stage. If there is to be a refinement which we are not going to agree to (I am not speaking on their behalf), I suspect they will want a little time to consider that particular position as well.

I accept that the parliamentary counsel needs to work on whatever it is the government is contemplating, but as soon as that is possible, and the government has considered it, we need to have that discussion with the government's representatives. That is the first thing. If that is where we are heading, my suggestion would be that it would probably make some sense to return to clause 1 later this evening, because I suspect under clause 1 there is going to be clarification of what the minister just said in relation to having a general debate.

I know there are some general issues that we have, and other members have, in relation to the total debate that having a broader ranging debate on clause 1 may well flesh out and help expedite a number of issues in relation to the specific amendments later on. It is essentially a judgement call for the minister in charge of the bill as to whether the government would like to take that particular course of action but, at the moment, as the lead speaker for the opposition, I indicate it would be our view that we are probably not going to be supportive, in the light of what we have just heard, of progressing with detailed amendments in the committee stage if we are still debating possible government amendments to ours as well.

The only other thing I should mention is that we provided this morning, I think, to the government one further amendment from the opposition. If it is not tabled now, it is about to be tabled. I verbally flagged this with the minor parties and Independent members of the chamber; that is, the opposition is tabling an amendment which will seek to ensure that there is a deadlock provision incorporated in the legislation. There is to be a deadlock provision in the partners agreement between football and cricket. We are told that that has not been resolved yet.

Crown law, we understand, is still working on that partners agreement, but we have been provided with the detail of how that deadlock provision is to work. The deadlock provision is that, if the four directors from cricket and the four directors from football are gridlocked, that is, they cannot agree on something, to refer it to the President of the Law Society and he or she would then determine a process for independent arbitration and both sides would agree to abide by the independent umpire's decision on it. It seems an eminently sensible solution, and we are proposing to ensure that that is in the legislation.

The potential problem with the partners agreement is that, if at some stage one of the partners decides to take their bat and ball—or their Sherrin, if I can use a phrase that the Hon. Mr Parnell suggested to me—and go home, it is easy for one of the partners in that partners agreement to tear up the agreement and say, 'We no longer want to agree to this partners agreement.' In those circumstances there would be no mechanism for resolving gridlock: there would be no deadlock provision.

I think, as I said in the second reading, in all my time in the house I cannot think of a body or agency where there was not some form of resolving deadlocks. It is normally a casting vote for the presiding member, there are odd numbers of members on the body, or there is some mechanism to resolve a dispute. In this case, that is proposed to be in the partners agreement and we are suggesting it should be in the legislation. In addition to that, I know the Hon. Mr Parnell has tabled only recently the Greens amendments.

We have been privy to a draft of those over the last 24 to 48 hours, and we appreciate that, but I know there are some other minor party and Independent members of the council who are only seeing it now for the first time. So I think, to allow them the opportunity to absorb their views on those amendments and how they link with ours, etc., a little time would be useful. In summary, my position is, clearly, we need to await the government's response about possible amendments to our amendments. That is the first thing that needs to happen. I have suggested a process of resolving that with the government.

Once that is determined, I have suggested—and this is entirely a matter for the minister—that we could continue with some debate of clause 1 this evening. Certainly, from the opposition's viewpoint, if we see the government's amendments we believe we will be in a position to continue debate on the specific amendments to tomorrow. We obviously cannot speak on behalf of the minor party or Independent members but, certainly from our viewpoint, if we can resolve any possible government amendments to our amendments today, we would be happy to proceed with the detailed committee stage tomorrow and are happy to proceed with a more general discussion this evening which might expedite the committee stage of the debate.

Certainly, from our viewpoint, we have said publicly to the interested stakeholders—and also to the media—we are working (as, I think, everyone is) within the government's desired time frame of resolving the legislation before the end of this session, that is, two sitting days this week and four sitting days in the final week of session.

Certainly, from our viewpoint, our expectation would be that we should be able to resolve this no later in the council than, say, the first Tuesday of the last sitting week, that is, we might not get through it all tomorrow. There might be tidy-up or consequential amendments which we might need to resolve on that Tuesday, which would then give the government its desire of having the legislation resolved by the parliament before the end of this session.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that, at this point in time, there is only one outstanding matter for the government to consider, and that is in relation to a matter concerning the member for Davenport, which he has indicated he wanted further thinking time on. He has not got back to us in respect of that one matter, but, at this point in time, that would be the only matter that remains outstanding that we are aware of.

Discussions have occurred well in the past, I expect them to continue into the future, and our officers are available and the minister is available to engage in those conversations and discussions when needed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

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