HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-07-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ADELAIDE OVAL REDEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 7 July 2011.)

Clause 8.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We are opposing clause 8 with the purpose of inserting new clauses 8A, 8B and 8C, so it is a significant amendment. Just briefly, since we last debated in the chamber there has been considerable discussion between government advisers and the opposition, and other minor parties and Independents to a degree, not as much, but I will let them speak about their amendments and negotiations, but certainly in relation to the package of amendments being moved by the Liberal Party there has been considerable negotiation.

In summary, considerable agreement has been reached between the government and the opposition in relation to at least understanding our positions. We will be moving some amendments in an amended form. The government has tabled further amendments, some of which we will be supporting and some of which we will oppose. We understand that the government's position is that it will continue to oppose some of our amendments as part of that particular package, as it did when last we sat.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government supports this.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I want to put on the record the Greens' support for the removal of clause 8. Clause 8 is one of those pernicious clauses that very often spells the kiss of death to a project even though its intent is the complete opposite. I think it is very inappropriate for the parliament, through legislation, to be granting development approval simply by legislative measure without a requirement for a development application or any level of scrutiny by anyone other than members of parliament. When I say 'kiss of death', members will recall that other notable projects where this approach was taken—the five-star resort at Wilpena, the Penola pulp mill—went absolutely nowhere. It is poor form for the parliament to provide development approval by virtue of legislation. I think removing this clause improves the bill greatly.

Clause negatived.

New Parts 3A and 3B.

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

Page 7, after line 23—Insert:

Part 3A—Financial management

8A—Extent of financial commitment

(1) If an appropriation is made for the purposes of, or in connection with, the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval envisaged by this Act, the total amount that the Minister, or any other entity acting on behalf of the State, is authorised to make available or expend for a designated purpose is $535 million.

(2) Subsection (1) applies in relation to any amount made available or expended during the period commencing on 1 December 2009 and ending on 1 December 2019.

(3) The Minister must not, after the commencement of this section, provide or authorise the provision of financial assistance to SACA unless or until a sublease envisaged by section 5(1) has been granted to SMA.

(4) For the purposes of this section, a designated purpose means any of the following:

(a) development within the area bounded by King William Road, Pennington Terrace, Montefiore Road and War Memorial Drive, other than land that is subject to a lease or licence to the Memorial Drive Tennis Club Inc., Next Generation Clubs Australia Pty Ltd or the South Australian Tennis Association Inc.;

(b) grants or other forms of financial assistance to or for the benefit of SMA, SACA, the SANFL or any other entity (including to assist with, or to achieve, the reduction or discharge of any loan or other commitment, to pay any interest, to provide or support a guarantee, security or bond, or to provide any other form of financial accommodation).

(5) However, a designated purpose does not include—

(a) roadworks within the area referred to in subsection (4)(a) from 1 January 2015; or

(b) roadworks relating to King William Road, Pennington Terrace, Montefiore Road or War Memorial Drive.

8B—Financial supervision by the Auditor General

(1) The Auditor General must, within 2 months after the end of each designated period, prepare a report on—

(a) the extent to which money has been made available or expended within the $535 million limit specified by this Part during the designated period; and

(b) the state of the public accounts that are relevant to the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval envisaged by this Act; and

(c) the extent to which it appears that public money made available to any entity, including an entity that is not a public authority, for the purposes of, or in connection with, the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval envisaged by this Act has been properly and efficiently managed and used during the designated period.

(2) The Auditor General may, at any time (without further authorisation), audit or examine the accounts of a public authority or SMA in order to prepare a report under subsection (1).

(3) Furthermore, the Auditor General must in any event audit the accounts of SMA each year and include a report on that audit in the Auditor General's annual report.

(4) The Auditor General may, for the purposes of subsections (1), (2) and (3) 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 an entity that is the subject of an audit or examination under this section).

(5) The Auditor General must, after completing a report under subsection (1), deliver copies of the report to the President of the Legislative Council and the Speaker of the House of Assembly.

(6) 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.

(7) 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).

(8) 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 (6)(a) at the expiration of 1 clear day after the day of receipt of the report.

(9) A report or document will, when published under subsection (6)(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.

(10) This section—

(a) is in addition to the provisions of any other Act or law requiring the accounts of a company or other body corporate to be audited; and

(b) is not in derogation of any such provisions.

(11) In this section—

designated period means—

(a) a period commencing on 1 January in each year and expiring on 30 June in the same year (both dates inclusive); and

(b) a period commencing on 1 July in each year and expiring on 31 December in the same year (both dates inclusive);

public accounts has the same meaning as in the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987;

public authority has the same meaning as in the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987.

Part 3B—Development assessment

8C—Development assessment

(1) The Development Plan that relates to the area of the Council will be taken to provide—

(a) that the Adelaide Oval Core Area is an area or zone that may be used predominantly for the purposes described in section 4(2); and

(b) that the Adelaide Oval Licence Area is an area or zone that may be used for the purposes described in section 7(3).

(2) To the extent of any inconsistency between subsection (1) and the Development Plan referred to in that subsection, subsection (1) will prevail.

(3) Any development—

(a) undertaken within the Adelaide Oval Core Area associated (directly or indirectly) with the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval, its stands or other facilities, or in connection with a lease under section 4 or a sublease under section 5; or

(b) undertaken within the Adelaide Oval Licence Area associated (directly or indirectly) with development within the ambit of paragraph (a), or in connection with a licence or sub licence under section 7,

will be taken to be complying development under section 35 of the Development Act 1993 and Category 1 development under section 38 of that Act.

(4) The Development Assessment Commission will be taken to be the relevant authority under section 34 of the Development Act 1993 in relation to any proposed development within the ambit of subsection (3).

In speaking to this, the minister now, under amendments to be moved by the minister [6] to my amendment, is going to, in the first instance, seek to delete subclause (3). Is that correct? Yes.

Can I address that firstly and say that this is part of a package of amendments that we have agreed to with the government's advisers and the opposition will support the minister's move to delete subclause (3). So, whenever the Chair decides that he wants to do that, we are in your hands.

In speaking to that and the package of amendments, can I indicate that that particular subclause is related to an earlier amendment that we passed when last we sat—amendment No. 22. Members would remember that we said in that amendment that the minister—

The CHAIR: Order! I remind that cameraman: they are only to point that camera on people on their feet. That does not look like it is pointing on the Hon. Mr Lucas to me.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It has a wide-angled lens.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Lucas will not encourage the cameraman. The cameraman will find himself widely escorted to the door if he does not follow instructions from the Chair. The Hon. Mr Lucas.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I am a modest man. I did not require it to be on me. The committee has passed amendment No. 22, which was that the minister had to use his or her best endeavours to grant a sublease to the SMA under this section by 15 March 2012, but it was linked to this subclause 8A(3).

Without going through the technical provisions, the bottom line was that, given that the government's arrangements with SACA were such that we understand the money for the approximately $85 million repayment of their loans for the Western Stand was going to be paid around about November, December of this year, this provision would have meant, in essence, the SMA taking over in maybe November or December as opposed to March of next year.

The negotiation with the government's advisers is that we are not going to persist with this particular amendment but, on recommittal under [Lucas-4] 9, we will be moving a change to that earlier provision, and it will be that the minister must grant a sublease to the SMA under this section by 15 March 2012, so it will not be a best endeavours.

The compromise is that we will not persist with this particular amendment, which might have meant a transfer in, say, November or December, but we will now make it hard and fast that it is 15 March 2012, rather than best endeavours because, clearly, best endeavours did not mean that it had to occur by 15 March. That is one aspect of the amendments; that is, we will support the minister's deletion of subclause (3) but, on recommittal, we will be amending that provision that relates to 15 March.

One of the overall aspects of this significant amendment is the issue in relation to the $535 million cap. Without boring witless all members and those who are here this evening, the history, very quickly, is that the government originally had committed to $450 million and not a dollar more for the project, then that changed to $535 million and not a dollar more. It is on the public record that the member for Croydon, Mr Atkinson, moved successfully in caucus that not a dollar more than $535 million would be spent on the project.

The government, through various ministers and the Premier, have committed to not spending a dollar more than $535 million and so, the Liberal Party, in terms of accountability, has crafted an amendment in this particular clause which essentially says, 'Okay. There will be $535 million and not a dollar more for the project.' The minister will move amendment No. 2 later, which I will address, which does raise some issues in relation to that, but I will address those comments when she moves her amendment.

This also introduces financial supervision by the Auditor-General—again, in terms of accountability, this is an $80 million project. As I indicated in the second reading, we are talking about a considerable investment of taxpayer funds and the brutal reality is that, in 20 or 30 years' time, if the SMA does get itself into financial difficulties, does incur significant financial liabilities and, if at the same time SACA has no money and SANFL has no money, then ultimately who is going to be responsible for any potential financial mess that is there? Clearly, the onus would come back on the taxpayers and the government of the day.

So, it has been our strong view in terms of accountability that the Auditor-General needed an ongoing role and needed to be able to report on a regular basis, on an annual basis, in terms of the financial health of the SMA in terms of what was going on and, certainly from what the government has said publicly, they are prepared to accept this set of amendments as well.

There are detailed provisions under 8B about the financial supervision by the Auditor-General, the tabling of reports, a variety of other things and, for the sake of time again, I do not intend to go through all of those because, as I understand it, there is broad agreement with the supervision issues that relate to the role of the Auditor-General.

Then under 8C there are issues that we have discussed in other amendments and in the second reading before, and I do not intend to go for those. This 8C relates to the development assessment. The Hon. Mr Parnell just made some comments in relation to the deletion of clause 8. This is what we believe is a compromise and defensible position in relation to development assessment that we have spoken about at length during the second reading and in earlier stages of the debate. With that, I urge support for the package of amendments incorporated under amendment No. 33, new clauses 8A, 8B and 8C.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

New clause 8A(3)—Delete subclause (3)

New clause 8A(4)(b)—Delete paragraph (b) and substitute:

(b) grants or other forms of financial assistance to or for the benefit of SMA, SACA, the SANFL or any other entity in connection with the development of Adelaide Oval (including to assist with, or to achieve, the reduction or discharge of any loan or other commitment, to pay any interest, to provide or support a guarantee, security or bond, or to provide any other form of financial accommodation but not including amounts that have been agreed to be paid in relation to interest costs incurred by SACA for loans provided for the Western Stand Redevelopment).

As the committee has already been informed, the government is opposed to moves by the opposition that no funds can be provided to SACA before a lease exists with SMA on the grounds of existing legal arrangements between the government and SACA. As a result, the government has introduced an amendment to delete subclause (3) from the opposition's amendment [Lucas-4] 33. The government has also introduced an amendment to paragraph (b) in subclause (4) to the opposition's amendment [Lucas-4] 33.

The government has committed an upper limit of $535 million towards the project. It has no intention to spend beyond this limit; however, the wording in subclause (4)(b) introduces a restriction on the application of the government's funds, given that an accounting restriction would capture capitalised interest in the order of about $1.5 million on an existing loan arrangement with SACA. Notwithstanding that the current arrangements with SACA waive the capitalised interest, the opposition's amendment will reduce the amount of available funding that can be applied for construction by the actual value of the capitalised interest.

The government is also supportive of 8C, the replacement clause, as it allows the redevelopment to be assessed by the Development Assessment Commission. We are happy to deal with those matters agreed to by way of a recommittal process.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Mr Chairman, I take it that the minister has now moved both of her amendments Nos 1 and 2?

The CHAIR: Yes.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: On that basis, I have only addressed amendment No. 1, which we are agreeing to, but I now want to address amendment No. 2. It is one of the few issues tonight, hopefully, where there will be trenchant opposition from government and opposition in terms of the amendments. The government's amendment No. 2 in their package of amendments (No. 6) actually adds the words, as the minister has indicated, to our existing 8A(4)(b):

...but not including amounts that have been agreed to be paid in relation to interest costs incurred by SACA for loans provided for the Western Stand Redevelopment).

As the minister has indicated, at the moment that comes to an extra $1.5 million. As I said earlier, the Liberal Party's amendment is predicated on the government's commitment that there will be not a dollar more than $535 million go into this particular project. We know that it has found creative ways to get around that with the bridge, $40 million going into the Convention Centre budget, and various other things, but this bill, and our amendment, seeks to lessen the government's capacity for creativity and limit it to not a dollar more than $535 million.

In essence, this is saying that, rather than not a dollar more than $535 million, it will be $1.5 million more than $535 million. The government is saying that there will be $535 million on the project plus $1.5 million on a deal that the government has evidently done with SACA in relation to paying its interest costs. There is no way in the world that this can be spun by the government that this is not part of the project because it is a loan in relation to the Western Stand redevelopment, that these are the assets that are being sold into the deal from SACA.

That is why the government is giving SACA $85 million plus, and we will address that in a moment. There is no way that this is not part of the deal, and to that end, before I conclude my remarks, I put a question to the minister: has SACA already had about $1 million in interest costs paid already, separate to the $1.5 million? Is that $1 million coming out of the $535 million?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the arrangements are that there is $1 million owed to SACA for interest that will come out of the $535 million.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Let us be clear about that. There is already $1 million that is going to be paid to SACA in terms of interest costs, in relation to the Western Stand redevelopment loan, which will come out of the $535 million. That is because the Premier, former treasurer Kevin Foley, and senior Treasury officers giving evidence to the Budget and Finance Committee all said that the government's position was that the interest costs had to come out of the $535 million. We took evidence at the Budget and Finance Committee that made that clear from the Treasury officers' viewpoint, and the former treasurer also made it clear that that was a requirement.

So $1 million of the interest costs are already coming out of the $535 million. With this amendment the government is saying that there is evidently another $1.5 million it will pay in interest costs for SACA, but that will not come out of the $535 million; it will be not a dollar more than $535 million but $536.5 million. Is that $1.5 million a final cost or is it only the current estimate? Could it actually be higher by the time everything is repaid?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that it is, in fact, an estimate.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It is currently an estimate; it could be higher or it could possibly be lower. The interest cost could actually be higher than the $1.5 million. So what we are being asked to sign off on here is, at the moment, an estimate of $1.5 million, but it could be higher than that by an unknown sum.

My second question is: does this mean now that the total payments, in terms of the deals the government has done with SACA, will be $85 million, plus $1 million of interest costs, which will come out of the $535 million, plus an estimate at the moment of $1½ million, which the government is seeking to take outside of the $535 million? Does that mean that the current estimate of the total payments to SACA for its loans on the western stand will be not $85 million but an estimate of $87.5 million?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the government has legal concerns regarding the wording of 8A(4)(b) as it relates to previous legal loan agreements with the Treasurer. The government is completely supportive of the intent of the bill and appreciates the opposition's arguments and explanations of the wording and their intent. However, as a responsible government, the government cannot support the amendment as it stands.

The government's commitment is to spend $535 million on this project, not one dollar more. Our commitment was to pay SACA an amount of $85 million as a grant, and we paid $30 million of that to SACA in August. However, to protect our ongoing interests, we then made that a loan.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The $30 million?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The $30 million. Our intention is that, once legislation is passed, it will revert to a grant, as was our original commitment. The opposition amendment will decrease the government's ability to spend our $535 million on this project. So, it will actually reduce the value of that by an estimate of $1.5 million, probably more. What it does is it takes that money out of the project, which obviously is not our intention .

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I might need to repeat my question. Whilst the minister was getting the answer to the earlier question, she might have missed by next question, which is: can the minister now confirm that the government's current arrangement with SACA is to pay SACA an $85 million grant—and there is $1 million of interest subsidy, which will be within the $535 million, and there is $1.5 million current estimate (and, as the minister has just said, probably more) interest subsidy the government wants outside the $535 million? Is the government's current estimate of total payments to SACA for the western stand $87.5 million?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the answer to your question is no. The cost will be $85 million for the project, plus $1 million out of the $535 million for interest.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: In relation to the taxpayer payments to SACA, the minister's advice was that $85 million is the grant and $1 million in interest subsidies which is part of the $535 million. Why isn't the other $1.5 million in interest subsidy also included in terms of the total payments to SACA, making it $87.5 million?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The advice I have received is that the government's intention was always to give $85 million as a grant and not a cent more. We are only talking about the protection the government implemented when it forwarded the first $30 million to SACA, in the event that this project did not proceed. If this legislation passes the project proceeds, and there is going to be an $85 million grant to SACA, as previously proposed.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: There is an $85 million grant, but the minister in a previous response (based on advice) agreed that there would be another payment of $1 million in terms of interest subsidy costs, so that is $86 million that is going to be paid to SACA. The minister's previous answer confirmed that.

What I am asking the minister to confirm or advise this house now is: why isn't the $1.5 million current estimate of the further interest subsidy also added to the $86 million, giving a figure of $87.5 million? Is that not an interest subsidy which is being paid to SACA to reimburse them for their costs? They get the grant, they get $1 million in interest subsidy within the $535 million, and another $1.5 million in interest subsidy for their loan as a result of the legal agreement you have, giving a total of $87.5 million.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the $1.5 million is not money that we are paying to SACA; it is money that SACA would have to pay to us if the project did not proceed. If the project does proceed, it is a grant for $30 million, not a loan, and we are not paying any more to SACA.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I have to say that I am more confused than ever. In the nature of the discussions I had with the government's advisers, I understood this was a further interest subsidy cost, and that is what we have been talking about up until now. Now the minister is saying that if the project does not proceed it is what SACA would have to pay the government. We are not talking about that; we are talking about the project proceeding.

My understanding, from the discussions with the government's advisers, is that if the project proceeds, given the legal agreements the government has with SACA, there is this issue of the interest costs at the moment, which add up to $1.5 million. Someone has to pay for them—either SACA or the government. My understanding is that the government is telling us it is the government that has to pay them. This amendment is just working out whether it comes out of the 535 or it does not. However, what the minister has just said is completely opposite to the understanding that the shadow treasurer and I had in terms of discussions with the government's advisers.

I think it is important that we place on the record and make it quite clear here what it is that the government's advisers are saying in relation to this. Our understanding (the shadow treasurer and mine) is that this was an additional $1.5 million cost and, indeed, the minister said earlier, 'If it comes out of the 535, that will mean $1.5 million less to be spent on the capital build of the project.' The automatic inference of that is that it is $1.5 million of real money less that could be spent on the project because it is going to be spent on interest subsidy costs under our amendment. That is our position: the total costs should come out of the 535.

I know it is on advice, but I do not understand the last advice the minister has received and put on the record in relation to this issue. I do not think the government can argue the case that, 'Hey, if we don't have our amendment, we're going to have $1.5 million of real money less to spend on the capital build,' and then say, 'Well, it's not actually money that's, in essence, real money that's going to go to SACA.' I think there is an inconsistency in the minister's advice on this particular issue which needs to be confirmed for the committee.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that our intention, if the bill passes, is that we will forgive SACA the requirement to pay us the interest due on the loan that we set up to protect us handing over that first $30 million. We are forgiving SACA the requirement to pay the interest to the government. The opposition's amendment effectively catches that as an extra payment to SACA, and that is not the intention, nor is it the fact.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I will not delay the proceedings this evening much more on that. Whilst that answer does not clarify it exactly, it does make clear the nature of this amendment. We will have the opportunity, I guess, with Treasury officers and SAFA officers to get the technical detail perhaps in another forum. Let me conclude by indicating that we will be strongly opposing this particular provision (b). It is a simple argument: the minister even said again tonight, 'Not a dollar more than $535 million.' It is quite clear that, if this amendment passes, there will potentially be an extra $1.5 million and, as the minister said, probably more, because that is only a current estimate of the costs.

The potential cost is $536.5 million, or a little bit more depending on interest rate movements, obviously, between now and when the deal is finally resolved. To be consistent with the government's position, as announced firstly by former treasurer Foley and the Premier, and to be consistent with the caucus resolution moved by the member for Croydon, Mr Atkinson, not a dollar more than $535 million to be spent, and to be consistent with this particular amendment that we are moving to keep the government to that particular commitment, I urge members to oppose this attempt from the government to squeeze an additional $1.5 million, or possibly more, out of the deal.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I think we have provided all of the clarification that is possible. Members of the agency and officers have been spent time speaking to the opposition and crossbenchers. I urge those crossbenchers to support the government in relation to this particular proposal. Put most simply, I can assure members that the $1.5 million is not an extra payment to SACA.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I have been listening very carefully to the debate and I thought I had it clear and then it became less clear, and it is clarifying again in my mind. The Greens have always been concerned about the amount of money that this project is costing—$535 million for 12,000 extra seats. I know there is more than just extra seats, but it is an incredibly expensive project and all of us can think of other pressing community needs where this money could be well spent.

The Greens support the provision, which reduces the amount of wriggle room for the government to evade the commitment it has given to the South Australian people, which is that not a dollar more than the $535 million will be spent. From listening to the Hon. Rob Lucas's questions and the honourable minister's answers, it seems to me that, whether it is a cheque handed over or a $1.5 million debt forgiven, it is real public money.

If the implication is that the $535 million drops town to $533.5 million, then so be it. That means that in relation to the two amendments before us, the first of the government's amendment I do not believe is contentious—I have not heard anyone speak against it—and we will support it, but the second amendment we will not support and will stick with the original paragraph (b) of subclause (4) of the new section 8A that is being inserted. We will be supporting the original Liberal amendment and will not be supporting the government's amendment.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Same here: I will be supporting the Liberal's amendment and not supporting the government's amendment.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Just a question for the minister: what are the implications in real terms, what is the practical effect of this $1.5 million? What does SACA claim they will miss out on if they have to repay this $1.5 million in interest? What is the actual impact?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The impact is that it will be $1.5 million less that the government will have to contribute to this project, possibly more.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: My question is whether they have indicated what that means in real terms? Okay, $1.5 million, but what is the impact of that $1.5 million?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: It means that the project budget is reduced by $1.5 million, but in terms of which part of the project could not go ahead, I would not be able to provide you with that. Clearly the project as outlined would not be able to be fully paid for, by $1.5 million.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Did the government make a commitment when they loaned this money to the SACA that it would be interest free, effectively?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that the deal with SACA was that it would be interest free and a grant if the project proceeded. If the project did not proceed we have protected our interest and reverted it to a grant.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Sorry, last question, I think. That being the case, was there a formal agreement, as in a written agreement, between the SACA and the government to that effect? That is, if this does not occur, would the government be in breach of that agreement?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that, yes, there is a formal legal agreement, and that is why SACA has to receive its full $85 million, and that would result in $1.5 million less to spend on the project.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I do have one further question, that being the case. I do not want to delay the committee, but we are right at the nub of it here. It is fair to say, then, based on that answer, minister, that the SACA was never expecting to pay this $1.5 million; that it had always understood that it would not be faced with that expense?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that that is correct.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Family First supports both amendments.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Having heard that explanation, I will be supporting the government on both amendments.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: It is with a very heavy heart that I support the government on this.

Amendment to amendment carried; proposed new clause 8A(3) negatived.

The committee divided on the Hon. G.E. Gago's amendment to proposed new clause 8A(4)(b):

AYES (10)
Brokenshire, R.L. Darley, J.A. Finnigan, B.V.
Gago, G.E. (teller) Gazzola, J.M. Holloway, P.
Hood, D.G.E. Hunter, I.K. Vincent, K.L.
Wortley, R.P.
NOES (9)
Bressington, A. Dawkins, J.S.L. Franks, T.A.
Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I. (teller) Parnell, M.
Ridgway, D.W. Stephens, T.J. Wade, S.G.
PAIRS (2)
Zollo, C. Lee, J.S.

Majority of 1 for the ayes.

Amendment to amendment carried; new parts as amended inserted.

Clause 9.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I move:

Page 7—

Lines 27 and 28—Delete 'or to land within the Adelaide Oval Licence Area that is subject to a licence under this Act'

Lines 233 and 34—Delete 'or within the Adelaide Oval Licence Area'

My understanding is that my amendment [Parnell-1] 8 is identical to [Lucas-4] 34 and also my amendment [Parnell-1] 9 is identical to [Lucas-1] 35. The effect of these amendments is to make it clear that the Adelaide Parklands Management Strategy under the Adelaide Parklands Act and also the management plan under chapter 11 of the Local Government Act will apply to the Adelaide Oval licence area. Under the government's bill, both those documents were not to apply. These amendments say that they do.

This is under the section entitled 'Interaction with other acts' and it is the section that guides decision-makers as to the information they should take into account when making their decisions, so I think it is important that we acknowledge that the Adelaide Parklands Management Act is only some six years old. I understand that the strategy under that act—and the minister will perhaps correct me if I am wrong—is identical to the management plan under the Local Government Act and that those documents should continue to apply to the licence area, which I remind members is the larger area bounded by the road network. It does not include the core area where the oval itself sits.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government rises to oppose both of these amendments. The Adelaide Oval licence area is integral to the overall redevelopment and operations of the Adelaide Oval. It is not unreasonable for the government to seek certainty in securing appropriate tenure over this land, particularly in terms of the length of the licence period. The government will ensure, through its own arrangements with the SMA, that the Parklands in the licence area are protected and, wherever possible, enhanced through the redevelopment of the Adelaide Oval.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: As the honourable member has indicated, the Liberal Party has some amendments so we will be supporting them. As I indicated earlier, I think in debate on amendment No. 25, we see that these, while perhaps not strictly consequential, are part of a package of amendments that the opposition has moved. The earlier amendment No. 25 was successful and I think all members, other than government members, supported it. I think that was the case with that amendment. This is a part of that package of amendments in terms of a compromise position that I outlined in the second reading on behalf of the member for Davenport and the Liberal Party, and we therefore will be supporting the amendments moved by the Hon. Mr Parnell.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be supporting those.

Amendments carried.

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

Page 7, after line 34—Insert:

(3a) Despite section 11 of the Development Act 1993, the Development Assessment Commission is not, in the exercise and discharge of its powers, functions or duties under this Act, subject to the direction and control of the Minister responsible for the administration of that Act.

This amendment, I think, is a result of further discussion with parliamentary counsel and the member for Davenport. This committee has already supported a package of amendments so that, essentially, when there are some issues of dispute involving the SMA and the council, there is a dispute resolution mechanism, I guess, which is the Development Assessment Commission (DAC) as the independent umpire, as I outlined on behalf of the Liberal Party in the second reading and in earlier stages of this debate.

Our advice is that, evidently, there is a section in the Development Act which does allow the minister to direct DAC and, clearly, it would not make much sense, if we were going to set up DAC as an independent umpire, that the minister could then direct DAC when it is meant to be an independent umpire. This is, in essence, seeking to resolve that particular problem so that DAC can undertake the role envisaged by this package of amendments of being a dispute resolution mechanism, or the independent umpire, on a number of issues.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government is opposing this. We do not believe that there is any reason for this to be in the legislation.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Greens are supporting this amendment for the reasons set out by the Hon. Rob Lucas.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: So are we, Mr Chairman.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: And I, Mr Chairman.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

New clause 9A.

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

Page 8, after line 2—Insert:

9A—Council leases, licences and approvals in adjacent area

(1) The Council must not grant a prescribed lease, licence or approval in relation to any part of the adjacent area without the consent of SMA.

(2) A lease, licence or approval granted in breach of this section is void and of no effect.

(3) In this section—

adjacent area means the area bounded by King William Road, Pennington Terrace, Montefiore Road and War Memorial Drive (other than land that is subject to a lease or licence to the Memorial Drive Tennis Club Inc., Next Generation Clubs Australia Pty Ltd or the South Australian Tennis Association Inc. and land that constitutes part of the Adelaide Oval Core Area or the Adelaide Oval Licence Area);

prescribed lease, licence or approval means a lease, licence or approval to use land for a business purpose that—

(a) is granted to a person or body other than the Minister or SMA; and

(b) confers rights on the lessee, licensee or holder of the approval (as the case may be) in relation to a day on which an event is to be held at Adelaide Oval or Adelaide Oval No. 2.

This is an issue that has been raised since the last debate by the SMA football and cricket interests. It raised the notion of 'ambush marketing', that is whether there might be the potential, where the SMA and Adelaide Oval have endorsed Coopers products or Vili's pies, or whatever it might happen to be, that the council might have the capacity, through areas such as Cresswell Gardens or Pennington Gardens or other areas, to license other competitors, that is a rival beer product or pie product, in those particular areas.

Clearly the SMA has a financial and a business interest, as do their sponsors, in not allowing the sort of circumstance where 50,000 people are pouring into the Oval where Coopers, for example, are sponsoring the product within the Oval, and there is a rival product outside—or with pies or whatever it might happen to be. This particular amendment is simply seeking to ensure that ambush marketing—there is a variety of other terms for that—will not be allowed or permitted in those areas immediately adjacent to the Adelaide Oval.

I am sure the very good people in the Adelaide City Council would not even have contemplated such dastardly practices, but, potentially, less generous city councillors in 20 or 30 years' time might. This seeks to ensure that that set of circumstances is not a temptation for future Adelaide City Council members, and it seems to make sense. We urge support of the amendment.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government is not opposed to this amendment. We appreciate the intent behind amendment no. 2, which provides the SMA with rights in the event council intends to provide tenure over adjacent land to third parties, therefore we are not opposed to these two amendments.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Whilst the outcome of this amendment is not in any doubt, and whilst normally I would need to address a question to the mover, the fact that the government is not opposed to the amendment suggests that the government has given some consideration to it. What I want to ask about is whether we can make sure that the type of leases, licences and approvals that would offend this protection would be constrained to the sort of matters that the Hon. Rob Lucas raised.

It seems quite reasonable that you do not want the rival commercial entities being licensed by the council to use the Parklands. That makes sense, but my understanding is that, for example, if someone gets married in the cathedral and they want to take photos or they want to do some things over in the gardens, then there is an approval process. I do not know if it is a formal licence process. I just want to make sure that there is not going to be a blanket prohibition on any form of lease, licence or approval in this area on match days, because it seems that some will be completely non-contentious, non-controversial.

If I can partly answer my own question, I see that the amendment says that the council—meaning the Adelaide City Council—must not grant a 'prescribed lease, licence or approval'. So, if I could ask the minister to clarify whether she would understand the term 'prescribed lease licence or approval' to relate to the types of issues that the Hon. Rob Lucas talked about and that it would not catch, for example, other forms of permission that do not in any way interfere with the conduct of football or cricket at Adelaide Oval.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that it prevents ambush marketing on days where there is an SMA event.

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

New clause inserted.

Clauses 10 and 11 passed.

New clause 11A.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 8, after line 13—Insert:

11A—Pedestrian bridge

(1) Subject to subsection (2), if a pedestrian bridge is to be constructed over the River Torrens from an area within the vicinity of Adelaide Oval to an area on the southern bank of the river, the bridge should be sited so as to provide a direct connection between the Adelaide Oval and the area situated between the Festival Theatre building and the Drama Centre building.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if—

(a) the Minister determines, in a report laid before both Houses of Parliament, that a bridge complying with the requirements of that subsection would involve considerable additional expense when compared to a pedestrian bridge on an alignment further to the west (the 'alternative bridge'); and

(b) the construction of the alternative bridge is approved by a resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament.

(3) In this section—

Drama Centre building means the building which, on the commencement of this section, houses the Dunstan Playhouse, the Space Theatre and the Artspace.

Initially, when the government put the concept up to us and we went to briefings, etc., I understood that one of the fundamental factors with this concept for a reinvigorated Adelaide Oval was that the entrance to the main entrance from the CBD precinct across the river to the southern entrance was to come off of the plaza between the two main shells of the Festival Theatre.

I can remember that those people giving the briefing said that it was paramount that that occur, because it was fundamental to the benefit of all the other developments and redevelopments that were occurring, had occurred or were intended to occur. They said that it was going to be paramount to the opportunities for foot traffic accessing the railway station, the new extended tramline and also the general bus services that travel north, south, east and west running through King William Street, North Terrace and that general precinct. Also, as I understood it, it was important in that it would allow for the reinvigoration of opportunities into the central part of the central business district.

Based on that and a lot of other analysis, and discussions between my colleague the Hon. Dennis Hood, party members and others, we made a decision to support the government on this redevelopment. There was a lot of in-depth discussion between Dennis Hood and myself over that, and it was agreed that we would support the government. Then all of a sudden, out of the blue, on about 5 July, there was a story in the paper saying that the footbridge may go to the Convention Centre.

Following that, I FOI'd quite a lot of documentation, which I received expediently in an unusual way from all players involved in where the footbridge should go to benefit the community of South Australia, who, at the end of the day, is putting in this $534 million, or thereabouts, plus an additional $40 million that was unfunded.

I received a very quick response to my FOI. It was interesting to see that, contrary to what the government had been saying—including the Premier—there were some very urgent meetings. A joint signed letter went off to the Premier, the minister responsible for the infrastructure project, the minister responsible for DTEI (the Hon. Patrick Conlon) and, I think, the Deputy Premier as well. The letter was signed by the head of the Festival Theatre complex, the head of the now InterContinental (the old Hyatt) and also the head of the casino, saying that they had serious concerns about—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: And the SMA.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: And, as Rob points out, the SMA. The SMA was absolutely consistent about the fact that where this footbridge went was paramount to the project. I will put on the public record that we are supporting this project, but that is not without some personal concerns that I have about the ad hoc way in which this project was developed and the fact that there was enormous pressure from the AFL, arguably to underpin the future of Port Power and stop the AFL from having to inject millions of dollars into the survival of Port Power year in, year out—as it was put to us—and the dividend that was ultimately paid, as I understand, to the CEO of the AFL. So, all of a sudden, all this comes back onto the taxpayers of South Australia.

As a country person, I am seeing enormous neglect of South Australian rural and regional areas from this government. I had to consider very diligently the arguments and, having done that, I saw overall merit in the project. Why all of a sudden should a government then decide that it is okay to have two or three options as to where this footbridge may go? One of the concepts was that it go to the Convention Centre.

The facts then started to come out and, not long after I got the FOI and there was another story in the media, the Convention Centre admitted that, of the amount of money that it had appropriated for the third stage upgrade and development of the Convention Centre, surprisingly, $40 million was going to go to what they described on radio as money to help upgrade the landscape and to other opportunities for the amenity of the locality within the Riverbank Precinct.

That is code for the fact that this government, which initially said that it was not going to do anything and then made a commitment under duress from the AFL to spend about $480 million, from memory—then that became $534 million or thereabouts and then not one dollar more—still had to actually provide a footbridge and it did not have any money for the footbridge. It had no allocation, no idea where that money was going to come from and it did not want to have any more money on the balance sheet, over and above what it already has, with respect to debt.

So, then comes the announcement for the upgrade of the Convention Centre and a nice little figure, $40 million, appears. You could do a lot with $40 million when it came to lawns, flowers, plants and pavers around the riverbank precinct, but that $40 million is not for any of that, as I understand it now. That $40 million is to get the government out of trouble on a footbridge.

I say that, if the government is going to manipulate taxpayers' funds that way to get itself out of trouble, then it ought to be honest and clean with the South Australian community when it comes to: one, where the best place for the footbridge should be; and, two, being honourable to the members of parliament who were briefed, who were actually shown all of the high tech IT presentation of this beautiful footbridge rolling out from the Festival Theatre into the main southern entrance of the new upgraded stadium.

We still, I do not believe, have had the truth told to us in this parliament. In fact, I do not believe that this government damn well knows where the footbridge is going to go, and that is not good enough. Here we are with all these amendments, at the eleventh hour, being asked to pass this this week, so that the government can get on with this project before the end of this year, to satisfy commitments that are required between cricket and football. They want us in this Legislative Council, where the only analysis is done because nothing is being done in the other house on behalf of the South Australian community, to rubberstamp again $40 million and it will work out where it goes down the track, when it ultimately gets a master plan or whatever.

This state is in deep trouble at the moment. I am not going to hide from those facts. I do not want to pull the confidence of this state down, but I am in business myself and I know how tough it is out there. This ad hoc, kneejerk reaction, make decision on the run mentality of this government has got to stop and that is why I have moved this amendment. Let us see what happens with this amendment here tonight. It is very clear and it simply ties in with what we were shown when we went to the presentation—twice, in fact, as my honourable colleague says. Twice we were told and shown where it had to go.

There has been discussion and debate about whether or not this should all occur before a master plan comes out. It has gone so far down the track, Family First for one have locked into it. It is going to go ahead before a master plan, but something that is so fundamental and pivotal to all of this is public transport because the whole idea is to encourage people to use rail, bus and tram as much as possible. Then let us put it in a position where we as a parliament know on behalf of the South Australian constituents just where this bridge is going to go.

At the moment, we are told, not by the government, not by the minister, not by the Premier, but by the head of Adelaide Convention Centre that they do not intend, or have never requested, for the footbridge to go to the Convention Centre. But something has gone on and I want to put on the public record that I do not blame the head of the Convention Centre or, indeed, the board of the Convention Centre for perhaps rattling the cage and saying, 'Hang on a minute. All of a sudden we have got to find $40 million to ensure that there is a footbridge.'

If I was on that board, I would be saying, 'If they damn well want $40 million, put it through to the Convention Centre,' because you actually have probity issues and that around what that $40 million is potentially when the Auditor-General has a look it all with respect to the decision that has now been made by the Convention Centre. So, at the moment, we have no absolute commitment from the government as to where $40 million is going to be spent with a footbridge pivotal to this whole concept, as we have been told. So, that is why I have moved this amendment.

I am disappointed, in summary, that I have had to move this amendment because I should not have had to move it because we were told it was a done deal. The only problem was they did not have $40 million. With that, I strongly recommend to my colleagues that this amendment be supported because I think the South Australian community are sick and tired of being treated in contempt by the government and, whilst it might be arguable that now 50 to 60 per cent of people in the state support the Adelaide redevelopment, I think they want some certainty and I am sure that I, at least as one MP, want to guarantee a commitment tonight from the government as to where this footbridge is going.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Indeed, the general public of South Australia do want certainty, but they do not want a dud bridge, so we can certainly agree on those matters. The government rises to oppose this amendment. The government does not object to an amendment specifying that the bridge, for instance, should be located to facilitate easy and convenient access between Adelaide Oval and public transport on the southern side of the river. Our aim is that the bridge will service public transport.

There is no intention, and never has been any intention, to run the bridge from the Adelaide Oval to the Convention Centre nor is there any intention, and there never has been any intention, to build a bridge that requires the public to travel around in circles to get from one side of the river to the other.

The government opposes an amendment that specifies a particular design solution in the legislation before anyone has been engaged to actually design the bridge. If this amendment succeeds, it will mean that it will funnel spectators into a 2.4 metre-wide footbridge and then on to a footpath outside the Casino. Basically, it will send everyone to the front door of the Casino (SkyCity) to a footpath outside SkyCity, which is taken over by SkyCity. If you think about it, it is the cafe North, tables and chairs, valet parking, and I draw your attention to the fact that it takes spectators 25 steps above the Railway Station, so people have to then circle down and around and back to the station. So, it is unlikely that what is being proposed in this amendment is going to be the best solution for the members of the public.

A designer will be engaged and, when a designer is appointed, we expect that we will receive advice on things like the height of the structure, the impact it has on views from King William Street towards the west, we expect advice on the best way to get direct access to the concourse of the Railway Station and to North Terrace—of course, which are on two different levels—and it will involve extensive public engagement and consultation. It is unnecessary, and I would say irresponsible, at this point in time to pre-prescribe one solution in legislation when subsequent work may in fact show that it is not the best solution.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The issue of the bridge is an issue that I have raised publicly. I will put on the record my views, and they are that the views that have been supported by the SMA, the Casino, the Festival Centre, the Intercontinental and public transport advocates seem to make most sense to me in relation to the location of the bridge—and that is broadly the bridge that the Hon. Mr Brokenshire is talking about. The minister has just indicated—on the record—what a terrible prospect this bridge alignment would be, because it would funnel people into what is currently a 2.5 metre wide section and then past the Casino.

That is of no concern to me. It might be of concern to those who are opposed to gambling and casino issues, but I do not have any problems or concerns with that. The minister was pointing that out as some sort of shock, horror, terrible thing. I remind the minister that, as the Hon. Mr Brokenshire said, this is actually the proposal that her government and her advisers put to people like the Hon. Mr Brokenshire. I did not attend those particular briefings, but I accept the validity of what the Hon. Mr Brokenshire has said, and no-one has denied that.

The minister stands up today and says, 'This is a terrible solution. It will have people going past the Casino, what a shocker!' It will have them funnelled into what is currently a 2.5 metre wide pathway—

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: It is 2.4 metres.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Sorry, I stand corrected. I was exaggerating: it is a 2.4 metre wide pathway. I remind the minister that this was her government 's solution, this is what they put to people—

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The SMA.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government advisers and the SMA were working arm in arm all the way through this, so I do not accept the notion that, 'Hey; it's the SMA.' This is what was being put to the SMA, the Festival Centre, this is what was understood by the InterContinental, the Casino, and public transport advocates. If it is such a shocking solution, then the government and its advisers, together with the SMA and whoever else was involved—the government and the taxpayers were paying for all this—have to accept responsibility for it.

As I said, the minister puts this issue of going past the Casino as a terrible thing, but I do not think it is. I think it is a sensible proposition. I do not have the hang-ups in relation to gambling that obviously the minister and some other members may well have. I remind the minister and members that more than 10 years ago the original master plan for this particular precinct had an upgrade of the entrance area on Station Road, and the removal of valet parking, as part of a long-term master plan vision, as well as thoroughfares past a redeveloped Station Road for the Casino, part of which should be funded by the Casino. The immediate cry from the government would be, 'Who is going to pay for this?' Well, part of it should be funded by the Casino.

At that stage the North restaurant was not there, and they wanted to do other redevelopments along that particular area as well. Of course, part of it will relate to car parking issues, which the government will not want to talk about in this particular debate. I will not delay the chamber, but there will have to be resolutions to car parking issues for obvious reasons, both at Adelaide Oval and in this part of the Riverbank precinct.

I remind members (and not everyone will recall this ) that the original HASSELL master plan talked about linkages from North Terrace through to the riverfront, one of which was through Station Road past that terrible location, the Casino—shock, horror—and down to the riverfront. One of the proposals in the master plan was for a footbridge, obviously at that time the exact location had not been developed to the stage of the current thinking.

The CHAIR: That was Colonel Light.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I think you are a century or two out there, Mr Chairman. It was in the period 1999 through to 2000 or 2001. Indeed, one of the government's key advisers on this project, Mr Manuel Delgado, was one of the key advisers to the Riverbank cabinet committee at the time, which I chaired. He would have had all those proposals and master plans, etc., there.

Things have changed since then. We now have an Adelaide Oval redevelopment, and I accept all that argument. But this section, the discussion about a thoroughfare from North Terrace to the riverfront, past Station Road, was always part of that old master plan development, and in my view there is nothing wrong with having that in this particular development.

The second point I make (and the Hon. Mr Brokenshire has made the point and I have made it publicly as well) is that the government has created this problem of its own making because of the blowouts in the Adelaide Oval. The government hid $40 million in the Convention Centre budget, etc., and my views on that are publicly known, and I will not repeat them.

What the government is seeking to do here is: it is not a bridge to the Convention Centre but it is a bridge somewhere between the Festival Centre and the Convention Centre, and the government says that it wants to funnel it into the concourse to the railway station.

One of the problems is with one of the designs that have been floated with all of these other parties and it relates to the 20,000 or 25,000 people coming out of Adelaide Oval. One of the proposals the government's advisers are talking about involves 37 steps down, straight outside of the Adelaide Oval, and obviously an equivalent number, or around about an equivalent number, of steps up on the other side; that proposal was for a lower hung bridge than what had originally been floated.

The clear safety issues of having 20,000 or 25,000 people pouring out of Adelaide Oval, shuffling down 37 steps, potentially in the rain or whatever it is, makes no sense to me anyway but, as I understand it from the government, it is now looking at a range of options. That was just one of the options, evidently, that was being strongly opposed by the SMA, in particular, football and cricket interests.

Before coming to the other technicalities of the amendment, the other point I make in relation to this issue of the bridge is that the government is talking about funnelling into the train station, but public transport is not just trains. Whilst I am not an expert on public transport, trains do not go everywhere in South Australia in terms of getting you to a location: there are buses and there are trams.

One of the advantages of the proposed alignment is that it is close to the railway station but it is also close to the north-south buses that go along King William Road, and it is also close to the tram links on North Terrace. There is certainly an argument, in terms of public transport, that it better provides for those broad options, not just funnelling you into the train option.

I am not sure there are too many trains that are heading east of the city, where perhaps some of the Crows supporters might reside, and I am not sure there are trains heading in some of the other suburb directions where Crows and Power supporters might be residing. So, one has to look not just at trains but also at trams and buses. In terms of my position I put publicly, I am supporting the notion of the bridge as promised by the government in its briefings earlier.

The problem I have with the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's amendments is that, essentially, we, the members of parliament, are ultimately potentially going to have to vote on an alignment, a design and a cost for a bridge. The Hon. Mr Brokenshire has discussed the first part of his amendment, but the second part is that, if the government wants to come back with a different option, we in both houses of parliament will have to vote for various bridge options in terms of whatever it might happen to be.

With the greatest respect to the Hon. Mr Brokenshire, whilst I am happy to express a view in relation to things, I do not hold myself out to be an architect, a design engineer or a structural financial expert in terms of costs and all those sorts of things in relation to the project. The view of my Liberal colleagues, in particular, the member for Davenport, who is handling the issue, is that, in the end, we will be the ones having to decide on both potentially a cost issue and on a design issue and those sorts of things.

The Hon. P. Holloway: Perhaps we could call it the Legislative Council bridge!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: That's a wonderful idea the Hon. Mr Holloway has suggested.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I think that, to be fair, it ought to be—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —the Holloway Memorial Bridge perhaps; that might be fitting. Anyway, let's not be diverted by these out-of-order interjections from the soon-to-be-retired honourable member. It is for those reasons that I and the member for Davenport have a concern in relation to supporting this amendment. It is not that we move or resile from our publicly stated view that the bridge alignment he is talking about seems to make the most sense, but we are honest enough to say that we have not seen all the other detail in terms of the costings, the design and stuff like that.

We would prefer not to be in a position at some stage in the future where in the end we have to be, as two houses of parliament, the arbiters and determiners of what is the best design and cost. For those reasons, we will not be supporting the amendment from the honourable member.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Whilst the outcome of this amendment now seems quite clear, having heard from both the government and the opposition, I want to put on the record that the Greens share the concerns of the Hon. Robert Brokenshire.

In fact, the day The Advertiser broke that story (which I am sure the government will still maintain was a beat-up and not a real story) it frightened many people into thinking that, despite what the government had been saying, maybe a footbridge was going to be built that serviced other than genuine public transport passengers, that maybe it was going to go further west towards the Convention Centre or maybe towards the car park that is proposed on the other side of the river from Adelaide Oval.

In fact, the Greens felt so strongly about this that we actually came out saying that our support for this whole project hinged on things like getting the footbridge and public transport right—that is how important it was. I fully support the intent of what the Hon. Robert Brokenshire is trying to do with this.

The minister sets out a range of problems, which I accept are real problems if the Riverside precinct, as we now know it, stays the same. It seems clear that it is not going to stay the same; it is going to be redeveloped in some form. It may well be that the landing place, if I can put it that way, that the Hon. Robert Brokenshire has put forward, which on the present scenario is the best spot for it to land, may not be the best spot for it to land once the redevelopment has gone ahead.

I am not talking about something that goes to the west, over to the Convention Centre. It may be that we could get a footbridge that goes even closer to North Terrace or even further towards the railway station, the tram stop and the bus routes. I am not quite sure what alignment it would take but, if we consider that the whole railway precinct where the current valet parking is will be redeveloped, it may well be that we get a better outcome for public transport, which I know is what the honourable member is seeking to achieve.

That brings us to some of the technical difficulties with this amendment. For example, if in a reconfigured Riverside precinct the bridge were to go further than the landing place between the two Festival Centre buildings, the way the amendment is currently worded it would not be possible to consider that because the chances are that it would be more expensive and, under the amendment as drafted, it is required to be cheaper and to the west when, in fact, it might be more expensive and further south.

I think the technical difficulty of the parliament doing the actual design work mitigates against supporting this amendment as it is drafted, but the intent of it, and what I know the honourable member is trying to achieve, the Greens absolutely support. The question then is: can we accept the commitment the minister has given—that it is and always was the government's intention to make sure that the footbridge maximises accessibility by public transport? Some people will accept that commitment and some people will not, but at the end of the day I appreciate that the minister has put on the record that that is their intention.

I think the technical issue that would inevitably require the parliament to sign off on alternative bridges, which may well be even better than the Hon. Robert Brokenshire has put forward, suggests that we should perhaps leave this amendment for now, but I know the honourable member and the Greens will be watching like hawks to make sure that we are not dudded and that we do get the best possible footbridge that services especially public transport passengers, whether they be on rail, tram or bus.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Could the minister confirm to the committee that $40 million of the appropriation for redevelopment of the Adelaide Convention Centre will be going directly to the funding of the footbridge?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the answer is yes.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Can the minister assure the house that if this amendment does not get up and, indeed, at some stage in the future they finally work out where they are going to put this bridge, that it will have full accessibility for people with disabilities, mothers with prams and pushers, older people with walking sticks and frames, gophers and the like?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Yes.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Can the minister explain to the house, if the footbridge now, in the wisdom of this very highly intelligent government, is going to shift to the west of its original proposed site when they were selling the spin to members of parliament, how will it better enhance access to Adelaide Railway Station, for a start, particularly in consideration of possibilities of a $250 million extension to the Casino? How and where does it think that people will then be able to enter the railway station?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: These will be matters for the design experts.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: For someone who is just a simple country boy like myself, can the minister explain to the house how the government can make a commitment to spend $534 million plus another $40 million on infrastructure into Adelaide and have a fundamental part of that, the gateway to it being a footbridge, expecting us to sign off tonight or tomorrow on this whole bill? Can the minister explain to us how we can have confidence in the government when it does not even know where the footbridge is going to be located?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The location of the bridge will be a matter for design experts. We have outlined all of the features that that bridge will be required to meet to facilitate the gateway to the oval facility, public transport, etc.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Can the minister confirm to the house, given her points in opposition of my amendment, whether the government has any planning now or intend to have any planning as part of the master plan and whether it has any money allocated to build infrastructure that would be an impediment or prevention in entirety to putting the footbridge back to where I understood the original concept was to have it, and that is between the two main shells of the festival Theatre complex in the area known as The Plaza?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that we have consultants who will be putting a master plan together and then, once that is done, we will be employing design consultants to design the bridge.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I gather that my colleagues have all had their say. I can count and it appears that my amendment will not get up. However, in talking to my amendment and in concluding my comments to the amendment, all I will say is that it is no wonder the state of South Australia is rapidly losing any confidence they had in this government when we are here tonight as a parliament trying to represent the community of South Australia and we have a $40 million investment and we do not even know what it is going to be and where it is going to go.

It is incredibly disappointing that this government treats the state of South Australia and the parliament as it does. I am frustrated, disappointed, annoyed and angry on behalf of the South Australian community that we are running a state like we are at the moment. It is an absolutely unacceptable situation by the government to expect the Legislative Council to conduct business on behalf of South Australians the way it is putting this bill to the parliament.

New clause negatived.

New clause 11A.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I move:

Page 8, after line 13—Insert:

11A—Public Transport Plan for Adelaide Oval

(1) The Minister must, within 12 months after the commencement of this section, prepare a report on strategies to encourage members of the public to travel to events at Adelaide Oval by public transport.

(2) The report must include a plan to achieve a target of at least 70% of members of the public using public transport (wholly or in part) to attend events at Adelaide Oval once the redevelopment envisaged by this Act is completed.

(3) The Minister must, within 6 sitting days after the report is completed, cause copies of the report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

As I alluded to in my contribution to the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's amendment, this issue of public transport is absolutely critical for the Greens. The reason for that is that the single biggest advantage that we see in bringing first-class sport—football, AFL football in particular—back to Adelaide Oval is the incredible capacity that we now have for this to be a public transport focused venue. I do not think it is pushing the envelope too far to say that a development like this could be absolutely transformational when it comes to Adelaide's public transport and the attitude of Adelaide citizens to using public transport to get to major events.

Members would have heard that currently, with football played at West Lakes at Football Park, about 80 per cent of people drive and about 20 per cent use public transport. The government has said that it thinks we could get to half the people using public transport. The Lord Mayor of the City of Adelaide has suggested that we could get 70 per cent of people using public transport in whole or in part, and I think that is a fine target for us to aspire to.

The amendment that I have put forward requires that the minister, within 12 months after the commencement of the section, must prepare a report on strategies to encourage members of the public to travel to events at Adelaide Oval by public transport. In fact, it is a requirement for the government to have a plan, and that is all it is. If members think that that might be something that is new or novel, I point out to members that the Adelaide Oval was upgraded not that long ago in relation to the Western Stand.

To get that upgrade, the SACA had to go to the Development Assessment Commission, and the Development Assessment Commission gave SACA a development approval that set out a range of conditions and requirements. I refer members to the approval for the Western Stand redevelopment that was granted by the Development Assessment Commission on Thursday 26 February 2009. We are just talking 2½ years ago. The Development Assessment Commission said:

The applicant is requested to submit reports on the following matters to the Development Assessment Commission and Adelaide City Council:

i. An integrated transport management plan for the operation of Adelaide Oval. The report shall consider options to encourage increased use by patrons of public transport and nearby public parking stations and avoid an increased and on-going use of the Park Lands for temporary parking and/or service access.

This requirement for a plan was already a requirement on, in this case, the cricket authorities as a consequence of the last upgrade of Adelaide Oval, so it is not a novel requirement. My understanding is, and I would love to be corrected—

The Hon. G.E. Gago: You are going to change our mind.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: No, I am going to be very quick, minister. My understanding is that that report might not have yet been prepared, in which case the report that I am calling for in this bill would effectively replace it and would enable the cricket authorities to meet their obligations to the Development Assessment Commission. As the minister suggested that the government will be supporting it, I will not speak any longer. It is a key requirement for the Greens and I would urge all honourable members to get behind this amendment.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I rise to support this amendment. We think it will assist in helping to improve and advance the way we use public transport.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Liberal Party will not oppose the amendment. I have to say, personally, I am not convinced, as I have indicated to the honourable member about this aspirational goal as he sought to cajole my support for 70 per cent public transport. He has indicated that currently it is 80/20 per cent at AAMI Stadium, but that this 70 per cent was the Lord Mayor's goal. I am not sure what public transport expertise, with the greatest respect to our current Lord Mayor, he has. I have not know him to be an expert on public transport planning. He tweets and he is the Lord Mayor, but I remain to be convinced of his expertise in this area. Why we would be signing off on 70 per cent because the Lord Mayor has this particular goal, I remain to be convinced.

The government is supporting it; we will not oppose it and certainly will not divide against it. We do not have a problem with the public transport plan, as I have indicated to the Hon. Mr Parnell, but we were just not convinced about the 70 per cent goal because the current Lord Mayor happens to think it is a good idea.

New clause inserted.

Clauses 12 and 13 passed.

New clause 13A.

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

Page 8, after line 27—Insert:

13A—Special annual sublease fee

(1) SMA is liable to pay the following amounts to the State on account of a sublease granted to SMA under section 5:

(a) in relation to 2015/2016 financial year—$200,000;

(b) in relation to 2016/2017 financial year—$400,000;

(c) in relation to 2017/2018 financial year—$600,000;

(d) in relation to 2018/2019 financial year—$800,000;

(e) in relation to 2019/2020 financial year—$1,000,000;

(f) in relation to each succeeding financial year while SMA holds a sublease over any part of the Adelaide Oval Core Area under this Act—$1,000,000 (indexed).

(2) An amount payable under this section in relation to a particular financial year must be paid by SMA to the Treasurer by 31 July immediately following the end of that financial year.

(3) The Treasurer must pay all amounts received from SMA under this section into the Sport and Recreation Fund established under the Gaming Machines Act 1992 for the purposes of the Active Club Program or, if that program is discontinued, a program that provides financial assistance to South Australian not for profit community based active recreation and sporting organisations.

(4) In this section, $1,000,000 (indexed) for a particular financial year means an amount obtained by multiplying $1,000,000 by a proportion obtained by dividing the Consumer Price Index for the quarter ending on 31 March in the financial year immediately preceding the relevant financial year by the Consumer Price Index for the quarter ending on 31 March 2019.

(5) In this section—

Consumer Price Index means the Consumer Price Index (All groups index for Adelaide).

The new clause 13A is in [Lucas-8]. There was an original version of it in [Lucas-4], which has now been superseded.

The Liberal Party's position was that rent should be paid. As members know, it increases from $200,000 over a five-year period up to $1 million. One of the issues raised with the Liberal Party, which we have agreed with the government, is that it was unclear under our amendment what happened after year 5 and the SMA wanted some certainty. So we have provided in our amendment that that will be indexed at $1 million and it cannot therefore capriciously be increased significantly after year 5. That is one aspect of the new amendment.

The second part was this debate raised by the Hon. Mr Hood. I pay due regard to the Hon. Mr Hood raising the amendment. He had an original amendment that was for junior sport. I think the Hon. Ms Franks had an amendment, which I think was junior and country sport. So, we had a number of amendments. I think we then had [Hood-2]—if I can call that [Hoodie-2]—which was a refinement but nevertheless still heading to junior sport, but that particular amendment was going to be $500,000 or $1 million from year 1 rather than factoring up—

The Hon. D.G.E. Hood: For junior sport in the country.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Okay, for junior sport. So, it was getting quite complicated. Members can speak for themselves but potentially some or all of those amendments might be withdrawn, but we will wait for that debate.

Our new amendment, drawing on the contributions from the Hon. Mr Hood, the Hon. Ms Franks and others, was seeking to come to some common ground and to use some existing process. I pay due respect to the member for Davenport, who was a former minister for recreation and sport and who has some considerable knowledge of this particular area. This money would go into the Sport and Recreation Fund, but that part of the fund which is the Active Club Program.

Lower house members in particular will be familiar with that. It is, according to the member for Davenport, governed by an independent committee. The structure was set up in the post Ros Kelly whiteboard era and, as a result of that, it was set up so that the minister had no direct responsibility in directing these grants into particular electorates. There is an independent committee which makes recommendations, and then ultimately the lower house members provide grants to clubs within their area.

The guidelines are quite specific, I am advised, so that if you are a club with pokie machines you are not entitled to grants under this particular program, and there are other guidelines as well, obviously, in terms of how the particular program operates. What it does provide is funding for sport and recreation. It is not just junior sport, but it is for youngies and oldies; it is not just country, but it is metro and country; and it is not just sport, but it is sport and recreation.

It is the broadest possible opportunity for usage, and it uses an existing structure which is already there and which could therefore be augmented. The member for Davenport, I know, has spoken to a number of members. He has some knowledge in this area and he—and ultimately the Liberal Party—strongly recommend that this particular new amendment is a compromise amendment which might attract the possibility of support from the largest number of people in the chamber.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government rises to support this amendment—well, at least not oppose it. The government's proposal was for sports to allocate additional funds to junior and country sport, not rent. However, sport is not objecting to this, so therefore we will not oppose it.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Just very briefly I would like to thank the Hon. Mr Lucas for his kind words there. I withdrew my amendment, frankly, because I think that the amendment proposed by the opposition is a superior one for the reasons that the Hon. Mr Lucas outlined. It is certainly broader and, for that reason alone, I think it deserves a tick, and it will receive Family First support.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I am also happy to indicate that I am withdrawing my amendment, as this is a superior one. I thank the member for Davenport for his briefing earlier on today, and I think that it is refreshing to finally talk about sport and recreation in this bill.

New clause inserted.

Clause 14.

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

Page 8, line 29—Delete 'lease' and substitute: sublease.

My advice is that this is consequential on—or it is part of the package of amendments which started with my amendment No. 25 and then flowed onto, I think, amendments Nos 34 and 35. It is part of a package of amendments which has now been supported by the council, and we urge support for this particular amendment as well.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

New clause 14A.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Page 8, after line 32—Insert:

14A—Temporary use of adjacent area during construction period

(1) Despite any other Act or law (and without the need for any further consent, approval or authorisation), the Minister may, for the purpose of carrying out works for the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval during the construction period, enter and remain on any land in the adjacent area and do any of the following:

(a) take any vehicles, machinery or equipment on the land;

(b) deposit any material on the land;

(c) undertake works on the land;

(d) erect fences, workshops, sheds and other structures of a temporary character on the land;

(e) divert vehicles and pedestrians through any part of the land;

(f) occupy, and do any other works on, the land necessary for the purpose of carrying out works for the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval.

(2) A management plan under Chapter 11 of the Local Government Act 1999 that applies to the adjacent area during the construction period is taken to be modified to the extent of any inconsistency with subsection (1).

(3) The Minister may not, however, remove or damage any trees in the adjacent area in the exercise of powers under this section.

(4) If, in the exercise of powers under this section, any damage is caused to land in the adjacent area, the Minister must take reasonable measures to make good the damage at the end of the construction period.

(5) In this section—

adjacent area means the area bounded by King William Road, Pennington Terrace, Montefiore Road and War Memorial Drive (other than land that is subject to a lease or licence to the Memorial Drive Tennis Club Inc., Next Generation Clubs Australia Pty Ltd or the South Australian Tennis Association Inc. and land that constitutes part of the Adelaide Oval Core Area or the Adelaide Oval Licence Area);

construction period means the period ending—

(a) on the day on which the Minister publishes a notice in the Gazette, declaring the end of the construction period for the purposes of this definition; or

(b) 31 December 2014,

whichever occurs first.

This amendment involves the temporary use of land for construction. Given the challenging construction program and numerous activities that need to be undertaken within and outside the core area, it is of paramount importance that the land immediately surrounding the core area is made available to the minister during the construction period. This amendment will provide the contractor greater flexibility in scheduling and carrying out works resulting in a safer work environment and a more timely construction program with less disruption and inconvenience to the public. The amendment also requires the minister to ensure that the adjacent land is suitably protected during the construction period and to make good any damage.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: This is a new amendment from the government subsequent to our debate two weeks ago for the reasons that have been outlined by the government, and we have had further detail from the government's advisers in a briefing. We accept the sense and the need for this particular amendment and intend to support it.

New clause inserted.

New clause 14B.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I will move my amendment in an amended form, that is, that it be new clause 14B, rather than 14A, because we now have a 14A. I move:

Page 8, after line 32 [clause 14B]—Insert:

14B—Deadlock provision—SMA

It will be taken to be an agreement between the directors of SMA that, in the event of a tied vote on any question to be determined by the directors—

(a) the matter will be referred to the President of The Law Society of South Australia with a request that he or she establish a process and appoint a person or body to determine the matter; and

(b) the directors will accept the decision that arises as a result of such a determination of the matter,

unless the directors resolve to adopt an alternative course of action in the circumstances of the particular case.

This amendment is a replacement for the original 14A in [Lucas-4] 38, which is the deadlock provision amendment.

I spoke about this during the second reading debate, and in essence what has occurred is that the SMA indicated that its deadlock provision was in its partnership agreement. I asked for a copy of the partnership agreement. I got a letter back from, I think, the SMA through Mr Delgado, or somebody in the government's advisory team, which said, 'No, we can't give you a copy of the final agreement because it hasn't been finalised yet, but here are the principles within it.'

I then advised parliamentary counsel, 'Here are the principles,' and the principle was that the deadlock provision is that if there is a tied vote, essentially between football and cricket, the partners had agreed that it would go off to the President of the Law Society to establish a process to resolve the difference. So, with parliamentary counsel, all we were intending to do was to reflect the agreement already existing as opposed to the partnership agreement.

The problem with the partnership agreement or the operators agreement is that at some stage in the future one of the parties could say, 'We no longer want to be bound by the partners agreement.' They cannot be compelled to continue to sign or agree to a partners agreement if they do not want to. As I indicated in the second reading, I cannot remember any legislation that we looked at where there is not some sort of deadlock-breaking provision, whether it is a deliberative and a casting vote for a chair or an odd number of members. Whatever it might happen to be, there is some mechanism to break deadlocks.

Parliamentary counsel drafted on my behalf a deadlock-breaking provision which reflected what we were told was the partners agreement. Subsequent to that, the government advisers, based on advice from the SMA, indicated that they had some concerns, and we had further discussions with the SMA, and I can outline the circumstances; that is, perhaps there might be a vote at the SMA where there is a tied vote but SACA and the SANFL do not really think it is important enough or significant enough to have to go to the trouble of the President of the Law Society establishing some sort of dispute-breaking mechanism.

It might not be a major issue. It might be as simple as—let me pick a trifling issue—who is going to speak first at the opening of the Adelaide Oval in 2014 and stand there next to either the Labor premier or the Liberal premier, whoever it happens to be at the time. Let's not get political.

The Hon. M. Parnell: What, here?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Exactly, at this late hour. Is it going to be the football boss or the cricket boss, or whatever it is? There might be a tied vote of four-all, or whatever it is, but they do not think that is really such a big issue that it has to go off, because it is a tied vote, to the Law Society president to resolve. They may resolve otherwise, that is, an alternative way of resolving it. They might say, 'We will toss a coin, or whatever, and we will sort it out amongst ourselves,' so they would have to agree to an alternative mechanism for resolving the issue.

This new amendment is saying, 'Okay, the Law Society option is there for something intractable when we cannot resolve the issue between the two parties,' as is consistent with their current (or soon to be) partners agreement. However, if there is a range of other issues where they do have a difference of opinion initially but then they agree on some alternative means of resolving the issue, then the new amendment seeks to allow them to agree to some alternative means or course of action.

Another issue that has been raised in recent times with me is that maybe one of their provisions might be that if there was a dispute and they could not agree they could resort to a default position, which is the status quo. As I outlined to football and cricket, that is not always going to be possible because it might be an entirely new set of circumstances where there is not a status quo. But, if there was a status quo type issue, this amendment, on my advice, would cover that.

They could have, for example, an alternative mechanism—a partners agreement over and above the legislation—which said that in certain circumstances, on some core principles, or whatever it is, if they cannot agree they resort to the status quo or stay with the status quo, and that could be their alternative course of action in the circumstances of the particular case if they so agreed amongst themselves.

The amendment is drafted to try to reflect their current set of circumstances but to provide a legislative framework for it. In the event that there is an intractable breakdown 20 years down the track and it becomes impossible, there is a mechanism for resolving disputes between the two warring parties, short of having to come back in here and amend legislation or take over the project. That is always a possibility for a future parliament, I guess, but it is an attempt to try to set a deadlock provision in the legislation.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government rises to oppose this amendment. Cricket and football remain adamant that they cannot accept this amendment. They advise government that it puts into legislation a set of legal arrangements that are not yet fully defined. While the government will and has compromised on many other areas, we cannot accept this, especially given the advice from SACA and SANFL.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I have a question of the minister, given the vehemence of the government's opposition to this clause. Is there not an escape provision, if you like, in what the honourable member has put forward? Basically, he has put forward a deadlock mechanism but it concludes with the words, 'unless the directors resolve to adopt an alternative course of action in the circumstances of the particular case'. That would say to me that, whenever there is a dispute and the SMA does not want anyone else interfering, they will just resolve to resolve their dispute in a way other than what is in this clause. I am just wondering what real harm this clause does.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that if this amendment succeeds it will give an avenue for one of the sports to have access to legislation to operate outside of the agreements that will exist between the two sports. That is why the sports in particular feel so strongly opposed to this.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I thank the minister for her answer. I accept that in some ways this mechanism is outside the scope of the bill, which is about the project and how it should proceed rather than attempting to govern the internal procedures of the Stadium Management Authority. The bill before us is not a Stadium Management Authority bill which establishes the authority and sets out who is on it and how it is to operate. On the basis of the minister's answer, the Greens will not be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am disappointed to hear that, but let me just place on the record again why I think this is an important issue and add to it. As I said earlier in relation to some of the earlier amendments, if there is a breakdown in governance of the SMA, it will ultimately be the taxpayers who will have to pick up whatever financial liabilities and mess has been created during that period.

I outlined in relation to some of the earlier amendments that there could be a breakdown, where SANFL and SACA have no money, the SMA has, through poor governance and a breakdown in their governance, incurred significant financial liabilities or problems and then we have a breakdown in governance, where one of the parties says to the other, 'We are not going to be bound by this gentleman's agreement, this partners' agreement we have between us, which is outside the legislation.'

What they are saying to us is they are going to have this partners' agreement where two parties agree to resolve their disputes by going off to the Law Society and having things resolved and whatever other mechanism they might want to have. That is just an agreement between two parties. If there is a major breakdown between the two parties at some stage in the future and one of the parties says, 'That's it; we are tearing up the partners' agreement. We are not going to be bound by that anymore,' there is nothing the other party can do. An agreement is an agreement between two parties. It cannot bind them for 80 years, whereas the legislation potentially can.

In that set of circumstances, where there is a breakdown in governance, and where there is a major problem at some stage in the future—and I do not envisage that happening in the immediate future—there is then no deadlock provision, because the two parties have in essence torn up their agreement and we have two warring groups unable to resolve anything because the structure of that body is 4:4. They either both have to agree or nothing happens; that is the way it has been structured.

I do not accept this argument that this is a body separate and apart. This is a body ultimately that the taxpayers and we the government, the parliament, will be responsible for, because we are pouring nearly $600 million worth of taxpayers' money into a project which ultimately they are going to govern, run and control. If there are problems, the problems will come back on the taxpayers and the government.

Whilst I acknowledge what the Hon. Mr Parnell has said, I urge the other minor party and Independent members to support this particular deadlock provision because it is not something separate and apart. In my view it is integral to good governance and it is integral to protecting the taxpayers' interests in relation to this particular project.

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

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I just want to put one more thing on the record, and that is that any sublease to the SMA is preconditioned by the licence between the minister and the sports. The SMA is a ground manager and there is no reason for them not to work together in the best interests of the Adelaide Oval. I urge members to oppose the amendment.

The committee divided on the new clause:

AYES (9)
Darley, J.A. Dawkins, J.S.L. Hood, D.G.E.
Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I. (teller)
Ridgway, D.W. Stephens, T.J. Vincent, K.L.
NOES (10)
Bressington, A. Brokenshire, R.L. Finnigan, B.V.
Franks, T.A. Gago, G.E. (teller) Gazzola, J.M.
Holloway, P. Hunter, I.K. Parnell, M.
Wortley, R.P.
PAIRS (2)
Wade, S.G. Zollo, C.

Majority of 1 for the noes.

New clause thus negatived.

Clause 15 passed.

Schedules 1 to 5 and title passed.

Bill recommitted.

Clause 4.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Page 3—

Lines 32 and 33 [clause 4]—After new subclause (1) insert:

(1aa) A lease must be granted by the Council under subsection (1) within 30 days after the making of the request by the Minister (or such longer period as the Minister may allow).

The opposition has proposed that the council must grant the minister a lease and licence over the core and licence areas respectively. The government's amendments ensure these arrangements occur in a timely manner and provide the minister with a high degree of certainty regarding the nature of the terms and conditions of those arrangements.

The government believes it is reasonable that the council grants a lease and licence within 30 days. This is an important provision, ensuring that the project is able to maintain its obviously challenging program. To provide greater clarity, it is proposed that the lease and licence granted by the council will only be subject to terms and conditions specified by the minister.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: This is a new amendment moved by the minister and the government since we last debated the bill. It has been the subject of discussion by the member for Davenport and myself, and I indicate the Liberal Party's willingness to support this amendment and a related amendment to clause 7.

Amendment carried.

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

Page 3, lines 32 and 33 [clause 4]—New subclause (1a)(b)—delete 'may be' and substitute:

will only be

I think the minister has exactly the same amendment, amendment No. 2, on her set of amendments 4. So, I assume that the government agrees as well. This was an issue that was discussed during our last debate. The opposition has discussed this with the government, and the result of that discussion is that we agreed to move this particular amendment. The government is moving a similar amendment as well, so the government and the opposition are agreed on this particular change. We think it provides a certainty. If there was any potential doubt—we did not really think there was—in an excess of caution, we were prepared to move this amendment.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Yes, the government has a similar amendment; you are right. I thought we had already dealt with both clause 4 amendments. Therefore, we will be supporting the honourable member's amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 5.

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

Page 5, after line 6 [clause 5]—Delete subclause (9) and substitute:

(9) The Minister must grant a sublease to SMA under this section by 15 March 2012.

I did foreshadow the debate on this amendment earlier in the evening. This is part of a package we have agreed with the government. It in essence says, rather than best endeavours, the minister must grant a sublease. The minister now must grant a sublease rather than using his best endeavours to grant a sublease, so the deadline date is now agreed between the government and the opposition as 15 March 2012.

The Hon. M. Parnell: The Ides of March.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Ides of March.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government supports this amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 5A.

The CHAIR: The next amendment is to further amend new clause 5A. I do not know why they do not get it right in the first place. We would not have to have all these amendments to amendments that have been already inserted.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Mr Chairman, I am sure you did not intend to be critical of parliamentary counsel.

The CHAIR: Well, I might have been.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am certainly not going to join in because parliamentary counsel has worked very hard on this particular issue.

The CHAIR: Worked as hard as they have to.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: They have had to cope with significant further amendments to the Liberal Party amendments, the government amendments and, to a much lesser degree, of course, the minor parties in this place. My advice from the member for Davenport, after discussions with parliamentary counsel, is, on further reflection, we need to move this technical and drafting clarification to the package of amendments which have already been endorsed by this house. I move:

Page 5, after line 6—Clause 5A(7)(a)—delete 'relevant recommendation' and substitute:

determination of the Treasurer under subsection (4)

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government will be supporting this amendment.

Amendment carried.

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

Page 5, after line 6—Clause 5A(12), definition of relevant recommendation—delete the definition

I move this with the same explanation. It is a technical and drafting clarification by our very competent and hard working parliamentary counsel.

The CHAIR: They have worked three times as hard as they should have.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government supports this amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Page 5, after line 35—After new subclause (1) insert:

(1a) A lease must be granted by the Council under subsection (1) within 30 days after the making of the request by the Minister (or such longer period as the Minister may allow).

What this does is grant a lease and licence within the 30 days. I have really spoken to this previously.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: This is related to the amendment No. 1 the minister moved just a little while ago from her package of amendments [Gago-4]. We supported that one and we support this particular amendment as well.

Amendment carried.

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

Page 6, line 1—Delete 'may be' and substitute:

will only be

It is similar to the amendment No. 1 which I moved and which has already been supported.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government supports the amendment.

Amendment carried.

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

Page 6, line 6—After 'car parking' insert:

on grassed areas within a park-like setting in association with events at Adelaide Oval or Adelaide Oval No. 2, or otherwise in accordance with the regulations

The Hon. M. Parnell: The grassy knoll.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, the grassy knoll amendment. In essence, I am going to speak to related arguments and discussions in relation to amendments Nos 5, 6, 7 and 8. I move:

Page 6—

Line 7—After 'providing' insert:

reasonable

Lines 9 and 10—Delete paragraph (c) and substitute:

(c) activities that are ancillary to the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval or Adelaide Oval No. 2; or

(ca) activities that are ancillary to the use of Adelaide Oval or Adelaide Oval No. 2 and take place—

(i) on a temporary basis for a period not exceeding 1 month; or

(ii) on a temporary basis for the purposes of a special event or activity prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph; or

Line 11—Delete 'playing' and substitute:

the playing and watching of

This was one of the issues that we debated two weeks ago. Subclause (3) provides:

A licence under this section authorises the minister (or the holder of a sub-licence under this section) to use the land subject to the licence (or sub-licence) for the purposes of—

Then it lists five separate purposes. The first one is providing car parking.

One of the issues that was raised, and I think the Hon. Mr Parnell and others raised it, is that we have this dispute-breaking mechanism called the DAC, but the issue the Hon. Mr Parnell and others have raised is: what are the grounds in the end for the DAC to make judgements when it is being asked to make judgements about whether the minister has been reasonable or has not been? The original drafting has just the words 'providing car parking'. This first amendment inserts after 'car parking' to provide car parking:

on grassed areas within a park-like setting in association with events at Adelaide Oval...or otherwise in accordance with the regulations

Broadly, these amendments (and this particular one) are to try to give DAC more direction in relation to what we are intending through this package of amendments.

As to this car parking here, one of the concerns councils had, residents in North Adelaide have had, and others have had about all of this is that maybe—and I am not speaking about the current City Council—at some stage in the future someone might have a vision that, instead of the grassed car parking areas, we might end up with it all being bitumenised, providing 24-hour car parking seven days a week for events unrelated to events at Adelaide Oval. No-one is envisaging that and no-one is wanting to support that. This is about events at Adelaide Oval. But that is one of the concerns that has been expressed in relation to what might occur in the future.

In some of the other areas there have been similar concerns. My amendment No. 7, which talks about 'activities that are ancillary to the use of Adelaide Oval or Adelaide Oval No. 2' and take place:

(i) on a temporary basis for a period not exceeding 1 month; or

(ii) on a temporary basis for the purposes of a special event or activity prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.

One of the concerns that has evidently been raised is that maybe at some stage in the future the Crows might want to build a permanent Crows Shed in this particular licence area. We are currently advised that they do not and they are going to have their Crows Shed in the core area in the indoor cricket facility. Maybe at some stage in the future, if they win a premiership or two and their supporter base grows—and all those ifs—then maybe that will not be big enough for them and they might want to build a permanent facility in the licence area, or maybe even the Power might actually get off the bottom of the ladder and win more than two games a year and they might want to build a tent in the licence area to house all of their supporters on a permanent basis.

The Hon. M. Parnell: A phone box.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: 'A phone box,' says the Hon. Mr Parnell—but potentially permanent facilities. No-one is supporting or intending that that sort of permanent development be in this particular area. The current purposes are there. There may well be occasions where for a temporary period of not more than a month they may well, for a special event or whatever it is, want to construct some temporary facilities that are there, but this is not to be a mechanism for ultimately sneaking in some permanent facility.

All of these particular provisions in this package of four amendments are intended—they do not go as far as I suspect the Hon. Mr Parnell wanted in terms of providing certainty for DAC, but they go some way toward the sorts of arguments the Hon. Mr Parnell and others were developing in terms of giving greater certainty to DAC in terms of making the judgements that in this compromise package of amendments were going to ask the DAC to undertake.

For the last one of that package we are adding not just playing, which is providing facilities for playing sport; it is for playing and the watching of sport, so for the spectators who go there as well. It is there to provide greater clarification, and we urge members to support what we see as a sensible package of amendments.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government will support these amendments.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I cannot let this go without a very brief comment. They do not go as far as the Greens would have liked. Our amendments, which were not successful, were to have a genuine level playing field where the council, as custodian of the Parklands, could negotiate on a very equal footing. Nevertheless, this is certainly an improvement on what we have got, and clarifying the range of activities that can be subject to a licence certainly makes it clearer as to what is allowed and what is not. The fear of permanent structures is, I think, removed once this amendment passes, and if it gets into a dispute resolution situation at least the Development Assessment Commission will have more guidance as to what is reasonable and what is not.

Amendments carried.

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

Page 6—After line 18 [clause 7]—Delete new subsections (5b), (5c) and (5d) and substitute:

(5b) Subject to subsections (5c), (5d) and (5e), 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 relate to the Adelaide Oval Licence Area.

(5c) If, after 1 July 2011, the management plan referred to in subsection (5b) is amended or Sis revoked and replaced by a new management plan, the amendment or the new plan (as the case may be) will not apply under subsection (5b) unless the Minister agrees (and until the Minister so agrees, the management plan as in force before the amendment or revocation will continue to apply under subsection (5b) as if it had not been so amended or revoked).

(5d) If—

(a) the Minister considers—

(i) 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

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

(b) the Council considers that the Minister is acting unreasonably in refusing to agree to an amendment or new management plan under subsection (5c),

the Minister or the Council (as the case may be) may apply to the Development Assessment Commission for a review of the matter.

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

(a) determine whether or not a provision of the relevant management plan or an act of the Council or the Minister (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 the Minister agree with an amendment to the relevant management plan or to a new management plan; or

(D) 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 or the Minister to be reasonable in the circumstances.

This was the subject of debate earlier as well, and again it was something that the Hon. Mr Parnell engaged in, as well as the government. During the last debate I think the government indicated that it was looking at amendments in relation to our amendments. As a result of discussions between the member for Davenport, the government's advisers and myself we have now drawn up this new amendment, with the wonderful assistance of parliamentary counsel.

In essence, this amendment seeks to resolve some of the issues the government raised, and that the SMA raised as well, in relation to the management plan; that is, it will be the current management plan, and if that is then changed it will be subject to the approval of the minister. Again, using the structure that we have used with other amendments, if there is then a dispute it will ultimately be up to the Development Assessment Commission to resolve any difficulties.

So we have used the same framework to try to resolve the issues, but we have sought to resolve some of the issues that the government has advised. This is a compromise amendment we have developed as a result of those discussions with the government and its advisers.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government supports this amendment.

Amendment carried.

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

Page 6, lines 27 to 29 [clause 7]—New subclause (8)—after 'subject to' insert:

section 202 of the Local Government Act 1999 or

This is a drafting or technical amendment clarifying the real intent of our earlier amendments.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government supports this amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Public Sector Management, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister for Gambling) (22:29): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I want to use this opportunity to thank the opposition, the minor parties and Independents for their hard work and efforts. They have worked in an extremely cooperative and collaborative way with the government to resolve their differences and to work towards formulating a compromise position in a number of very, very difficult areas. This covered issues that individuals and various parties felt very strongly about, and the government wants to recognise the efforts of other parties and Independents.

I also take this opportunity to thank parliamentary counsel for their extraordinary efforts. Parliamentary counsel was incredibly helpful in relation to the complexity of amendments and amendments to amendments, and then the redrafting and refiling of amendments. They provided us with a great deal of assistance and made our life considerably easier, so I take this opportunity to particularly thank parliamentary counsel.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (22:31): I join with the minister in thanking parliamentary counsel, in particular, for their hard work. I thank the government and its advisers for their preparedness to engage in discussions with all interested stakeholders in relation to the issue. As I said during the second reading, this development was not the preferred option for the Liberal Party, but we accept that we lost the election. This development, subject to successful tenders, will proceed. Any development that has $600 million spent on it will, we hope, have much improved facilities for patrons and provide a much better event and viewing experience for those who are there—but that is for another day.

In conclusion, I want also to thank my colleague, in particular, the member for Davenport. He has had carriage of the bill on behalf of the Liberal Party. He has been tireless in his discussions with stakeholders, in particular. I know that he has had countless hours with the council and interested groups from the electorate of Adelaide but with the stakeholders within government and sporting circles as well. Then he has also had to work with his own colleagues within the Liberal Party in relation to this issue. So, I place on the record acknowledgement of the member for Davenport for his hard work.

I do not have an exact calculation, but the reality is that, in the end, a significant number of the almost 50 amendments moved by the Liberal Party to the bill have been accepted by the government, and a significant number of others were supported by either the majority of Independent and minor party members or, in many cases, all the Independent and minor party amendments.

We think those amendments do some significant things. They place a cap of $535 million, give or take this $1½ million of interest, on the project costs. I am still not convinced of the government's response given in this house, I must admit, but I will pursue that in the Budget and Finance Committee with Treasury officers.

There is significantly increased accountability in terms of the Auditor-General's oversight of the project and the expenditure and accountability for taxpayers' money. There is a significantly increased role for at least bodies such as the Development Assessment Commission and others to reflect the views that were put by the residents and constituents of the member for Adelaide in relation to this bill.

Importantly, there is a return to the Sport and Recreation Fund, ultimately, of up to $1 million a year from this project. We hope that the project will be as successful as football and cricket believe it will be. Their small repayment to sport and recreation, not at the elite level but at the grassroots level, throughout South Australia of ultimately $1 million a year will provide important funding for country and metro sporting and recreation facilities and clubs.

They are the major points that have been achieved by the hours that we have put in in the Legislative Council and, as I said, up to 50 amendments moved by the Liberal Party, all of which, except for two, or perhaps three, were ultimately accepted by the numbers in the Legislative Council. So, with that, we support the third reading of the Adelaide Oval Redevelopment and Management Bill.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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