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

ADELAIDE OVAL REDEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 6 July 2011.)

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Just in addressing some general comments on clause 1 before some questions, can I indicate to members that, since we last discussed this issue—whenever that was—I have consolidated my amendments into what is under my name as [Lucas-4]. So, those amendments in bill files [Lucas-2] and [Lucas-3] can be discarded.

As I have indicated to a number of the Independent and minor-party members, [Lucas-4] is just a consolidation of [Lucas-2] and [Lucas-3]. However, it has added, I think, two or three amendments as a result of suggestions from the government. I think, as I indicated when we were last discussing the issue, I was aware that the government was working on some possible amendments of its own.

I indicated that, if the government, the member for Davenport and the opposition could reach agreement, we would incorporate the agreed parts within our package of amendments. We have done that, so that is the only further change in relation to what is now before you as [Lucas-4]. The government will speak for itself. It may well be that it has other amendments of its own and will, obviously, either support or oppose various parts of the amendments that I have under [Lucas-4] as well.

I just alert members that, with the very last amendment in [Lucas-4] on page 12—the deadlock provision—the parliamentary counsel has just drafted, again, a further clarification of that as a result of an issue that has been raised from, I think, the SMA, through the government, if that is a fair description of how it has come about. Parliamentary counsel is in the process of tabling that. Given the time available today, I suspect we might not get to that particular provision this afternoon. If we do, then I will further explain it at that stage.

With that, I just turn to some general questions, appropriately asked at this stage. In the House of Assembly there was general discussion about the possibility that one of the amendments the opposition was going to move was a requirement to ensure that this project went before the Public Works Committee process. I think the minister in charge of the project has indicated somewhere that that was the government's intention, and that it still is, but we seek from the minister here today, in the house, a commitment from the government that the project will go through the normal Public Works Committee process.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that yes, it will.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The second issue is in relation to car parking. As the minister, and anyone who has followed this debate, will be aware, car parking has been one of the thorny issues through the whole discussion on the project, and I guess it will continue to be a thorny issue. I just want to clarify whether, under the government's current project proposal, the total number of car parks within the precinct of the four main roads that we are talking about is 1,450 in the northern car park area plus 400 in the underground car park. Is the total 1,850 or is there another element in relation to Adelaide Oval No. 2 that should be added to that number?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that 1,450 in the northern car park is correct, and that includes Adelaide No. 2. Negotiations are continuing as to the number of car parks that will be provided in the underground facility.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: This is clearly not an issue that the minister will be able to resolve today, and I do not seek that, but there is an ongoing issue as to whether or not, when the tenders come in, the $535 million that this bill will legislate (we assume) to put a cap on the project will be sufficient for the project. One of the key parts of the project is obviously car parking, and the current proposal is for 400 car parks underground on the eastern side—and we will come to an amendment in relation to Victor Richardson Road in a moment, because that is obviously part of this issue. Can the minister guarantee that, if there is a blowout in the project cost, the government will not consider jettisoning the underground car park proposal as a way of reducing costs for this project?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The advice is that we expect there will be no blowout in the project proposal, and therefore we do not anticipate any changes to the considerations in which we are still participating in relation to the number of car parks.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We understand that nothing will be known and finalised until the tenders come in, so I accept that, but is it not correct that current estimates do indicate that the current estimated cost is significantly above the $535 million?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that we are still working through estimates. However, in terms of the car parking, the honourable member should feel reassured as there are other ways of paying for car parking, such as through private commercial arrangements. So, as I have said, we remain confident.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I indicate that I do not intend to prolong the debate with unnecessary politicking at this stage; I just want to ask the questions. I do want those avid readers of Hansard to note that the minister, first, has not responded to the question as to whether the current estimates of the project cost are significantly above $535 million and, secondly, did not answer (on advice; I accept that) the earlier question whether she could guarantee that the 400-car underground car park would not be jettisoned in the event that there was a blowout in the total costs.

As I said, I accept that the minister can put into the public record only the advice she receives from the government's advisers on the issue. We are not in a Budget and Finance Committee stage, where we can continue to grill officers, as opposed to ministers, so I do not intend to prolong the debate, but I did want to put that on the record. The government's advice at the moment is that there is a very significant blowout in the cost of the project and, advisedly, the government's position is, 'Let's wait for the tenders.'

I accept that because, hopefully, the tenders will come in significantly below the current estimates, but the concern I have is that, if the tenders do not come in below the current estimates, which is obviously the ideal situation, the government will then have to start jettisoning various elements of the project, and one of the key ones is this issue of car parking.

We need to trace the history of this. When football first came into this debate, supposedly, one of their non-negotiable conditions, which clearly was not, because they have negotiated on it, was 3,800 car parks within the precinct. There was some doubt as to whether or not the precinct included Pinky Flat but, certainly, it meant north of the Torrens.

Clearly, even with the underground car park, we are working on around about 1,850 car parks. The government and football have compromised, obviously—this is all give and take—and are accepting that south of the Torrens there are going to be, I assume, private and some partially government-funded projects, which will provide further car parking in relation to this. If there was to be a loss of another 400 underground car parks in the project within the precinct, then it would be a significant blow, in my view, to the attractiveness and viability of the project. I list that as a concern and note the minister's responses to the questions.

When we come to some of our other amendments, the bill is seeking to amend—and we are amending—various issues in relation to Victor Richardson Road. Our understanding is that the changes to Victor Richardson Road are essentially as a result of needing to get access to the underground car park and to continue to provide traffic access off King William Road via a new and slimmer Victor Richardson Road (I guess it will still be called that) into the underground car park.

If, however, the car park gets jettisoned because of budgetary issues, then some of the changes we are going through in relation to Victor Richardson Road may not have been necessary as a result of it being a different project. Given that we will not be in a position and we will not hold it up beyond the final sitting week of this session to get final answers on that, our only opportunity to flag these issues for the government and its advisers to consider is to do so now because, if there is a possibility of no underground car park because of cost issues, then the government needs to consider whether or not the changes it wants in the bill in relation to Victor Richardson Road and that part of the precinct would still be required.

The dilemma I have, obviously, is that I am sure if I asked the government on the appropriate clauses: 'If we don't have a car park, are you still going to need these changes?' the government's response will be, 'Well, we expect we are going to have a car park,' and therefore I will not get an answer to them. All I can do at this stage is flag the issues. If the government is prepared, when we get to the Victor Richardson Road amendments, to canvass the hypothetical issues of whether its position would change if there was to be no underground car park, I would welcome a government response in relation to that when we get to those particular provisions.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Under current planning, when does the government expect to proclaim the act, if passed?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that we anticipate around November this year, if all goes to plan.

Clause passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Page 3—

After line 7—Insert:

and

(e) the land referred to in section 11;

Line 10—Delete paragraph (b)

I will seek the continuing guidance from parliamentary counsel on this issue, but I believe amendments Nos 1 and 2 are closely related. Amendment No. 1 adds the area of Victor Richardson Road that is closed to the core area. This was a suggestion that had been made to all of us by the Adelaide City Council and other interested stakeholders. I think it is relatively straightforward, and amendment No. 2 is a consequential amendment in relation to amendment No. 1.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I rise to give government support to these amendments. The government obviously has been very clear about preserving the features of the Adelaide Oval in the park setting.

Amendments carried.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Page 3, after line 14—Insert:

(da) land that, immediately before the commencement of this Act, constitutes the Creswell Gardens or the Pennington Gardens West; or

This is again an amendment that has arisen as a result of discussion with the Adelaide City Council and other interested stakeholders. This simply takes Creswell Gardens and Pennington Gardens out of the licence area so that they stay under the care and control of the Adelaide City Council.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government supports this amendment. The government has been very clear about preserving the features of the Adelaide Oval in a park setting. We intend to preserve Creswell Gardens and Pennington Gardens as open space, and these areas will not be used for parking. We will not oppose this amendment, which puts the land back under the control of the Adelaide City Council if the government can be satisfied on three points:

First, the government needs to be able to build the project in a manner that enables cricket to continue at the oval during the construction period. Clearly, any use of this area to support the construction of the project will be temporary, and full remediation of the area would be required.

Second, the government and sports want to be assured that the relevant authority, if it is to be the council, will not allow any ambush marketing to occur within this area on game days for either football or cricket.

Third, there needs to be clarity about a responsibility for cleaning up the area and rectifying any damage that may be associated with game days.

Under the government's proposal, the SMA would have taken responsibility for all this. Under the proposed amendment, responsibilities are not clear.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I have a general question on clause 3 as I flagged in clause 1, that is, is the government prepared to comment on this: if there was not to be an underground car park under the eastern grandstand, will the government continue to make the changes to the Victor Richardson Drive area that are currently envisaged in the project?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that there will be an underground car park, and we still propose to repave Victor Richardson Drive.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I understand that Victor Richardson Drive will be a narrower, more streamlined version than currently exists. Is that the case?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised: yes.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Page 3, lines 32 and 33—Delete subclause (1) and substitute:

(1) The Council must, at the request of the Minister, grant a lease to the Minister over all of the Adelaide Oval Core Area, or any part of that area specified by the Minister.

(1a) Subject to this section, a lease under subsection (1)—

(a) must be for a term specified by the Minister (being a term of up to 80 years including any right to an extension or renewal); and

(b) may be subject to such terms and conditions as the Minister may specify after consultation with the Council.

The government's position has been made clear in clause 4, Care, control and management of land vested in the minister. Subsection (1) provides, 'Subject to this act, the care, control and management of the Adelaide Oval Core Area is vested in the minister.' The package of amendments that the Liberal Party is moving has been—and we acknowledge this—as a result of considerable discussion with the representatives of the Adelaide City Council. Certainly, there has been considerable discussion with the member for Adelaide, Rachel Sanderson.

These and a range of other related amendments have been the result of very active lobbying in a public sense from, obviously, the Adelaide City Council, but I acknowledge the passionate advocacy within Liberal Party fora by the member for Adelaide, Rachel Sanderson. She has fearlessly put the views of her constituents on this particular project to our various committees and our joint party room, as we arrived at a final decision on this particular bill.

To be fair—and I am sure government members will recall—former members for Adelaide of Labor persuasion, I suspect, probably put similar views in their party room or their caucus in years gone by. Certainly some of the people most affected by this particular project are going to be constituents of the member for Adelaide, residents in the nearby precincts, in particular North Adelaide, and others who will be impacted by what will be a considerably different Adelaide Oval and Adelaide Oval precinct.

There is no doubt, as I acknowledged in the second reading, that it is impossible, if you are going to spend $600 million plus on a major project, that the range of facilities available to patrons is going to be significantly improved on what exists at the moment, and there is no doubting that it will be potentially a more exciting place for events—not just football and cricket but potentially a range of other events that might be conducted there as well.

That, of course, is going to mean significantly more patrons, significantly more traffic movement, and significantly more parking in the streets. It will also impact on nearby businesses and, obviously, for some of those businesses it will be a good thing, but perhaps for the residents next to a hotel, for example, it might involve some further inconvenience if there are larger numbers of patrons at those hotels as well.

Clearly, these issues are always a matter of balance. They are always a matter of trying to ensure that we see development in the state but that we also, if we can, balance it against the wishes of other stakeholders who have a genuine view and a genuine position to put. Some of those people should not always be portrayed by their opponents as 100 per cent anti-development—some of them might be but I am sure all of them are not.

However, in many cases they wish to put their point of view, they put it passionately and they certainly believe in the views that they put. From the Liberal Party viewpoint, we have been prepared to try to strike at least some compromise between ensuring the project has the capacity to proceed and it being subjected to some significant amendments and certainly, as we will come to later with some of the other amendments, significant new accountability provisions in relation to the expenditure of public moneys.

This is the first of the major amendments. A significant number of the following 10 or 15 amendments are consequential on whether or not this particular amendment passes. The opposition's position, which we put to the committee and seek the support of the committee, is that rather than vesting the Adelaide Oval in the minister forever, this and other amendments will place the core area under an 80-year unconditional lease to the minister.

This technically means—not that it should worry anybody in this chamber, says he looking around the chamber, with the possible exception of the Hon. Kelly Vincent—the parliament of the day will need to revisit these questions. The Liberal Party puts it to the committee that we do not think that is an unreasonable proposition. It is certainly our view that in 80 years' time—clearly, the whole world will have changed—the issues of football and cricket will have changed.

We certainly hope that well before then the finances of the state and the vision of the state are sufficiently raised that the A grade plan of a covered stadium—Etihad Stadium-style that the good people of Melbourne enjoy—will be enjoyed by the good people of Adelaide. That is another debate and I do not intend to delay today with that particular debate.

So, in 80 years it will need to be revisited. We understand, from our discussions with football and cricket, that the issue of 80 years is not a drop-dead issue for them. Again, most of the people in football and cricket are not going to be here in 80 years' time either, it will be their sons and daughters, or grandsons and granddaughters running the planning.

I think their preferred position, and they have spoken for themselves and the government will speak for itself, is to leave it as the government build would leave it; that is, that the minister has absolute control. We are saying, in this amendment and some of the other amendments to an even more significant degree, that there needs to be a bit more of a balance.

In this case this particular part of the package is that there will be an 80-year unconditional lease from the council to the minister, but in 80 years' time the Adelaide City Council and this state parliament will be able to revisit the issue, together with all other stakeholders.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I rise to oppose this amendment. The government believes that there is no need for this amendment. The bill, as it stands, allows for the core stadium area to be vested in the minister and then a lease granted to the SMA, whereas the amendment complicates this arrangement. The Minister for Infrastructure has offered the opposition an 80-year clause, but I understand that was rejected. Therefore, the government cannot support the opposition amendment.

I have to say here that I declare a personal interest in this. I am one of the residents that will be personally affected by this development. I can put on the record that the local member, Rachel Sanderson, certainly does not represent my personal views on these matters.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I rise to put the Greens' position on the record now that we know the government is opposing this amendment. The Greens will be supporting the amendment. The regime proposed by the government in the bill is for the care, control and management of the Adelaide Oval core area to be vested in the minister.

The opposition amendment effectively keeps the status quo in that care, control and maintenance will remain with the Adelaide City Council but subject to an obligation to lease the Adelaide Oval core area back to the minister. People might think that it is a semantic argument because for the next 80 years or so it is likely that the Adelaide Oval will be a sportsground and will not be under the direct and day-to-day management of the Adelaide City Council, they will not be the ones who are mowing the turf, for example.

Yet I think it is important for us to acknowledge the role that Adelaide City Council has played over many years as the general custodian of all of the Parklands, and I think it is sending the wrong message to, effectively, legally alienate this area and hand formal care, control and management to the minister.

The minister will have the ability under the lease that is proposed by this amendment to further sublease the land to the Stadium Management Authority, but the title documents, if you like, for the Adelaide Parklands will show that it is still part of the Adelaide Parklands. This will be even more important when we get onto the licence area, because there are very important principles that have governed—and should continue to govern—the use of the Parklands into the future. So, the Greens will be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I just have a question. I am not actually clear what the difference is between what the opposition is seeking and what the government is seeking with this amendment. So, I need some clarification before I make a final decision.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Under our proposal, as the bill stands, it is quite clear that the minister will manage and lease to the sports. The amendment that the Hon. Rob Lucas has put forward keeps council in the mix, so to speak, as the council will have responsibility for care and control of the area, with the requirement to lease back to the minister. We believe that that lacks clarity and is potentially confusing, which is unnecessary. We believe that our proposal is simpler and clearer in terms of the lines of responsibilities, and the amendment only serves to, if you like, cloud that.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: There are a number of differences, but the specific one is the one I have referred to already, and that is that, under the government proposal, whatever we pass today will be there forever and a day. So, our sons and daughters or grandsons and granddaughters in state parliament and the Adelaide City Council will not get the opportunity in 80 years' time to automatically revisit the issue. So, ours is time-limited—albeit a very long time—in terms of what is going on.

In 80 years' time, this parliament will have to revisit the issue with the Adelaide City Council in some form or another. Under the current government bill that will not have to happen. At any time, of course, a government can come back in before the 80 years if it wants to—or at the 80 years—and revisit the issue, but it would have to go through the parliamentary process. This should be automatic in relation to the 80 years. That is one issue.

The second issue is that this is a package of amendments in relation to the Adelaide City Council but, from the opposition's viewpoint, we accept—I think the important words are—that the lease will be an unconditional lease to the minister. So, whilst under the government bill the minister has the care and control, etc., the council has to issue an unconditional lease to the minister. So, the council cannot say, 'You can have this for 80 years, but we're not going to let you have a football game played there' or, 'We're not going to let you do certain events in the middle of the oval', or whatever else it happens to be. It is an unconditional lease being issued.

In terms of the practical implications, in respect of our package, on the sorts of things that can occur in the Adelaide Oval, our legal advice is that there is no difference at all in relation to what is going to be held at the Adelaide Oval. There is football and cricket, maybe rugby and soccer, and maybe concerts and a variety of other things like that. This will be an unconditional lease that will be issued for 80 years. The difference is that, in 80 years, there will be this automatic revisiting of the whole thing because the parliament and the council would have to have another look.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I rise to point out that, in fact, the government, the Minister for Infrastructure, did offer the opposition an 80-year clause, but the opposition refused to accept that. We have already offered that and it has been rejected. In terms of the unconditional lease, that is not clearly articulated in this amendment at all. If you go to lines 32 and 33, subclause (1), it says:

The Council must, at the request of the Minister, grant a lease...

It does not say 'an unconditional lease': it just says 'a lease'. Again, we think it just brings in a level of potential ambiguity and a lack of clarity that could potentially confuse things in the future. We believe our bill is clearer, more straightforward and less likely to be open to any unintended consequences, shall we say.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I will just add my advice to the Hon. Dennis Hood, given that he has asked the question. I will disagree with the minister in relation to whether or not the lease would be unconditional because the amendment of the Hon. Rob Lucas states that the lease:

may be subject to such terms and conditions as the Minister may specify after consultation with the Council.

If the minister can specify the conditions, then the minister can specify whatever he or she wants. There is an obligation to consult with the council, which is appropriate, but, at the end of the day, this does not give the Adelaide City Council any veto over things in the lease and that effectively makes it an unconditional lease.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Again, I beg to differ. It is a matter of semantics but, if you go to paragraph (b), where we are talking about this being subject to terms and conditions, it says, 'may be subject to such terms and conditions'. Of course, wherever there is a 'may be', it also may be not. It is not 'required to be'. It is not 'must be': it 'may be'. Well, it may not be.

Again, I accept we are getting down to semantics here, but I am saying that this brings in a potential for a lack of clarity that is unnecessary and unneeded. We are still putting the 80 years on the table. If that satisfies the requirement, we are still prepared to look at that, but, as I said, that has been rejected. We believe that, as it stands, it brings in a lack of clarity and a potential ambiguity that is unnecessary and unwise.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I certainly do not argue that is semantics. I think it is legal interpretation of what we are about to pass. It is quite clear. Whilst I am not a lawyer and neither is the minister, the Hon. Mark Parnell is, and I would agree with his legal interpretation of paragraph (b). It is quite clear that we are talking about the terms and conditions the minister may specify. There is no capacity in the legislation, or in the proposed amendment, which allows the council to specify amendments. It is the issue of whether or not the minister wants to specify terms and conditions. It is, on our legal advice, an unconditional lease and it is one of the reasons why we have supported it.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I think that, when we start debating matters 80 years hence, it is something that will be well and truly beyond, as was already said, the lifetime of anyone in this parliament. I think the fact that we are having the debate right now about what these words actually mean suggests that there is potentially the scope for lawyers to also debate what these words actually mean, should it come to that. That is not something we want. We will not support the amendment.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I wish to briefly place on record my support for this amendment. In my second reading contribution I stated very clearly that I do not support this redevelopment as a whole; however, in light of the fact that it is going ahead I will do all that I can to see that it goes ahead in the way that is the least harmful to our Parklands and their surrounds. I see that this amendment assists in doing that, particularly in view of the fact that the Adelaide City Council did bring to the attention of members suggested amendments that it had drafted to achieve that protection of the Parklands.

I think the Liberal amendments echo many of those sentiments, so I support those amendments. With regard to the unlimited debate around the tenure, as has been pointed out I am probably the most likely to be here in 80 years' time, but just in case I am not—which is, admittedly, quite likely—I would rather there be some debate open as to whether this tenure can continue. In light of that, I support this amendment.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I will support the Liberal amendment as well.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Obviously, I can read the numbers and we will not divide, but at this point in time I indicate that we would look at perhaps recommitting this at a later date to consider an amendment to (b) which would remove the words 'may be' and would provide 'must be subject only to such terms and conditions as the minister may specify' to provide greater clarity. I put that on the record for members to consider, and we might consider it at a later date, perhaps at a recommittal.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Page 4—

Line 1—Delete 'The' and substitute:

It will be taken to be a term of a lease under subsection (1) that the

Line 2—Delete 'vested in the Minister' and substitute:

constituting the Adelaide Oval Core Area

These amendments are consequential.

Amendments carried.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Page 4, line 5—After 'square metres of' insert:

grassed

At the moment subclause (c) provides 'at least 1,200 square metres of open space'. This amendment inserts the word 'grassed' after 'square metres of'. The concern we had with the government's drafting was that open space could include getting rid of that wonderful grassed, open area to the north of Adelaide Oval. For example, the drafting would allow—as occurs in many stadia around Australia—terraced concrete areas, which are obviously much easier to maintain.

I guess a variety of other reasons could be given as to why terraced concrete areas might be better for stadia, and in particular the Adelaide Oval. Under the government's bill, that would be entirely possible; that is, the northern area could be a concrete jungle, with the paved area with steps stepped down to the Adelaide Oval surface.

What the Liberal Party is seeking support from members of the committee is to try, to the extent that we can, to preserve that wonderful grassed area to the north, which has been enjoyed by many patrons over the years. Obviously, it will be the last remaining area of what will be almost a fully-enclosed stadia, rather than a cricket oval, as it used to be. We think this is a worthy amendment, which I hope members of the committee will be prepared to support.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government is pleased to support this amendment. It specifies that open space provided for in the bill be grassed. The minister in the other house has said that he is agreeable to this, and the government will therefore support this amendment.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I will not speak very often when the government and the opposition are in agreement, but I do want to place on the record Family First support for this amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Before I move my next amendment, I do have some questions in relation to subclause (3), which we have just canvassed, in relation to the grassed area amendment. This subclause provides that 'the area vested in the minister continues to be named Adelaide Oval' (that is, to protect Adelaide Oval) and that 'the Adelaide Oval Scoreboard is maintained in good condition'.

Can I confirm that there is nothing in the government's bill or approvals which would prevent the Adelaide Oval Scoreboard, for example, being a sponsored scoreboard—the Telstra scoreboard or whatever it might happen to be—should the SMA make those sponsorship decisions in the future?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that there is no intention to change the title of the Adelaide Oval Scoreboard, but I have been advised that there is nothing within the bill that could prevent that from happening.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Obviously, Adelaide Oval will continue to be called 'Adelaide Oval', because that is subparagraph (a), but is there anything in the government's bill that would prevent the SMA taking a decision that Adelaide Oval can be referred to as 'Adelaide Oval, sponsored by Telstra Corporation?'

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Again, I am advised that there are obviously protections in the bill in terms of the naming of the Adelaide Oval: it must continue to be called 'Adelaide Oval'. But I am advised that there is nothing in the bill that would prevent its being referred to as the Adelaide Oval, sponsored by whomever.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Is there anything in the bill that prevents the naming of the stands in the proposed Adelaide Oval project as 'Telstra Stand', 'Optus Stand' or whatever commercial sponsor the SMA might choose to organise?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised no.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Page 4, after line 11—Insert:

(4a) The Minister (or any other person) must not remove or substantially alter any Moreton Bay fig tree (Ficus macrophylla) located within the Adelaide Oval Core Area without the approval of the Council (which approval must not be unreasonably withheld).

This amendment inserts new clause (4a). It is there to do what we can in the legislative sense to protect the Morton Bay fig trees. For many, one of the attractive elements of Adelaide Oval is obviously not only the grassed area but also the Morton Bay figs to the northern end. In looking at the government legislation there was no specific provision we could see that sought to protect the Morton Bay figs from any substantial alteration or removal. This amendment seeks, to the extent that it is legislatively possible, to protect the Morton Bay figs.

The opposition, as I am sure do all members, acknowledges that inevitably some trees die and we assume that will occur with some of the Morton Bay figs. I would hope that they will continue to be replaced by trees of a similar nature, but I guess that will be a decision for the Stadium Management Authority in future. I hope that members see the wisdom of the Liberal Party amendments in seeking to protect these small elements of what is currently very attractive about Adelaide Oval.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government supports this amendment. It is about protecting the famous Morton Bay figs, which obviously give the northern view of the oval much of its beauty. The government always intended to protect the figs and all Parklands, where possible, as they are obviously what make Adelaide Oval such an attractive venue. The government believes it may be more appropriate that the Development Assessment Commission replace the Adelaide City Council in the amendment, given that council has no role within the Adelaide Oval core area under this bill. The government has no problem with the intent of the amendment.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Family First supports the amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I seek a nod from parliamentary counsel: I understand that amendments Nos 9, 10 and 11 are consequential on an earlier amendment and, if agreeable, I move them en bloc:

Page 4—

Lines 12 and 13—Delete subclause (5) and substitute:

(5) A lease under this section (and any use of land under a lease) is not subject to Chapter 11 of the Local Government Act 1999 or section 21 of the Adelaide Park Lands Act 2005.

Line 14—Delete 'On the vesting of the Adelaide Oval Core Area' and substitute:

When a lease is granted

Line 19—After 'Adelaide Oval Core Area' insert:

that is subject to a lease under this section

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: They are consequential, and the government opposes them.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Again I seek a nod from parliamentary counsel: I understand that amendments Nos 12 to 21 are all consequential on an earlier amendment, and so I move them en bloc:

Page 4—

Lines 22 and 23—Delete subclause (1) and substitute:

(1) The Minister is authorised to grant a sublease to SMA over any part of the Adelaide Oval Core Area that is subject to a lease under section 4.

Line 24—Delete 'lease' and substitute:

sublease

Line 24—Delete 'term up to 80 years' and substitute:

period not exceeding the term of the head lease

After line 25—Insert:

(2a) The consent of the Council is not required before the Minister grants a sublease under this section.

Line 26—Delete 'lease' and substitute:

sublease

Line 33—Delete 'lease' and substitute:

sublease

Line 35—After 'may allow for any' insert:

further

Line 36—After 'this Act' insert:

and to the provisions of the relevant head lease

Line 37—Delete 'lease' and substitute:

sublease

Line 38—Delete 'lease' and substitute:

sublease

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: They are consequential and the government opposes them.

Amendments carried.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Mr Chairman, with your guidance, my advice is that the first part of my amendment 22, which is the insertion of subclause (8), is consequential and the second part of the amendment, which is subclause (9), is a new issue. If you are agreeable, I could move the insertion of subclause (8), which is the first part of my amendment 22 as consequential, to tidy that up and then we could proceed to the debate on the next issue.

The CHAIR: That is agreeable to me.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: That is consequential.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Page 5, after line 6—Insert:

(8) A sublease under this section (and any use of land under a sublease) is not subject to Chapter 11 of the Local Government Act 1999 or section 21 of the Adelaide Park Lands Act 2005.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move the remainder of my amendment 22, that is, to insert:

(9) Without limiting section 8A(3), the Minister should use his or her best endeavours to grant a sublease to SMA under this section by 15 March 2012.

This is a new issue and I touched upon it in the second reading explanation, and I have certainly discussed it with the government and Independent and minor party members briefly over the last few days. There is an associated or consequential amendment which is my amendment No. 33, and I will address both issues at the same time.

If I can put it simply first and then perhaps go into some of the detail. As I explained in the second reading, the development that we are considering in this bill has essentially been a partnership, obviously with the government on one side, but a partnership amongst the client groups, football and cricket. The Stadium Management Authority, for however long it has been working on this now—a couple of years, I guess—has been a partnership between football and cricket, the South Australian National Football League and the South Australian Cricket Association.

It is a partnership so much so that they have had equal numbers on the Stadium Management Authority: four directors each, no casting vote, the SACA provided the chairperson and the SANFL provided the executive officer. That was the partnership, or the deal, as they have worked their way through this process with the government and all other stakeholders in relation to this debate. Right through until now, it has been very much a partnership between the two groups.

There is no doubting that, come some time in 2014, if you accept the government's estimates, it will then be a partnership again. It will be football and cricket through the Stadium Management Authority, authorised by this legislation and various leases, which will be running Adelaide Oval, a partnership.

What is deliciously unclear in the government's bill is what on earth goes on in between—between now and 2014. It is the opposition's view, the Liberal Party's view, and it is certainly also football's view, that it should continue to be a partnership between now and 2014; that is, football and cricket collaboratively need to work their way through this period. It will be a difficult process. The bill will have passed, we would anticipate.

I am indicating my understanding that there is a significant blowout in the current estimates of the price, and there are going to be interminable issues needing to be managed by the government in consultation with football and cricket. So, from our viewpoint, it is common sense that football and cricket continue, through the SMA, to take the pre-eminent role on behalf of the client groups, the customers (football and cricket) during this particular period.

We acknowledge—and these amendments do not move away from that—that it is going to be the government, through, I understand, DTEI, that will manage the actual construction projects. However, during that period football and cricket, as the ultimate customers, have a view that they will need to continue to be consulted and to provide advice. There is going to be a continuing role for them through this particular period in relation to the government's management of the contracts, access to the site and all those sorts of issues.

Under the government bill, as I said, it is deliciously unclear as to when the SMA takes responsibility. It can be delayed by the minister to almost 2014 if he so chooses. It is completely at his discretion under the government arrangement. If that occurs, if it was to be left until then, then you have a situation where SACA (the cricket association) would continue to be, in essence, in control of the site. The minister, obviously, will also be in control in relation to the Adelaide Oval project and the development but SACA would continue to be there. Again, it seems to make sense that football and cricket should be partners during this particular period.

I am also told that during this period the Stadium Management Authority is going to need, if it is going to be acting sensibly, to be undertaking a range of other tasks. One of the tasks, obviously, from my viewpoint, should be that as the government manages its project, that the body comprising football and cricket in control down there (in terms of the core area) is able to provide advice to the government in terms of what it intends to do.

Clearly, we do not want to have a situation, as has occurred with the Western Stand—and I highlighted this in the second reading—where in a $115 million development, something as important as toilet facilities in the members' bar area, were omitted from the project design and construction. Clearly, you cannot afford to have those sort of errors occurring in terms of the management and oversight of the project.

Football and cricket will have their input and should have their input in terms of discussions with the government officers in terms of what is going to be required in the project. If there needs to be things cut out then clearly football and cricket, again, should be involved in terms of those ongoing discussions as to what is required, or to say, 'What you are suggesting might look good in theory in terms of cutting the project cost but it will cause these sort of problems.' It is not just cricket, because cricket will have its experience of cricket crowds and its events, in terms of test cricket and one-day cricket, but football people will have experience with football crowds and football events, and they need to be involved.

There are many other issues that the SMA and football and cricket should be getting on with. I am told, for example, that there are two catering divisions owned, operated and controlled by both SACA and SANFL. It would make sense that at an early stage—not waiting until the start of the project—there is exploration of the potential for bringing together the catering arms of football and cricket under joint management and control, with, obviously, the potential reduction in some costs for both constituent bodies.

That is an issue that ought to be considered by football and cricket during this period as the construction is going on. There are many options. There have been no decisions taken, this is just an option in terms of the sort of work that needs to be done in the interim. One option could be some sort of consolidation of the catering function and that consolidated function could then operate both SACA and SANFL separately at Adelaide Oval and AAMI Stadium for the next two years or so, if they so chose.

There are issues relating to ground staff, and they are obviously difficult, but in terms of management of ground staff clearly there are two sets of ground staff at the moment at AAMI Stadium and Adelaide Oval. That is an issue for the Stadium Management Authority. So, they are only a couple of examples that have been highlighted to me of issues that the Stadium Management Authority, collaboratively working together, could be getting on with.

The other issue is the issue of staffing of the SMA. At the moment, I think the government's advice to me has been that the money for the construction is actually going to be channelled through DTEI to the various constructors; the money to pay off SACA's debt will go from SAFA either directly to Westpac or to SACA and then to Westpac, its banker.

The Stadium Management Authority will have an ongoing role in terms of both its staffing and a requirement for working capital in terms of continuing to operate during this particular period. Clearly, it ought to be looking at not only its staffing but that, at the moment, its key executive staff are provided on a full-time basis by SANFL.

My understanding is that that might not be able to continue for the continuing period. Mr Leigh Whicker, for example, is full time at the SANFL and has basically been full time with the SMA over recent years, and the capacity for that to continue in that way for an extended period of time is in doubt. So, it may well be that the SMA needs to start appointing its executive staff and its staff during this period. Clearly, you would not want to be leaving this sort of thing until 2014, or just before 2014, before you started making those sorts of key appointments and those sorts of changes.

I am also told that one of the key issues, and it is already starting with the recent discussions of bailout money for the Crows, is the early discussions relating to marketing packages, sales teams, memberships, etc., prior to 2014 for membership of Adelaide Oval and what that membership will entail and what benefits will need to be provided.

My advice is that a lot of this work, clearly, is going to need to be funded by SANFL and SACA but also, more particularly, the SMA as the body that is going to be controlling the benefits and the facilities at the new stadium for the members of Adelaide Oval, and whatever category they happen to be.

So, for all of those sales teams and membership teams, the activity will need to increase significantly throughout this coming period, particularly in relation to the Crows and their discussions about next year and getting people to go to AAMI Stadium. It is all about seeing whether there is some way of linking (almost) an early mover advantage; that is, if you are prepared to support us over the next year or two at AAMI Stadium let us see what might be available in terms of Adelaide Oval in terms of sponsorship of the Crows, and I am assuming that Port Power might be looking at similar marketing opportunities as well. So, all of those issues are important ongoing issues for the Stadium Management Authority.

One other area that I should highlight is that properly identifying and managing post-construction defects in the construction will require the SMA to be in control well prior to the defects period commencing. This will be an interesting issue because DTEI is going to be in control of the letting of the contracts, but the issue of the inevitable discussions of post-construction defects and those sorts of things is an issue that DTEI and the SMA are going to need to work their way through.

Even under the government's bill, at some stage the SMA is taking over and they need to be in a process to manage those particular issues. The argument put to me is that the earlier they are actively engaged in this process, the better off they will be in terms of taking over those sorts of responsibilities when inevitably they have to. The SMA will also need to be involved in establishing necessary infrastructure, not just the staffing I have referred to but IT, for example, and things like that are going to need to be established for the SMA.

For all those reasons, as I said, we take the very strong view that football and cricket should continue to have a role, whilst acknowledging that the government is going to be letting the contracts in relation to this but that football and cricket should be there providing advice to the government and its officers all along the way as equal partners in this project.

This amendment, as I said, together with an amendment in section 33 is essentially saying that the SMA should be brought into this process no later than 15 March next year and the attached amendment basically says that if the government chooses to pay down the SACA debt prior to 15 March—and my understanding is that that might occur in around about December this year or January next year—then the package of amendments that we are moving says that the changeover date or that transition date from, in essence, SACA to the SMA ought to be at that particular stage when the debt is paid down.

The government obviously controls that. I have obviously asked the question of the government as to when it proposes to make the payments to SACA, but the bill does not indicate when those payments are going to be made. However, the package of amendments we are moving is saying, in essence, the target date 15 March but if the SACA debt is paid down before then, then that should be the date where control of the Adelaide Oval moves from SACA to the SMA, obviously under the control and direction of the minister and the government.

For all those reasons, this amendment, together with the amendment in section 33, are part of a package which we see as essential in terms of allowing what has been a partnership between football and cricket and which will be a partnership between football and cricket for some time from 2014 onwards but that partnership should continue between now and 2014.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes this second part of the amendment. The government has discussed with the opposition that the Minister for Infrastructure is concerned about setting a time frame for the SMA to take a lease while there are still detailed transition negotiations occurring between the SANFL and SACA, as well as the Department of Treasury and Finance, SAFA and the Crown Solicitor's Office.

The amendment interferes with negotiations and accountabilities of the various parties and may not lead to the best outcome. It is unnecessary to include it in legislation. I flag that the above reasons are probably more applicable to amendment No. 33. The government understands the opposition's desire for the amendment but, obviously, we cannot support it.

Football and cricket are involved and are consulted daily, and that will continue. They are on our project control group; they are involved with us every step of the way, and will continue to be. In terms of the lease arrangements, they need to be agreed to with the sports. As at 15 March 2012, there will be no intended AFL matches at Adelaide Oval, so revenue will be from cricket alone. We agree that introducing a lease to the SMA earlier rather than later is preferred but, clearly, we want to resolve it with the sports themselves, not at some time frame determined by the opposition. We clearly want to avoid any possibility of unintended and adverse consequences.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I understand that the revenue from cricket will continue to go to cricket, but what will happen in the interim period, between now and 2014, with major concerts, for example, to be held at Adelaide Oval? Will all that revenue go just to cricket during this particular period?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that, if the lease is in place with SACA, the revenue will go to SACA. Once the SMA has the lease, the revenue will go to the SMA. Clearly, we want the SMA included sooner rather than later, but we need to do that within our own time frame and in consultation with the sports themselves.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I think that is just another example. I think this is going to be an exciting project for those in control during the interim period, which will be SACA, albeit for some time it will be partially a construction site. This is going to be a place of future developments so that events, such as major concerts and things like that, under what the government has just indicated will clearly flow through to cricket whereas, if the SMA were in control, under the opposition amendments, that would flow as joint revenue. It is something that would encourage football and cricket to work together, in terms of joint marketing and joint responsibility for event management—the sorts of things they should be doing after 2014 in terms of generating alternative events.

However, we are not just talking about concerts, but the use of facilities in relation to festivals and things like that, which Adelaide Oval has been used for in the past. They are all the sorts of things the SMA could be getting on with, in terms of learning from the experience together in the joint marketing of this particular project. However, under the government's arrangement, that would continue to be a responsibility for SACA—until we get to the stage where the minister is prepared to issue the lease to the SMA.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I think what is significant to note about this amendment is that it actually specifically says that the minister should use his or her best endeavours to grant a sublease to SMA; that is, it is not an absolute requirement. It is a requirement that the minister uses his or her best endeavours but not a requirement that a result is necessarily achieved, although you might assume that using their best endeavours a result would be the outcome. I think the Hon. Mr Lucas has painted a compelling case, and Family First will be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Greens are supporting this amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

New clause 5A.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Page 5, after line 6—Insert:

5A—Sinking fund

(1) SMA must, as soon as practicable after the grant of a sublease under section 5, establish a sinking fund out of which may be paid non recurrent expenditures associated with the sublease.

(2) SMA must keep proper accounts of the revenues and expenditures of the sinking fund.

(3) SMA must, before 1 September in each year, report to the Minister—

(a) the amount of money paid into, and out of, the sinking fund during the financial year ending on the preceding 30 June; and

(b) the amount of money proposed to be paid into, and out of, the sinking fund during the current financial year.

(4) As soon as practicable after receipt of the report from SMA, the Treasurer must, after consultation with SMA, approve or determine the amount of money to be paid into the sinking fund during the current financial year (and SMA must comply with any determination of the Treasurer).

(5) The Auditor General may at any time and must, at least once in every year, (and without further authorisation) audit the accounts of the sinking fund and examine the matters to be dealt with under subsections (3) and (4).

(6) The Auditor General may, for the purpose of subsection (5), exercise any power that the Auditor General has in relation to an audit or examination under Part 3 of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987 (and that Part will apply in relation to the exercise of any such power under this section as if the power were exercised under that Act and as if any reference to a public authority included a reference to SMA).

(7) If an audit or examination by the Auditor General under subsection (5) indicates that—

(a) SMA has not complied with a relevant recommendation; or

(b) money has been paid out of the sinking fund for a purpose other than non recurrent expenditure associated with the lease,

the Auditor General must prepare a report on the matter and deliver copies of the report to the President of the Legislative Council and the Speaker of the House of Assembly.

(8) When the President of the Legislative Council and the Speaker of the House of Assembly receive a report from the Auditor General under this section, the President and the Speaker must—

(a) immediately cause the report to be published; and

(b) lay the report before their respective Houses at the earliest opportunity.

(9) If the President of the Legislative Council or the Speaker of the House of Assembly is absent at the time the Auditor General delivers to the Parliament a report under this section, the Clerk of the relevant House will receive the report on behalf of the President or Speaker (as the case may be) (and the report or document will then be taken to have been received by the President or the Speaker).

(10) If a report is received by the President of the Legislative Council or the Speaker of the House of Assembly at a time when Parliament is not sitting, the report will be taken to have been published under subsection (8)(a) at the expiration of 1 clear day after the day of receipt of the report.

(11) A report or document will, when published under subsection (8)(a), be taken for the purposes of any other Act or law to be a report of the Parliament published under the authority of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly.

(12) In this section—

non recurrent, in relation to expenditure, means expenditure for a particular purpose that is normally made less frequently than once a year;

relevant recommendation means—

(a) if SMA has referred a recommendation to the Treasurer under subsection (5)—the recommendation as confirmed or substituted under that subsection; or

(b) in any other case—the recommendation of the Minister under subsection (4).

My sense of the discussions with the government and minor parties is that there is broad agreement. If that is the case, I do not intend to speak at length. If I find out the government is opposing it, then I will go back and argue the case. The government is supporting it. It is a very sensible amendment in relation to the establishment of a sinking fund. It makes sense in terms of managing this particular asset and project over the 80 years, and if everyone is agreeing with it I will leave it at that.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government supports this amendment. We had always intended that the SMA have a sinking fund for the stadium. We think this provision is actually unnecessary, but we are not going to oppose it.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I should say that in some of the latter subclauses we do introduce for the first time the notion of the Auditor-General. I will come back to that later but, in terms of the financial accountability of this project, we see a significant role for the Auditor-General. This amendment does include for the first time the Auditor-General's role in the legislation, and we welcome the government's support for it.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Just very quickly, for the record, Family First supports the amendment.

New clause inserted.

Clause 6.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The opposition's position is opposing clause 6 so I will just speak in general terms in relation to that. If this is removed, this is part of a package of amendments that the opposition is moving. In simple terms, the opposition's position is that the Adelaide Oval redevelopment has got to go through what we would call normal planning processes, as opposed to the government's position which, in essence, is that whatever the minister decides goes.

Again this is part of a package of amendments. I indicated at the outset that there had been discussions with the Adelaide City Council and various stakeholders. We see it as a compromise position between the government's position and others. I suspect the Hon. Mr Parnell—I will leave him to explain his position—will argue his position, which is at the other end of the continuum. We would portray our position as somewhere in between both the government position and the position that perhaps the Hon. Mr Parnell and other stakeholders might push.

From our viewpoint, it is essential for us to oppose clause 6, firstly, so that, in later clauses and subclauses, we can introduce our package of amendments. Broadly, our argument is that the minister is in control of everything in relation to the government bill. We do see a role, in relation to this, for the normal planning processes to go through. As we will argue later, we do not believe that will hinder or stop the development, because we are all intent on ensuring that a proper development goes through after this legislation is concluded. At this stage, I just indicate our opposition to clause 6.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government supports this deletion. It removes the government clause regarding development approvals, which will be dealt with later on.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I have a question and it might be that I have to ask it again later on. I am pleased to see that the government is supporting this because, in this parliament, we have a very sad and sorry history of legislatively granting development approval to projects, many of which did not deserve it. I am not saying that this project should not go ahead, but this is a very poor process when, by stroke of a legislative pen, we hereby provide development approval.

My question of the minister relates to the two aspects to development approval. First of all, you have planning approval or planning consent, but you also have building approval—the need to comply with building rules around safety, fire protection and things like that. What will the mechanism be to ensure that building rules, in particular, the Building Code of Australia—to the extent that it applies—will apply to this development?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that it will be subject to the normal mechanisms in the planning act. The DAC has to approve and then it will be subject to normal building approvals.

Clause negatived.

Clause 7.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I move:

Page 5, line 33—Delete 'must' and substitute:

may

This is amendment [Parnell-1] 1, and I suggest that this be a test for amendments [Parnell-1] 2, 3 and 4. These amendments are fundamental, I think, to the way that the Adelaide Oval licence area is going to be managed. Under the government's bill, the provision in clause 7 is that the council 'must' at the request of the minister grant a licence to the minister over all of the Adelaide Oval licence area or any part of that area specified by the minister.

Under the bill, the council has no option but to grant a licence to the minister. That puts this clause completely at odds with the regime that exists under the Adelaide Park Lands Act. What members should reflect on is the fact that only six short years ago this parliament passed an act to set out how the Adelaide Parklands could be managed, and it set out the rules governing leases and licences. It is quite remarkable that some six years later, before that act has actually had the chance to do much work (if any) in relation to that, the government is asking this parliament to override that regime.

My amendment is straightforward. Basically, rather than saying the council 'must' grant a licence to the minister, it says that the council 'may' grant a licence to the minister. In other words, it removes that level of compulsion. That is not to say that this is some recipe for there to be no licence over the surrounding areas in relation to things like car parking, but it puts the Adelaide City Council back into the picture where they are currently being ruled out by having a legislative obligation to not be able to refuse a licence or any particular aspect of a licence that they are not comfortable with.

I think that is important and I think it is a proper reflection of the role that the Adelaide City Council has played over many decades in managing the Parklands. It seems to me that the fact that the council has care and control over this area has not stopped cars being parked on the Parklands for test matches, it has not stopped cars being parked on the South Parklands for the Royal Show. I think that writing out the council, effectively removing them from the picture other than some fairly token consultation, is the wrong way to go.

Under my amendment, the council will be able to negotiate with the minister on an equal footing, and it leaves the door open for an agreement to be reached. In relation to the consequential amendments that flow from that, they really do reflect simply a change in wording that recognises the fact that the licence area, the area surrounding the core area, is going to be subject to genuine negotiation with the council and in all likelihood a licence agreement that reflects the sensible approach that Adelaide City Council has taken until now. But it would give the Adelaide City Council the option to make sure that conditions were put into the licence such as conditions dealing with extraordinary wet weather periods.

The council, as I understand it from my conversations with them, is not proposing or intending to stand in the way or make life too difficult for football and cricket but, as the custodians, they do have regard to things like ensuring that the grass is not unreasonably chewed up by vehicles during wet weather, which is why during a recent Royal Show we saw that the council said, 'We are sorry, but you can't park here because it is going to be too wet and it is going to cause damage to the grassed areas.'

We hope that does not happen and, as I understand it, there is going to be significant drainage work and significant other improvements that will hopefully ensure that the grassland areas there do not get so boggy that cars cannot be parked. However, I think it is important to put the Adelaide City Council back into the equation and allow it to negotiate on an equal footing with the government—and effectively with football and cricket—so that the licence agreement that does result is one that reflects everyone's interests and not just the interests of football and cricket.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes the Hon. Mr Parnell's amendment Nos 1 through to 9, just in case—

The Hon. M. Parnell: I haven't spoken about the others yet.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I know, but just so that you are clear about the direction we are heading in. The amendments remove government and opposition agreements and allow the council to basically refuse everything. It provides complete discretion to the council to grant a licence and vary it. Clearly, what the sports want is certainty, and that is what the government legislation provides. Those amendments remove that certainty.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I have met with the Adelaide City Council a number of times over this bill, as you might expect—no doubt as all members have—and I want to make my comments within this context. I have found the current city council to be very reasonable. I have found the leadership I have met with to have a very progressive attitude towards development, certainly towards this development, and I do not see any risk of the current council making any decisions that may, in fact, go against this development, whether now or in the future.

However, having said that, there is a risk with future councils, and if this amendment were passed—and correct me if I am wrong—my understanding is that the council could then refuse car parking, it could refuse access to the Adelaide Oval core area, it could refuse any other activities that are ancillary to the redevelopment of the Adelaide Oval, and it could refuse providing facilities for playing sport at Adelaide Oval, or any other activity prescribed by regulations. I concede that is unlikely—and, again, I believe it is almost unthinkable of the current council, because it is quite supportive of this project—but for that reason alone I cannot support this amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: For the reasons I outlined earlier, we see our position as a compromise position between the government position and the position the Hon. Mr Parnell has just put. Other stakeholders support the Hon. Mr Parnell's position, and we appreciate and understand that, but we see the Liberal Party package that we have put as a compromise between the government and that position. For those reasons we obviously cannot, therefore, support the Hon. Mr Parnell's amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: My amendments Nos 2, 3 and 4 are consequential, so I will not move those.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Page 5, lines 37 and 38—Delete paragraph (a) and substitute:

(a) must be for a term specified by the minister (being a term of up to 20 years); and

(ab) must at the request of the minister, be extended or renewed for 1 or more periods of up to 20 years at a time subject to the qualification that the total term of a licence under this section must not exceed 80 years; and

As I briefly canvassed in earlier amendments of this package of amendments, this is just a further part of that package. This particular amendment guarantees a licence to the minister and guarantees renewal to the minister, but it restricts the term to 20 years so that the licence conditions are renewed every 20 years.

As I indicated earlier, we see the Liberal Party's position as being a compromise between the government's position and the position that other stakeholders would wish. It has been arrived at as a result of discussions held with the Adelaide City Council and others, not to say that they necessarily agree with this particular position; however, as a result of those discussions we move this amendment.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes this amendment. As with clause 4 and other consequential clauses, this amendment changes the government's negotiated offer to cricket, which is well known. SACA has a desire to play cricket at both Adelaide Oval and the Adelaide Oval No. 2 and operate a successful sport administration at this venue. This amendment reduces that certainty offered by the government to 20 years, and therefore we cannot support it.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Greens are supporting this amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Page 6—

Line 1—Before 'may be subject' insert:

Subject to subsections (2a) and (2b),

After line 2—Insert:

(2a) If the Council considers, at the time that a licence under this section is granted, extended or renewed, that the Minister is acting unreasonably in relation to the terms and conditions to be specified under subsection (2)(b), the Council may apply to the Development Assessment Commission for a review.

(2b) The Development Assessment Commission may, on application under subsection (2a)—

(a) determine whether or not a term or condition, or a proposed term or condition, is unreasonable ; and

(b) subject to a determination under paragraph (a), direct—

(i) that a term or condition of the licence be varied or revoked; or

(ii) that the licence be subject to a term or condition specified by the Development Assessment Commission; or

(iii) that any related action be taken,

(and a direction under this paragraph will have effect according to its terms).

These are not strictly consequential, although my notes and advice indicate that it is consequential but, having discussed it with parliamentary counsel, this is part of the package of amendments that the opposition has moved. The earlier key elements of the package have been passed; that is, in relation to the 80 years and the 20-year licence. So, whilst it is not strictly consequential, it nevertheless remains part of a package of amendments the opposition is moving.

What we are doing with these amendments, for example, is allowing, in essence, a role for the Development Assessment Commission. It allows DAC to resolve issues if the minister were to act unreasonably in licence conditions; in essence, the DAC becomes the umpire. This is part of the package the member for Davenport outlined in another place. As I said, whilst not strictly consequential, the earlier parts of the package have been supported, and we urge support of this next element of the package, as outlined in amendments Nos 26 and 27.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I have a question of the mover. If these amendments pass and the Development Assessment Commission effectively becomes the umpire, the test they are required to apply under these amendments is whether or not a term and condition, or a proposed term and condition, of the licence is reasonable. Can the member explain what types of considerations he expects the Development Assessment Commission will take into account in determining what is reasonable and, in particular, what other statutory documents, management plans and the like might come into play?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Hon. Mr Parnell was kind enough to raise these general issues with me. He knows that I am not a planning expert, so I have taken advice from the member for Davenport, who has taken advice. As I understand it, the Hon. Mr Parnell may be moving an amendment later in the committee stage on this particular issue.

The Hon. M. Parnell: It might be now or never.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Exactly. The Hon. Mr Parnell has (I forget the exact title for it) a precinct plan or an existing plan, which outlines terms and conditions of what he might see to reasonable for the Adelaide Oval precinct, or whatever the correct title for this particular area is. The advice I took from the member for Davenport, in response to the Hon. Mr Parnell's question, was that he was not inclined to support what he understood to be the prescriptive amendment the Hon. Mr Parnell may well contemplate moving and was prepared to leave it as 'reasonable'.

In response to the member's question as to what is reasonable, his response was broadly, 'This is a sporting precinct. Adelaide Oval has been known as a football and cricket ground for many years. There are obviously associated activities that go on with it being a sporting arena.'

The member for Davenport's view, based on the advice he got (and it may well be that the minister, with advice available at hand, can offer a comment on this as well), was that, in terms of our package of amendments, what was reasonable would be interpreted by the DAC in the context of what had occurred there for a long period of time, and that is, sporting events and related activities would be, I guess, the interpretation by the Development Assessment Commission.

The Hon. Mr Parnell, as a planning lawyer, I suspect will be able to raise many detailed questions as to past decisions of the DAC (that may or may not cast doubt on the issue of how it would interpret 'reasonable') but I cannot offer a more detailed response than I have gathered from the member for Davenport when I have raised the member's questions with him during the last 48 hours.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government supports amendments 26 and 27, but I would like to raise the following points (because they are part of a set of amendments from 26 to 31). These amendments seek to set the conditions by which the government protects the Parklands around Adelaide Oval. It has always been the government's intention and ambition to not only protect but enhance the Parklands, and in fact the government bill places those requirements on the minister.

The opposition's amendments are somewhat confusing in that, on the one hand, they allow Adelaide City Council to challenge the minister's management of a licence to the DAC but they then allow the minister to challenge the council's management plan provisions on which the licence is judged by the DAC as well. The government's view is that it makes more sense to allow the government to develop a management plan in consultation with the council based on council's current management plans, and to then allow the council the opportunity to challenge its appropriateness to the DAC. Obviously, we may consider further amendments in between houses.

This would remove the uncertainty of constant referrals to the DAC should the Adelaide City Council choose to update management plans, say, for instance, yearly, and to use this as a basis for challenging the licence which the minister has issued. I understand the member for Davenport believes this not to be an issue and he is not concerned with it, but the government continues to remain concerned. The government has reservations about supporting the amendment as put, but not with its intent.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: As alluded to by the Hon. Rob Lucas, this is a matter on which I have had some discussions with the opposition, but I have not specifically discussed with the government. I share the minister's concerns in relation to the mechanism of going to DAC and that there are some situations where the council is the one making the application. There are other situations where the Stadium Management Authority might make an application and the bunny in the middle, if you like, is the Development Assessment Commission which does not have a great deal of guidance—certainly, not legislative guidance—other than to try to work out what is reasonable.

Perhaps the minister can respond to this—but I prepared some amendments for this eventuality but did not table them because I was hoping that my earlier amendments would get up, which would have made these redundant. If the minister is prepared to agree to recommitting this clause at the end then I will have the opportunity to put my case to the government to see whether we can make the Hon. Rob Lucas's amendments even better.

To foreshadow what I have in mind, it is simply to make sure that when the Development Assessment Commission is deciding what is reasonable they should have regard to what is in the management plan that the council has prepared under the Adelaide Parklands Act (which I understand is the same management plan that they prepare under the Local Government Act) and that that should be taken into account by the Development Assessment Commission.

The Development Assessment Commission should also take into account what the planning scheme says. I know the government's view is that the planning scheme is inadequate, but there are still important principles in there, such as the need to maintain a park-like setting for this area we are talking about, which I do not think anyone disagrees with. If the minister is prepared to agree to a recommittal, we can perhaps move on from this clause, and I will discuss whether there are some improvements that add the clarity I think the minister is also looking for in this amendment.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I take it that the honourable member would not be satisfied by simply dealing with the development of amendments between the houses. Although I did indicate that I might recommit a previous clause, I have since considered that it probably would be more practical, given that it has to go back to the other house, to deal with the amendments there rather than hold it up further here. I am happy to do the same with this, but if that does not satisfy the honourable member's concerns I am happy to recommit this clause in this house.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I thank the minister for offering that way forward, but the only problem I have is that I think I now need to move my amendments, otherwise they will not be part of the debate between the houses. They possibly need to be moved, voted down and then we can deal with it, unless the minister is happy to give an assurance that she will take my amendments and consider them as alternatives when the other house considers it.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am willing to give that reassurance, but if the honourable member would prefer an assurance to recommit this clause, obviously not today but before it goes back to the other house, I am happy to do that as well.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I am happy with the assurance to recommit if necessary.

Amendments carried.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My understanding is that there are really two issues with my amendment No. 28. One is canvassed in subclause (5a). If possible, we might be able to handle that. My understanding is the government is agreeing with that, and I suspect most others are as well. Then I could move new subclauses (5b), (5c) and (5d) as a package. Are you agreeable to that process?

The CHAIR: Yes, okay. The table staff seem to be happy with that.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am trying to assist the government because, as I understand it, the government is supporting new subclause (5a) but they will probably be opposing (5b), (5c) and (5d). With your agreement, I move:

Page 6, after line 18—Insert:

(5a) Subsection (3)(d) only applies in relation to Adelaide Oval No. 2.

As I said, my understanding is that the majority of members are likely to be supporting this, so I will not speak at any great length, other than to say that this restricts the licence that allows the facilities for playing sport to Adelaide Oval No. 2.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government supports this amendment, (5a).

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Family First supports the amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move the remainder of amendment No. 28, that is, to insert:

(5b) Subject to subsections (5c) and (5d), any use of land under a licence (or sub-licence) under this section, and any associated works on land subject to the licence, will be subject to the provisions of the Council's management plan under Chapter 11 of the Local Government Act 1999 that relates to the relevant part of the Adelaide Oval Licence Area.

(5c) If the Minister considers—

(a) that a provision of a management plan that applies under subsection (5b) is unreasonable in connection with the use of any part of the Adelaide Oval Licence Area; or

(b) that the Council is acting unreasonably in relation to the administration or implementation of the management plan,

the Minister may apply to the Development Assessment Commission for a review of the matter.

(5d) The Development Assessment Commission may, on application under subsection (5c)—

(a) determine whether or not a provision of the relevant management plan or an act of the Council (as the case may be) is reasonable; and

(b) subject to a determination under paragraph (a)—

(i) direct—

(A) that a provision of the relevant management plan be varied or revoked; or

(B) that a decision of the Council be varied or revoked or that a different decision be made; or

(C) that any related action be taken,

(and a direction under this subparagraph will have effect according to its terms and despite the provisions of Chapter 11 of the Local Government Act 1999 or the Adelaide Park Lands Management Strategy under the Adelaide Park Lands Act 2005); or

(ii) confirm any act or decision of the Council to be reasonable in the circumstances.

Thank you for your forbearance: I had a discussion with the government members and those minor party and Independent members in the chamber at the time. My understanding of the government's position, which they will outline in a moment, is that they are going to oppose (5b), (5c) and (5d). However, in discussions with the Independent and minor party members in the house at the time, there are sufficient numbers for this amendment to pass the chamber this evening.

The reason I have had that discussion is that I understand from the government's advisers that the member for Davenport has had a discussion with the government's advisers about the possibility of us further amending this particular amendment and that the member for Davenport is further considering that and taking advice on it at the moment. However, given the timing of the debate, he has been unable to conclude those considerations now and obviously, given the timing, we will not be able to conclude it in this sitting week.

Noting the government's opposition, but also that there are the numbers for this to go through and, given that the minister has indicated earlier she was going to recommit when next we sit on the Tuesday, the opposition would be agreeable to recommitting this, with the potential that we may well have negotiated a compromise amendment with the government's advisers which would make these particular sections acceptable to the government.

This is also the area where I think the Hon. Parnell has indicated he wishes to move further amendments, which I would obviously need to talk to the member for Davenport about. My understanding of the Hon. Mr Parnell's position is that we are highly unlikely to be supporting his amendment, based on the advice of the member for Davenport.

I know the proposed amendments are here now but I have not actually read them, but I understand from previous discussions whence the Hon. Mr Parnell was coming, and the member for Davenport's position was that he was unlikely to recommend support for those amendments. Nevertheless, they have now been drafted. We are prepared also to reconsider those on recommittal on the first Tuesday when we come back.

I indicate to the minister, as we have indicated in the second reading, that the Liberal Party is not intending to delay this particular debate. We will have broken the back of this debate by the end of the session today and, certainly, it would be our intention to assist the government in consideration of this on the first Tuesday when we return, which would then leave the minister in another place to reflect on it for another couple of sitting days before the house gets up.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes this amendment relating to subclauses 5(b), (c) and (d) for the reasons we have already outlined. We believe the relationship with the council management plan is unclear and unacceptable.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Following discussion and the minister's agreement and, as I understand the Hon. Rob Lucas, he accepts as well that we will be having further discussions on this and recommitting this clause, I will allow both the government and opposition to consider the amendments that I have circulated and move them formally if we recommit and if I think there is some support for them.

The CHAIR: Are you supporting or opposing the amendment in the name of the Hon. Mr Lucas?

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I am supporting all the Hon. Mr Lucas' amendments.

The CHAIR: I know some Independents or smaller parties have indicated to the Hon. Mr Lucas what they are doing, but they have not indicated to the Chair.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be supporting the opposition's amendment.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I will be supporting.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I will be supporting.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Supporting, sir.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Page 6, line 26—After 'public' insert:

or with the provisions of a management plan that applies under subsection (5b)

This makes the licensed areas, the northern car park and Adelaide Oval No. 2 subject to the council management plan and the Development Assessment Commission as the umpire in a dispute.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: This is consequential, and we oppose it.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Page 6, lines 27 to 29—Delete subclause (8) and substitute:

(8) A licence under this section is not subject to section 21 of the Adelaide Park Lands Act 2005.

I am advised this is consequential on amendment 29, which has just passed.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I move:

Page 6, lines 27 to 29—Delete subclause (8) and substitute:

(8) A licence under subsection (1) for a term of 10 years or more (taking into account any right of renewal) is subject to section 21(2) to (5) (inclusive) of the Adelaide Park Lands Act 2005 (but is not subject to section 21(1) of that act).

This amendment and amendments Nos 6 and 7 are consequential. This amendment reinstates into this bill the provisions that currently apply to licences over areas of the Parklands. Members might not be familiar with the mechanism, so I will explain it.

In 2005, when the Adelaide Park Lands Act came into operation, section 21 was included. It was entitled 'Leases and licences granted by the council.' This section was put in to make sure that if the Adelaide City Council was to grant a long-term lease or a licence there would be some method of scrutiny, in particular, parliamentary scrutiny.

The way section 21 currently reads is that the maximum term that any licence can be issued for is 42 years. I do not propose that should apply, because we have already gone past that and we are now talking about 80 years, but the remainder of section 21 of the Adelaide Park Lands Act is an important accountability measure that should be included in this legislation.

It provides that if the council was to grant a long-term lease on a licence—and we are talking about a licence here—of 10 years or more, then the council has to submit copies of that lease or license to the presiding members of both houses of parliament. The presiding members of each house of parliament have to lay a copy before their respective houses, and either house of parliament can resolve to disallow the grant or the renewal of a lease or licence pursuant to a notice of motion given in the house within 14 sitting days. The section concludes that the lease or licence does not come into operation until that parliamentary scrutiny process is concluded.

Whilst the arrangements we are talking about here are over the licence areas—in other words, we are not talking about the actual oval, the core area, but the outlying areas where the car parks are likely to go—this was precisely the part of the Parklands (or the type of parkland) that was envisaged back in 2005 that should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

Back then, only six years ago, the parliament in its wisdom decided that, when dealing with the Parklands (being for all South Australians), we needed to make sure that there was a final level of scrutiny to make sure that whatever lease or licence the council had granted was actually in the best interests of the people of South Australia, not just, for example, the residents and ratepayers of the city.

This mechanism was included. To my knowledge, this mechanism has never been used. I will stand corrected if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the Adelaide City Council has not issued a long-term licence that has then been tabled before both houses of parliament. If it has, then, again to the best of my knowledge, we have never thrown it out, but my feeling is that it has not happened before. My question would be: why is this parliament now removing from our statute books a provision which we put in only six years ago, which has never been used and which we are now deciding is redundant?

My amendment basically reinstates the parliamentary scrutiny provisions, but it does not reinstate the 42-year cap. We have already gone past that. It is going to be 80 years, made up probably of 20-year extensions. It seems to me that what was a good and sensible approach to leases and licences in 2005 remains a sensible approach. Therefore, I urge all honourable members to support this amendment which retains the status quo in terms of parliamentary scrutiny of licences such as the one we are now talking about.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes this amendment. The government believes that the minister should have the ability to develop the management plan. I guess one of the core premises that this bill is based on is to provide certainty to sports. The more complicated these elements are, the more parties that we buy into, the less certainty there is. As I said, we are about trying to provide certainty. I am advised that if this amendment did not succeed that we would consider supporting that we not be subject to section 21. I do not know whether that is of any consolation to you.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am just seeking your guidance, Mr Chairman. I have moved my amendment and so has the Hon. Mr Parnell. How are you proposing to—

The CHAIR: I will put your amendment first. If people want to eventually support the Hon. Mr Parnell's amendment, they will knock yours off.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: If I can indicate our position: obviously, we support our amendment and we are not supporting the amendment from the Hon. Mr Parnell. In particular, the part of the Hon. Mr Parnell's package where there would, in essence, be a potential vote in the parliament on the particular issue is something, as part of the package, that the member for Davenport has outlined that we are not supporting as a party.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I just need a little bit more clarification from the minister about what might be acceptable, because the way I have drafted my amendment it basically says that section 21(2), (3), (4) and (5) apply to these licences granted by the minister, so that same mechanism applies. I am wondering which part, if any, of that mechanism the government is saying they will accept. As I explained, the mechanism involves tabling before parliament, parliamentary disallowance and, unlike when we disallow regulations, the actual licence would not come into operation until after parliamentary scrutiny was over, so we would not have the situation we have with delegated legislation. Is the minister saying that the part you would accept is the tabling of the licence before both houses of parliament but not the disallowance? I would like some clarification of that.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I think it is probably best if we dealt with this as part of the recommittal process. However, we do have problems with sections 2, 3, 4 and 5. Perhaps it might be better if we had these discussions prior to recommittal.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Two, three, four and five are the only bits I am moving. You have a problem with everything I have moved. The only bit that I have not moved and, therefore, you do not need to be unhappy with, is the bit that says the maximum licence is 42 years. As I said, we have already moved beyond that. I will move it but I will accept the will of the committee if it goes down.

The CHAIR: Can I explain to honourable members that I intend to put the Hon. Mr Lucas's amendment and, if you want to support the Hon. Mr Parnell's, you will vote against the Hon. Mr Lucas's. If you want to support it standing as it is, you will vote against both amendments. Do you understand that?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I understand the government is supporting my amendment.

The CHAIR: Yes, I just explained it for the benefit of the Independents. The Hon. Mr Hood, did you want to say anything?

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: No, thank you. That has clarified it.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Just for clarification, the government is supporting this amendment. We have obviously flagged our concerns around earlier provisions but we are prepared to support this.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas's amendment carried.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: This amendment is consequential on the last discussion. I move:

Page 6, after line 32—Insert:

(10) In this section—

Adelaide Oval No 2 is the area identified as SA Cricket Association Licensed Area—Park 26 in Schedules 1 and 2 and Annexure A to the Park Lands Lease Agreement entered into by the Council and SACA on 4 January 2007 (as that agreement exists immediately before the commencement of this Act).

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

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