HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2022-07-07 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

South Australian Motor Sport (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 16 June 2022.)

The Hon. J.S. LEE (11:02): I rise today to speak on the South Australian Motor Sport (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2022 and indicate that I am the lead speaker for the Liberal Party in the Legislative Council for this bill. This bill aims to re-establish the SA Motorsport Board to undertake promotion and management of motorsport events in South Australia and for the board to enter into agreements on behalf of the state. I have a specific interest in this bill, because it will have direct and indirect impact across all my shadow ministerial portfolios, including tourism and hospitality, multicultural South Australia and communities.

With the national economy looking to rebuild after a difficult two years, a study by Ernst and Young revealed motorsport has a significant contribution to the Australian economy, with a total gross annual output of $8.6 billion. The study found that the motorsport industry provides $3.1 billion in direct output while providing $5.5 billion of indirect output based on the pre-COVID figures. The motorsport industry also supported 16,900 direct jobs and a further 29,900 indirect jobs in 2019, the year the study was based on. The sport also enjoys support from approximately 18,900 unpaid officials and volunteers, creating a total workforce of 65,700.

Locally, in South Australia, it was reported that the Adelaide 500 in 2019 injected $45 million into the South Australian economy and created 435 jobs and some 250,000 people came into the CBD, consisting of South Australians and visitors from interstate and overseas. Activities associated with motorsport generated enormous tourism, hospitality and economic benefits for our state.

With these social, cultural and economic benefits, which I have outlined, in mind, I will echo the contribution made by our shadow minister for sport, recreation and racing, Mr Vincent Tarzia, the member for Hartley in the other place, which showed our bipartisan support for this bill in the House of Assembly. I will indicate to the state government today that it will also have a clear passage in the upper house.

While the opposition will be supporting this bill to establish the South Australian Motorsport Board, I would like to take this opportunity to remind South Australians how the Malinauskas Labor government is desperately trying to rebrand themselves as the 'new Labor'. Through their rebranding, they are dissociating themselves further from the Weatherill Labor government.

Let me remind honourable members that it was the former Labor government that abolished the motorsports board in 2015. Between 2015 and the lead-up to the last election in 2022, the Labor Party obviously had a change of heart because they saw a political opportunity. They are now admitting that they were wrong to abolish the board in 2015.

Those who were around in 2014 may recall that there was a review of government boards and committees in 2014. The SA Motorsport Board was one of the many abolished by the Weatherill Labor government. It will be no surprise to many that the jurisdictional arguments they used to abolish the board include that it contributed to duplication, unnecessary complexity and inefficiency within government, and they also said it was creating unnecessary work for the Public Service.

At the time, in 2015, the national body, the Confederation of Australian Motor Sport, lobbied for the board to remain. Concerns about scrapping the board raised included the detrimental impacts on the economy, risks to governance and safety of the Clipsal 500—which is what it was called then—and World Solar Challenge events and a hit to grassroots participation. The national body warned that the board disbandment would hurt the state economy and unquestionably damage the SA motorsports sector, which generates hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

The former tourism minister, the Hon. Leon Bignell, the member for Mawson, stated at the time in parliament:

…we decided to get rid of this Liberal invention of a Motor Sport Board so that we had more control over what was going on.

The member for Mawson further went on to say:

Of course, the people involved in the Motor Sport Board kept telling me that it would be a disaster, that the Clipsal 500 would be a disaster.

Mr Bignell in the other place argued at the time that if the state could run the biggest bike race, outside the Tour de France then we could probably do a pretty good job of running the Clipsal 500 motorsport race without the SA Motorsport Board.

It is really interesting, however, that a few years later the tone of Labor's seemingly compelling or, some would say, convenient argument back then has now lost its purpose, because the current Labor Party is detaching themselves from the past, separating their policy settings from the old Labor. It is like watching the movie Back to the Future, as if we are travelling in a time machine. What we see here is the new Labor government winding back the clock and re-establishing the board which they axed seven years ago. Ironically, this bill comes to the debate at the same time as the new Malinauskas Labor government has announced another review into state government boards and committees, looking once again—once again—to slash the number of boards to find savings.

Another interesting observation to puzzle over is why the Premier, the Hon. Peter Malinauskas, the member for Croydon, has taken motorsport out of the tourism portfolio and taken it for himself. On 14 April 2022, it was printed in the Government Gazette that the Minister for Tourism, the Hon. Zoe Bettison, delegated all her functions and powers under the South Australian Tourism Commission Act 1994 with respect to the Adelaide 500 motor racing event to the Hon. Peter Malinauskas, the Premier.

Those who are paying close attention may notice that the current Premier of South Australia does not have any ministerial portfolio responsibility. Unlike the former Premier, the Hon. Steven Marshall—who had about six portfolios, including Minister for Tourism—Premier Malinauskas has not given himself any portfolios other than being the Premier of South Australia.

My curiosity prompted me to make an inquiry to the Parliament Research Library to look at what ministries were held by former premiers. I am very grateful to the research library for producing the historical data table for me. The table shows a fascinating comparison of all the ministries held by every single premier of this state since 1938, dated back to the Playford era. It highlighted that every single premier we have had in South Australia has held many ministerial portfolios in the history of this parliament and in successive governments, whether Labor or Liberal—with the exception of the current Premier, the Hon. Peter Malinauskas.

The current Premier does not have any specific ministries attached to him. Historically, the motorsport act and the Motorsport Board have been the responsibility of the Minister for Tourism. One cannot help but wonder why the current Premier chose not to demonstrate his full commitment to motorsport by simply making himself the Minister for Tourism, but instead he is cherrypicking his favourite projects or areas of interest.

Another interesting observation is the way the key appointments for SA Motorsport were announced. Today is Thursday 7 July 2022. The SA motorsport bill is still being debated. It has not yet passed the upper house, yet the announcement of some of the SA Motorsport appointments was already made on 1 May 2022 by the Malinauskas Labor government. Do we not think that this whole process is undermining the work and proper process of parliament? Where are the consultations with elected members like us? Where is the transparency and accountability of the Malinauskas Labor government?

It seems that the decisions have already been made. The Labor government is making decisions ahead of the legislation being properly considered by elected members. The government is calling for tenders and procurement of contracts when the bill has not even passed the Legislative Council yet. It is very astounding how Labor is taking things for granted. It shows a disrespect for the due process of parliament, and it demonstrates the high level of pure arrogance of the Malinauskas Labor government.

Nevertheless, we accept that the appointments have been made, and we are glad the appointees are widely accepted as the most suitable candidates. I would like to congratulate Mr Mark Warren as chief executive for the new South Australian Motorsport Board and also convey my congratulations to Mr Andrew Daniels, the chair of the board. I want to put on the public record that the Liberal Party welcome their appointments because both of them are highly regarded by the industry and have extensive experience and passionate expertise to deliver motorsport events. I understand that Motorsport Australia supports their appointments as well.

The Liberal opposition look forward to working with them and wish them every success in their roles to deliver the anticipated outcomes for South Australia. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Mr Eugene Arocca, Chief Executive of Motorsport Australia, and Mr Mike Smith, director of motorsport, and their team for taking the time to meet with myself and Mr Vincent Tarzia to give their feedback on the bill and to provide their valuable insights into the motorsport industry more broadly.

During our conversations, they highlighted one very important development in South Australia, which is the establishment of The Bend Motorsport Park by the Shahin family. During the visit to The Bend, former Premier Marshall commended Dr Shahin's bold vision and obsession for motorsport as a driving force for bringing the world-class facility to Tailem Bend and injecting economic activities into the region.

Motorsport Australia reported a 30 per cent increase in motorsport permits issued in the period immediately after The Bend started hosting events. Without any doubt, Motorsport Australia absolutely supports the re-establishment of the board, and they are very pleased that the bill will have bipartisan support. The opposition took the liberty to invite them for comments, and they provided valuable input regarding the composition of the board and skill set required. They believe that the bill should mandate that a representative of Motorsport Australia be appointed to the board.

I would like to take this opportunity to incorporate some key and valid suggestions by Motorsport Australia for honourable members' consideration. Motorsport Australia is calling for the parliament to mandate that a representative of Motorsport Australia be appointed to the board. The previous board had such an appointment. An appointment is seen to be advantageous for the board to ensure proper advice on everything from circuit design to safety related matters can receive due consideration and to pursue new events. Another critical suggestion is to bring a board member that understands the culture and trends of motorsport, who is fully committed to seeing the sport grow in a safe and sustainable manner.

One other valid recommendation by Motorsport Australia is relating to the term of appointment. They suggest that the term should be for three years, with eligibility of reappointment. However, there ought to be a provision that no-one should serve more than three terms. Having a time limit allows for fresh ideas and renewal. This is in keeping with good governance and to ensure that adequate succession is in place.

While the Liberal Party is not seeking to make amendments to the bill in the current form, I encourage the Malinauskas Labor government to consider providing a spot at the table for Motorsport Australia, because I think there is great value to have a representative from Motorsport Australia, who can provide advice to support the popularity, growth and long-term sustainability of motorsport in South Australia.

More importantly, as the shared shadow minister for tourism, hospitality as well as multicultural South Australian communities, I strongly concur with the view that a representative from Motorsport Australia will provide direct access and act as a conduit to ensure better cooperation and more collaboration at a national and international level.

I see enormous opportunity for a representative from Motorsport Australia working with the SA Motorsport Board to ensure events are conducted to include activities that promote youth and junior participation, diversity and inclusion, including multiculturalism and volunteerism in motorsport. This is an area that is very close to my heart. If you want major events in South Australia to succeed, we must bring all our committee members along on this journey.

From the many independent reports and information presented to us for consideration, motorsport is an exciting industry that holds many social and economic opportunities for South Australia. It has flow-on effects to a variety of industries outside of supercar racing, which includes tourism, hospitality, retail and entertainment. Accommodation venues at local, state and national levels all benefit from their motorsport presence, providing a significant impact on a large number of communities.

With the motorsport market growing rapidly in Asia and other parts of the world, there are many opportunities for South Australia to leverage on attracting other international events to the state and providing world-class training for international delegates and race officials. It will be helpful if the Labor government can explain during the committee stage how SA Tourism Commission and SA Motorsport Board will work together in practice.

In order for the new Motorsport Board to achieve what is sets out to do, it has to be an efficient and effective organisation that has the expertise and skills to carry out its vision and objectives. We want to see motorsport grow and have long-term sustainability in South Australia beyond the Adelaide 500 race. As indicated, we do not intend to hold up the passage of this bill. With those comments, I conclude my remarks and look forward to raising some questions in the committee stage.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (11:19): I rise to speak as one of two Greens speakers on this bill. The Greens recognise, no matter how we might feel about it, that Adelaide has long had a car race. The Formula One car race—which we know, according to my adviser, was 'stolen' by the Victorians—was last held in 1995. The then state government struck a deal to stage a supercar race in 1999, and indeed in 1999 the Sensational Adelaide 500 was held.

We also recognise that the SATC having responsibility for our races after the board was disbanded was the wrong move. Members who have been in this chamber for some time would be quite familiar with my ongoing concerns about the lack of transparency with regard to the SATC's management of what was previously the Clipsal 500 in many years gone by, but in the time I was asking the questions about it it was the Superloop—although for one of those years it did not have a sponsor at all. We are hoping to see better transparency with the passage of this particular legislation.

Surprising no-one, the Greens are not actually fans of those motorsports that are still using vehicles powered by fossil fuels. We do recognise, however, the opportunity here is presented by bringing back the motorsports board in seeing South Australia become more involved and invested in things such as Formula E and, of course, the World Solar Challenge. We are truly looking forward to the future of motorsports coming to our state. I do recognise that the Adelaide 500 could still take place with or without this legislation, so that is somewhat of a moot point. But while this particular race is an important part of the debate on this bill, it is not actually necessarily materially affected by it, and note that with regard to our position on this bill.

However, we do want to put on record our concerns and the concerns particularly of many city residents about racing coming back to the city in this particular capacity. In fact, through our campaigning in the recent state election and discussions with the residents, many of them sure as hell do not want it back. The noise and disruption caused to them by the race has been a longstanding issue, not to mention the traffic delays, the restrictions on trade—there are frustrations not just for those within the city. Minister Bettison's own FOIs could tell her and the Labor Party this, because those documents do reveal that the south-east city residents have long lobbied for this car race to be removed from the City of Adelaide.

When I came to this place back in 2010, in 2009 I campaigned on a Greens platform of moving the car race down to Gillman and we had done so with the local motorsports community. I note that that was before we saw The Bend, but indeed I have to say that a Port Adelaide 500, a Port Adelaide street race, would create far fewer traffic hassles in the city and place less disadvantage on the other events that we currently have.

I do also welcome, though, the removal of this race from March. The impact on the third week of the Fringe was never calculated in the economic impact of this race. We know that those sales in the third week of the Adelaide Fringe always went down, as people either had their events impeded by the noise or indeed had those particular patrons choose not to go into the city on that particular weekend.

Importantly as well, that measure would leave the Parklands alone. To that end, one of the amendments I will be moving today will remove references to the parkland from this bill and the act so that the Parklands will be off-limits for motorsports racing in South Australia. There have been ongoing concerns about the impact of motorsports on the Parklands, and in 2020 we saw the creation of a campaign group, Reimagining Victoria Park, which was forced to raise concerns about the park becoming a bitumen heatsink. In their response to the prospect of the Adelaide 500 returning to the city, they have stated:

…the present and future amenity of Victoria Park—one of Adelaide's most heavily used and best-loved parks for general community recreation and sports—is in jeopardy because, firstly, there is inadequate tree canopy to counter the impacts of global warming and provide shade for walkers, runners, cyclists and spectators; and secondly, based on past experience, the Adelaide 500 race excludes the public from a large swathe of the park for five months each year.

That is an extraordinary impact that, again, is never accounted for in the figures or the statements. There has been regular criticism from many groups. The idea that public parklands—our public parklands, open green space that belongs to everyone—is being blocked off for months at a time for a polluting race that much of the public have little interest in and only goes for a few days. Is this striking the right balance? I have to say that we are seeing public green land being used for a private event, and I am not sure that we are getting a return for our investment that is an appropriate one. But who would know? We do not have transparency in the figures.

It is not just the noise and pollution, not to mention the congestion that city residents and others are concerned about. Again, as some members would be aware, I have previously raised these concerns in this place and in the media. Having worked as the Young Women's Program Manager at the YWCA, which is based on Hutt Street, it is being directly impacted in that premises by the car race, and then my following Young Women's Program Manager is doing work on the level particularly of sexual harassment and harassment that women, and particularly young women, face in the city in the wake of these races over the many years.

There is statistical and survey data that has been taken on that, as well as the actual police stats that bear some of that out as well. I would hope that these concerns that have been raised are something that the board will take into consideration moving forward, and work to provide a safe, and a safer, environment for everyone while these races are taking place in the future.

Greater transparency and accountability is also something I hope we will see from this new board. I do have some confidence, and I hope that confidence is well-founded. In the past, despite significant effort, however, and repeated questions, we have not been able to obtain information on even how many tickets are actually sold to the race. This is extraordinary.

I can go to the Adelaide Fringe impact document released just over a week ago and I can tell you not only how many tickets were sold at the past Adelaide Fringe event but what category they were on and what age the people were in those age cohorts that they were sold to. It is extraordinary that with the amount of public money that goes to this event we do not even get the ticket sales given to us, the South Australia public, who are the ones who give the social licence for this race to continue.

I will be putting forward that amendment, and I take it as a sign of goodwill for greater transparency about reporting on these events into the future. This reporting which would simply include the number and type of tickets that are sold, and also given away as gifts—I know that this is a goodwill gesture but given away to volunteers such as those who are in our CFS or emergency services, and these are very good things and you would think that in fact they would want to be trumpeting these good initiatives, but apparently, no, it is all too much for us to find out these figures in the current regime. I am hoping the new regime will be more transparent and accountable.

In summary, the Greens have not been the biggest fans of the return of the Adelaide 500. We campaigned against it at the state election. We campaigned against it at the Bragg by-election. We say it is the wrong race in the wrong place. We hope the Motorsport Board, with their more discrete attention to all motorsports, but in particular that car race, will bring a level of nuance to the debate that has not been here in the parliament currently, and certainty has not been forthcoming from the SATC.

On that note, we do welcome bringing back the Motorsport Board. We welcome them taking the management of this. I note there has been commentary made about the Premier taking on this role. I understand that with the mechanics of a new government it was appropriate that this sit within Premier and Cabinet to get the job done.

It was an election commitment with a December deadline and it seems that this government, the Malinauskas government will get this job done and will honour the election commitment. I have no quarrel with that. What I do ask, though, and I would like the government to respond to is: could they outline how the decision was made to discontinue the Adelaide 500, what bodies were involved in that decision and on what date was it made, and how was it communicated to the South Australia public? I cannot quite hear what the Hon. Tung Ngo is interjecting because he has a mask on.

The Hon. T.T. Ngo interjecting:

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Hon. Tung Ngo believes that it was a personal decision. I am interested to know whether the government would concur with that. My understanding was that it was a formal decision made by a formally constituted body. So I look forward to that being placed on the record. Many in this council would probably like to pretend that it was a personal decision; it was not a personal decision. But I look forward to the record providing that detail and transparency in the second reading response, if not in the committee stage.

For those who are new to this place, I have been asking questions about the Adelaide 500, no matter who the sponsor was, or when they lost their sponsor, about things like ticket sales and about how much money we get in return for the amount of money that we spend on it, for over a decade. I am sick to death of having those questions never answered and being told it is all commercial-in-confidence and that it is all too hard.

I do thank the former minister, Leon Bignell, for his honesty when he told us at one point that Robbie Williams actually saved the race that year and, had they not had a big headliner that year, it would have been somewhat of a disaster. He told us that after the event and after that year’s race had been done and in retrospect, but that is on the public record. So I ask members to reflect on that when we continue to back events that perhaps may have had their day. I also welcome that this motorsport board may have more of an eye to the future than the SATC has had. With that, I welcome the debate.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (11:31): I rise to speak in support of the South Australian Motor Sport (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. It is designed to return the planning and implementation of motorsport events, like the Adelaide 500, to a dedicated motorsport board, made up of individuals with the know-how to stage these events successfully, and therefore be of benefit to the business community, tourism and job creation, as well as making them entertaining and enjoyable for South Australians and Australian motorsport fans.

I will not delve into the financial benefits of having an event like the Adelaide 500 back on our city streets, because that has been well canvassed by the government and others, but we know it will drive enormous economic activity, particularly in the CBD, which has been gutted by the pandemic. I know so many people with businesses in the city—cafe and restaurant owners, particularly my mates across the road, Ralph and Danny at Parliamento—who are looking forward to seeing the streets come alive, so to speak, if I can borrow the slogan from our very first Formula One Grand Prix back in 1985, which I attended as a journalist, and the subsequent ones that followed, along with the supercar events.

These events do generate genuine excitement in our community. They also put the city and the state on the international map of motorsport events. I point out that the motorsport board, which had been so effective in selling and staging these great events, was dismantled by Labor and put into the hands of the South Australian Tourism Commission, which did not have the expertise nor, I suspect, the zeal to maintain the standards that had been set over those preceding years.

That is not to say I am being critical of the South Australian Tourism Commission. Quite frankly, they have done a fantastic job with the Tour Down Under and other tourism campaigns, particularly in the past two years of the pandemic. I just do not think it was a good fit with them running a motorsport event without the appropriate expertise being in there, and that is what this bill will address.

I remember when the former Liberal minister, the Hon. David Ridgway, came to me in my office and broke the news that they were axing the Adelaide 500. At first I thought he was having a lend of me. I then described it as the dumbest decision I have seen the government make.

The Hon. R.A. Simms: That's a big call.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Simms! Interjections are out of order.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: At the time it was. They were relatively new, but it was a dopey decision, nonetheless, as we now know and one that they regret because it has been so costly for them, particularly losing the seat of Adelaide. Only a few months earlier, the then Premier, Steven Marshall, in a live television cross and beaming like the happy quokka the Prime Minister described him as, was magnanimously praising the event and the benefits it brought our city. Like the Hon. Tammy Franks, I would like to one day know why there was a sudden about-face on this event. However, as we have seen, it did cost the Liberals dearly, as I have pointed out.

I must say, they attempted to take away a genuine family event enjoyed across the state. We were told that families had saved up for tickets and looked forward to going there with their children and soaking up the atmosphere. I was a revhead myself and a lover of motorsport for so many years. I have not only attended the V8 events but also the Grand Prix, both here and overseas, as a reporter. There is nothing like the smell of burning rubber and brakes, the sounds of throaty V8 engines and turbocharged engines and the cut and thrust of racing itself. It was also an accessible event, with drivers ready to mingle with the public.

I would like to point out that perhaps one of the most cynical acts of the previous government was, when it looked like there was a strong movement to save the event and bring it back if there was to be a change of government, when they decided to flog off the infrastructure. It was shameful. It was shameful to do that without waiting a few months to see what would happen. It was just an attempt to destroy that race coming back onto the streets of Adelaide.

Labor and the crossbench—us in particular—rallied together to make sure that that event would come back. The thing that galls me is that governments will spend hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money in branding and putting on these events and then establishing the city as a motorsport hub, not just in this country but internationally, and then it is just pulled away on a whim by an inexplicable decision of government. You are throwing away hundreds of millions of dollars that had already been spent in putting the event on, just throwing that down the drain without any proper explanation. I still shake my head at some of the decisions that are made like that.

The PRESIDENT: Just before you continue, the Hon. Mr Pangallo. Conversations in the chamber—perhaps members could go elsewhere. Excuse me, the Hon. Ms Bonaros, you and the advisers perhaps might like to go to a meeting room so that the Hon. Mr Pangallo can be heard in silence. Thank you.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Thank you, Mr President. As we know, the Adelaide 500 was not quite the glamour event that the Formula One was and still is, but it was enough to satisfy our love for having a major motorsport event here, was an event that was popular with teams and drivers and was, as I have pointed out, on an international level.

Serious aficionados of motorsport around the globe knew about Adelaide, its motorsport traditions and its DNA, with the Australian Grand Prix being staged here as far back as 1939, going through the challenging and dangerous roads of Lobethal in the Adelaide Hills. I think at the time it was, and probably still is, Australia's longest Grand Prix track. It ran something like 14 kilometres and was raced over 17 laps. It was Australia's first all-bitumen circuit and was active between 1937 and 1948, hosting a number of events, some of which attracted up to 60,000 spectators at a time.

I endorse Premier Malinauskas's commitment to returning this great event. It started in opposition, and we supported it at various protest rallies, including the first one here on the steps of Parliament House. Just a few hundred turned up to that first one. I would like to also thank and congratulate motorsport fan Sam Henderson, who flagged off the movement to bring the race back. Sam and his parents met with both the Premier and myself, and I must say I was most impressed by Sam's passion to win the event back.

As his dad pointed out, the race—the 500—changed Sam's life. When he was just a five year old, with autism, he went to the race and met driver Mark Skaife, sat on Mark's lap and spoke for the first time. He has been a committed motorsport fan since then. I gather he is also now taking part in carting events. I hope we reward Sam in some sort of way at the first event this year, perhaps giving him—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Waving the flag at the finish line to mark the event, because Sam was a catalyst in the movement to bring back the race and an important one. So well done, mate.

Another one I would like to also acknowledge is Cheryl Lee Vangelis. Cheryl Lee was another who whipped up support for the event through many motorsport clubs and organisations. It was great fun taking part in a rally last year from Vili's cafe in Mile End along the South Eastern Freeway with vehicles that were involved in it.

There was also a poignant side trip that we took, travelling past the Calvary Hospital where Cheryl Lee, who could not take part in the rally that she had helped to organise, was undergoing serious cancer treatment. It was a great gesture from all those taking part in the rally to go past so that Cheryl Lee could see the cars—they were all V8s that took part that day—and to be able to wave to her and for her to be acknowledged.

I would also like to acknowledge drivers Tim Slade and Nic Percat. These are two great, patriotic South Australians. They also came over to Adelaide and helped promote the cause to bring the race back. I am sure they will be beaming once the event starts off in November.

Another one I would like to acknowledge is Murray Walker, who was an old colleague of mine in days gone by, the legendary Formula One broadcaster. Murray loved Adelaide. He loved the street circuit. He loved the Formula One when it was here. Of course, later he became an ambassador for the 500 and would often come back here—in fact, he came here for several events—to be part of the atmosphere.

Murray absolutely love the event. He often used to remark to me, when I would bump into him on the Formula One circuit or whatever and when I was co-writing Formula One columns with him, how much he really enjoyed coming to Adelaide for that last race of the year each year. He loved the atmosphere, soaking in the passion of fans on the street circuit.

One thing Murray would always do when he went to a city, whether it was for a Formula One event or maybe if he happened to go to Bathurst or whatever, was he would always take the time to walk the circuit. He would take a day out and walk the circuit and have a look at it. He often told me how he enjoyed leaving his hotel room—he used to stay at the Hilton Hotel—and being able to wander through the city streets and then go onto the circuit and enjoy the ambience of that.

I remember I had the pleasure of interviewing George Harrison in 1995 at our last Formula One Grand Prix. One remark that George made to me was how he loved walking from his hotel room to the circuit. He did not mind that people would come up to him seeking his autograph and trying to take selfies with him. He just loved the fact that you could do that from a hotel or a place of residence somewhere in the city, to be able to take that stroll onto a racetrack and then afterwards be able to stroll back through the city and see people enjoying themselves and the hospitality that was generated to them.

The Formula One drivers and, as I have mentioned, the 500 drivers were absolutely thrilled to come here at the end of a gruelling season, and the teams were as well. They were often able to let their hair down and enjoy the hospitality that South Australians provided to them during that period. It was a fantastic atmosphere.

As I mentioned the other day, the Premier is quite mischievous—and good luck to him—if he is trying to get the race back to South Australia. It is going to be a huge battle, but at least he has had a go at it. I am just wondering whether we would ever be successful in seeing it. I do not think it is going to happen in my lifetime, but I certainly hope it does, that we rekindle those wonderful memories of having that glamorous event here.

It was such an important event too, because most of the time in the 10 years it was here there was always something hinging on that race. We have had world champions who were hinging on it. There were controversial moments in those races. We had downpours, where the events were cut short. I think we may still have the record for the shortest Grand Prix after the, I think, 1989  downpour.

Again, the world's press would flood here and we would be on the front pages, or the back pages, of sports newspapers and magazines everywhere. That showed you the importance of what Adelaide stood for and the branding of Adelaide as an international centre for motorsport. It says something that you have a government that is committed, as I mentioned the other day, to unscrambling the egg. I would say to the Premier, the Hon. Peter Malinauskas, contrary to what he said on radio that you cannot unscramble eggs like taxes, he certainly has unscrambled this one.

Back to Murray: as I mentioned, sadly he passed away last year. One of the last posts that Murray made before he passed away was to express his strong support for the Adelaide event and condemn the fact that it had been axed. We all thank Murray for doing that. With that, I look forward to the return of the event later this year. I hope it will be a huge success and I await more announcements from the government.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (11:49): I rise to speak in relation to the South Australian Motor Sport (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. Before doing so, I want to put on the public record for members' benefit the fact that I am a city resident; however, I do not consider that to be a conflict of interest. After all, the part of the city that I live in is not directly impacted by the sports race. It is also a large class of persons. I note that the race can proceed irrespective of what happens with this particular bill, given this is establishing the Motorsport Board, but the government already has the authority to press ahead with an Adelaide 500 race. I did think it was worthwhile putting that on the record.

The Greens' concerns around car racing are well known and have been well documented, as stated by my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks and my predecessor Mark Parnell. I have been on the public record many times over the years as an Adelaide city councillor, expressing concern around car racing. I do question whether this is the best use of public money, to spend millions of dollars of taxpayer money—I think it is about $20 million over four years—on car racing, given the significant crises we face at the moment, the crisis in terms of the cost of living and the lack of affordable housing.

I also question whether this is really in keeping with the new government's priorities. Given we are in the midst of a climate emergency and this parliament has declared that, is now really the time to be bringing gas guzzlers and all those emissions back onto our city streets and celebrating car racing, a sport that does have such a significant impact on emissions? I do not think it is, but this is a view that the government has taken. It has long been the view of the Greens that it is better for these matters to be dealt with by the Motorsport Board in terms of transparency rather than the Tourism Commission.

I also want to flag the impact that this race could have on the Parklands, this public green space. There is an impact potentially on the natural flora and fauna in that area. One thing that is quite unique about the Adelaide 500 race in particular is that it is a race that runs through the CBD. In other places around the world, particularly Melbourne in Albert Park, it is a little removed from the city and so it has a slightly different impact.

I am concerned about the impacts of motor racing. I do question whether this is the correct priority for the government at this present time, at a time of climate crisis and growing inequality. I also do have some concerns around the impact this might have on city businesses. I heard media reports during the week that the Adelaide City Council has considered some of these issues and raised concerns around the impact on city businesses. I will be very interested in hearing some responses from the government in relation to those concerns as part of the committee stage.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (11:53): I rise to briefly speak on this bill. I will not be speaking from the same perspective as my colleague in terms of enthusiasm for these events because I do not know enough about them, frankly, but I know that this is something that he has pushed for very hard in terms of having it in South Australia.

We, too, were disappointed with the decision of the previous government, so I commend this government for its election commitment and seeing that through with the introduction of this bill and all the advocacy that went into that. Obviously, for the revheads in South Australia—and I have to say, I have been to some motorsport events and I do enjoy them—I think this is a good outcome.

I will be speaking to it from a slightly more potentially boring aspect, and that is one around gambling. If there is one thing that we do know, it is absolutely impossible these days to attend a sporting event and not be bombarded by gambling advertising, gambling promotion, betting odds. You cannot watch a game of footy or soccer or anything else without relying on betting odds to know where we are at with the game. It has become part of the conversation.

I have, for some unknown reason to me, tuned into a few of these shows, and the commentators are constantly referring to betting odds when they are talking about the game that is in play. Kids are referring to betting odds. It has become a normalised behaviour and embedded in our discussions as a community, in commentators' discussions and in sporting events more generally.

I do not think any of this is coincidental. I do not think these agencies advertise to the extent that they do with their little ribbons on the TV screens and at that these things out of any goodwill or just to keep us abreast of how a game or an event is going. They do it, though, because, as we know, this is all very carefully crafted to hook people to gambling products. That is something that I, as you should know, and SA-Best are extremely concerned about.

I would hasten to say that, if these agencies could bet on our kids' sporting events on weekends, they probably would, because there is nothing really that is immune from this sort of gambling advertising or these betting odds these days. Even elections now are not immune from betting odds. You can go and place a bet on just about anything, and I find that really disappointing.

Again, this is all very carefully crafted messaging to ensure that people become hooked to gambling products, to gambling as an activity and to normalise it as much as possible in the community. That is not a good outcome for gambling addiction. I do not think the 'gamble responsibly' messaging has much effect when you turn up to these events and you see huge promotions of gambling advertising across the place.

The discussions that I focused on with the government have been around restrictions of certain types of advertising and sponsorship at these events. I will say for the record, to that extent, that I did have an amendment drafted but obviously wanted to engage with the government about what its intentions were around gambling advertising and promotion of gambling services at events that will be held under the scope of this legislation and, indeed, continue those discussions when it comes to other forms of state administered advertising and promotions and the sorts of agreements that they are entering into.

I think the state has a genuine responsibility to enter into responsible gambling agreements, and the advertising and promotion that they do should absolutely take into account the harms and impacts of the agencies that they enter those agreements into. To that end, from the discussions that I have had with the government—and I will make it clear for the record I am not intending to hold this bill up in any way, shape or form—it is my understanding now that the government is willing to place on the record some undertakings so as not to result in provisions that we cannot overcome or that would render some of the provisions of this bill impractical.

Insofar as the board is responsible for making decisions around its advertising or promotions at these events, there are some undertakings that they are willing to make in terms of the agreements that they will enter into with gambling providers and agencies. I am satisfied that the minister has indicated his willingness to have these discussions. Insofar as it is possible, we will not be interfering in any commercial arrangements—and I think we called them the sanctioning body for the various categories—because there will be commercial arrangements which we do not want to interfere in, when there is a team who has a particular sponsor; it might be Repco or it might be SkyCity Adelaide that is sponsoring a particular team.

We are certainly not suggesting that we interfere in those commercial arrangements that come along with the event, but as far as the board is responsible for advertising or promotion at an event then those undertakings will apply to the event itself—so basically, on-track gambling advertising and whether that will be allowed or restricted at the events that are hosted under the scope of this legislation.

I understand that there is a GCAC (Government Communications Advisory Committee), which is a communications and advertising committee, and they actually assess all the various campaigns and ultimately influence the policies that are put in place when it comes to the decisions that the board makes around the sort of advertising and arrangements that are agreed to by the government at various events.

My understanding—and I am sure that the minister or the Attorney will confirm this for the record—is that the government have now indicated their willingness to make various undertakings around restricting gambling advertising where those decisions are being made by the board, and there are specific provisions in the bill that deal with the board's ability to advertise or promote various things. I think it is in 'Functions of the board' and allows it to 'carry on any advertising and promotional activities' and restrict and control any of those sorts of advertising and promotional activities.

Those undertakings will relate specifically to those areas of the bill that deal with what will be and what will not be allowed. Perhaps if I can put it another way, I think it was when Minister Gago was here there was a decision made that there would no longer be grid girls at some of these events. I think it was Minister Gago, was it not?

The Hon. K.J. Maher: It was Biggles.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Oh, Minister Bignell at the time. I suppose that is the equivalent thing that springs to mind in terms of what we have said is acceptable and is not acceptable at this. I will be holding the government to those undertakings that they have made and working with them to limit, as much as possible, the arrangements around the promotion and advertising that occurs at these events—which inevitably becomes by the board.

I am hoping that the minister will soon confirm what I have just said, but effectively what we are saying is that the government have given undertakings that would tend to indicate that as far as is practicable they will restrict the promotion of gambling agencies, products and services on the track. That is the short way of describing it. I look forward to those undertakings from the minister and indicate again, as my colleague has, our support for the bill.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Attorney-General, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (12:03): I thank all honourable members for their contribution. I know there have been a few questions asked and things to make sure are read on to Hansard. I inform honourable members I intend to do that at clause 1, to be able to put those things that members have asked for on the record. With that, I commend the bill to the chamber.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The CHAIR: The bill has 25 clauses and a schedule. There are a number of amendments beginning at clause 6. Are there any contributions at clause 1?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Chair, the minister has undertaken to provide answers at clause 1 from questions raised in the second reading debate and there may well be further questions.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I might first respond to the last thing because that is still in my head and I find that easier to do, and then I am sure the Hon. Tammy Franks will remind me of the things that the honourable member requires answers to. The Hon. Connie Bonaros raised the issue of gambling. I am able to put on the record, because I have been advised, that the government can make an undertaking that it will seek to restrict and minimise gambling advertising in relation to events being promoted by the South Australian Motorsport Board. This will be supported by using the guidelines and processes of the Government Communications Advisory Committee.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I will remind the minister of my question asked in the second reading. It was for specifics as to who decided to discontinue the Adelaide 500, when and where that decision was made and who were the individuals or organisations involved?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the member for her question. With the advice I have to hand at the moment, we do not have the details of exactly what processes were undertaken in the last term of government for the race being discontinued. However, I am assuming, and I am reasonably certain that at the end of the day if the race was desired to be kept going it would have been within the powers of the previous government and the Premier to do so.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: So the government does not know how the decision was made, and they have not bothered to go and find out how the decision was made to discontinue what they have committed to bring back—is that what the minister is telling me?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I reiterate to the honourable member that, based on the advice that I have to hand at the moment, I do not have the advice about the exact date and time and the exact processes that the former government went through when this race was discontinued. However, I would be reasonably certain that at the end of the day if there was a desire to continue with the race that would have been within the power of the former government, particularly the former Premier.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: With regard to the Adelaide Motorsport Festival, which the Motorsport Board will also have carriage of, what is the status of that particular event? While I am here I will ask: what is the status of Formula E? I understand from a recent Budget and Finance that no approach has been made as yet to the chief executive from Formula E. For the council's benefit, what is intended in the space of Formula E?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can inform the honourable member that in relation to the Adelaide Motorsport Festival, I am advised that South Australian Motorsport has been handed a major boost with the return of the highly popular Adelaide Motorsport Festival for the first time since 2018. The festival will take place in and around the streets of Adelaide, including parts of the original track where the Grand Prix was run between 1985 and 1995.

I am advised that throughout the festival attendees will be able to see motorsport action, with the focus on the event being Formula One cars from the Adelaide era. There will also be model demonstrations and parades, the most notable of which is the return of Peak Hour of Power, a parade of rare and exotic vehicles that ends in a party in the city.

The government is supporting this event and an agreement is in place to financially support this year's event and provide in-kind support to the organisation running the event. I am also informed in relation to Formula E that no formal approach has been made at this stage, but if any such approach was being made it certainly would be considered.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 4 passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: I refer to new section 5(1), membership of the nine members appointed by the Governor. Can the minister explain why there is no consideration for Motorsport Australia to have a representative from the peak body to be on the board of the nine members?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. I reiterate a response that I understand was provided to the member for Hartley in another place, Vincent Tarzia, and also to the honourable member in relation to this issue. I can reiterate the previously provided response.

First, in relation to the suggestion of some prescriptive elements in relation to skills being added to the selection on appointment of board members, the government understands the intent of this suggestion and has existing guidelines in place to ensure a balance of skills established on the board under the government's boards and committee guidelines for agencies and board members, published by cabinet office.

The extensive guidance is provided to ensure balanced and effective boards are appointed by government agencies. This is a keystone election commitment of the new Labor government, and we will be appointing a dynamic, effective and well-balanced board that will set up this race for success in 2022 and into the future.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: I refer to new section 5(3), 'The Governor may appoint 1 member of the board'. Obviously, Mr Andrew Daniels has already been appointed as the chair, assuming the chair means the presiding member in this instance. Can the minister explain when the appointment of the presiding member—I think the chair has been announced publicly—took place? There was mention in new subsection (3) about the deputy presiding member. Has that presiding member been selected and can a person's name be provided to this chamber? Can the minister indicate the timing of the appointment of the other members?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the individual mentioned would be the nominee, should this bill pass, and that will go through the normal processes of Executive Council in due course and there will be consideration, but a decision has not been reached in relation to a deputy.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Can I ask whether members to be appointed by the Governor to the board have already been notified? Has the government designated who these members will be and, if they have not, when do they anticipate they will be announced, assuming the bill passes, of course?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is there have not been any further appointments made or notifications to anyone of potential appointments. My further advice is that will happen as soon as possible, once the passage of this has concluded.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Further to the points that were raised by the Hon. Jing Lee in her address about the composition of the board, can the minister give us an indication of the qualifications and the skills that are going to be applicable to the membership of this board?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. My advice is that the Government Boards and Committees Guidelines for Agencies and Board Members, published by the Cabinet Office, will provide a guide to that. It is the intention that those with the skills most suitable to ensure the best success of this event will be ones that are envisaged.

Clause passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [AboriginalAff–1]—

Page 4, line 4 [heading to clause 6]—Delete ‘Insertion of sections 4 to 9B’ and substitute:

Substitution of section 10

Amendment No 2 [AboriginalAff–1]—

Page 4, line 5—Delete ‘Before section 10 insert:’ and substitute:

Section 10—delete section 10 and substitute:

These amendments go to very much the same thing. They are drafting amendments, referring to particular sections, that have been picked up between the chambers. My advice is that these are technical drafting errors and nothing else.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I rise to say that SA-Best will support the amendments.

Amendments carried.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: At new section 6—Term and conditions of office, subsections (1) and (2) stipulate that there will be a term, but the term is not specific. How long is each term? Is it three years? Who sets the term? Is it the Governor or the minister, because the appointment is by the Governor? Can the minister explain, thereafter, what is the reappointment after the expiation of the term?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that appointments will be made as appointments are usually made by the Governor on the recommendation of the Executive Council through a cabinet process. My further advice is that it is likely the appointments will be made at staggered lengths to allow for consistency of reappointment, so that they do not all come up at once and you can have consistency while also being able to renew the board over time. I am further advised that it is not envisaged that there is an impediment to reappointing someone who is already a board member at the conclusion of their term.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: Is the minister saying that there is really no set term, as such? If a particular board member is appointed for, say, three years, they can keep going for a long period of time until they wish not to continue, or for whatever reason the government terminates their appointment.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that a term needs to be set—that it is required that the appointment is for a term, so there would have to be a term of a certain number of years. But there is nothing that precludes a board member, at the conclusion of that term, from making themselves available and through the cabinet and Executive Council and Governor process being reappointed.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: Currently, the appointment for the presiding member, the chair, of the board has already been made. What is the term? How many years of that term has been determined per the current appointment?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. My advice is there has not been a formal appointment made yet. There has been an indication about who would be nominated for that position, and should this bill pass then it will be the process I have described—a cabinet process to Executive Council and then recommendation to the Governor about the appointment of the person who has been identified, and at that time there will be a term set down.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Franks–1]—

Page 5, line 37 [clause 6, inserted section 8(2)(b)]—Delete ‘and parklands’

I move this amendment because under the functions of the board the bill includes, in 8(2)(b):

as provided by this Act, assume the care, control, management and use of public roads and parklands on a temporary basis;

We question why the extraordinary powers to control the Parklands are required under this act and wish to draw the council's and the parliament's attention to that. We have not touched the public roads aspect, but we certainly wanted to test the government's rationale for including the Parklands in this legislation.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for bringing this amendment to this chamber; however, the government will be opposing this and the series of amendments that follow it in relation to the Parklands. My advice is that removing the Parklands from the scope of the powers of the Motorsport Board could limit where the event can be held and would defeat at least part of the point of re-establishing the board; namely, delivering on the election commitment to bring the Adelaide 500 as a race back in a very similar fashion to how it has been in the past.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I rise on behalf of SA-Best to indicate that we will not be supporting this amendment from the Greens. In fact, it appears to me like almost a backdoor attempt to stop the event from being staged in the Parklands of Adelaide by carving them out. I note that the Adelaide Park Lands Act 2005, part 3—Designation of Adelaide Park Lands, section 14—Definition of Park Lands by plan provides:

(3) The following principles or requirements are to be taken into account (and, as appropriate, applied) in relation to the plan:

(a) the Adelaide Park Lands are to include—

(i) the land commonly known as the Adelaide Park Lands; and

(ii) Victoria Square, Light Square, Hindmarsh Square, Hurtle Square, Whitmore Square and Wellington Square; and

(iii) Brougham Gardens and Palmer Gardens,

(as determined and defined by the Minister taking into account the principles set out in section 4 (but not to include any road (or part of a road) unless the Minister is acting under paragraph (b) or another provision of this Act));

Further:

(c) the Adelaide Park Lands will not include—

(i) Parliament House, the premises known as Old Parliament House, or the land appurtenant to Parliament House or Old Parliament House; or

(ii) Government House, or the land appurtenant to Government House;

In summary, I guess if this was to be passed, Victoria Park would be considered under GRO planning as being Parklands and which would threaten the event. So we will not be supporting it.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: The Liberal Party took on the considerations and explanation made by the minister and will be opposing this amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I note that the Greens will be standing by this amendment and that there is a series of amendments that are consequential. We will divide on this one; we will not divide on the consequential. We will take that as a test for the series of Parklands protection amendments we have made to this bill.

Ayes 2

Noes 17

Majority 15

AYES
Franks, T.A. (teller) Simms, R.A.
NOES
Bonaros, C. Bourke, E.S. Centofanti, N.J.
Curran, L.A. Game, S.L. Girolamo, H.M.
Hanson, J.E. Hunter, I.K. Lee, J.S.
Lensink, J.M.A. Maher, K.J. (teller) Martin, R.B.
Ngo, T.T. Pangallo, F. Scriven, C.M.
Wade, S.G. Wortley, R.P.

Clause 7.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: A member of the board is entitled to remuneration, allowances and expenses determined by the Governor. Can I ask the minister whether that has been decided? Do we know what the remuneration, allowances and expenses are going to be?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. My advice is that that is in the process of being decided. There is no final decision as of yet. I am happy to see if there is a way we can bring back an answer for the member once that is done. I suspect it will be pretty quickly announced.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Inflation and everything taken into account, would it be commensurate with what the payments were previously to other members of the Motorsport Board?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that it will be commensurate with what was paid in the past to the board.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Will there be any full-time positions on this board at all?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the board itself will not have any further full-time employees, but the organisation that puts on the event will have full-time employees and, I suspect, employees that ramp up and down as the race is staged, as such.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Has it been determined where the board will be based, where it will be working from?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that yes, that has been determined. It will be working out of 182 Victoria Square.

Clause passed.

Clause 8.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: In relation to the functions of the board, the board is to conduct all things necessary to make sure that the event is successful. With flight cancellations at the moment and the impact of COVID waves coming back into our community, what COVID management measures has the government put in place, and what are the unforeseen financial implications that may cause the success of the race to fall over? Can the minister give us some reassurance?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. In terms of any COVID plans for when the race is on, which I think was the question, that will have to be determined for the situation as it occurs at the time. The second part of the question was: what would be the unforeseen costs? They would be unforeseen.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: A question to the minister in relation to budgets: is there a breakdown of spending for the board in terms of where money is going to be allocated for promotion, advertising, television advertising and other associated costs of the event? Is there a budget breakdown that the minister can provide to us?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. My advice is that once the board is established and running, the budgets for the board will be established then.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: Following on from the Hon. Frank Pangallo's question, which budget line within the current budget is set forth for the SA Motorsport Board?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We have copies of some extracts of budget papers here, but I might need to take that on notice. I am happy to provide the honourable member with that at a later date, the exact budget paper volume and line that this comes from.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: We know that the Premier has promised a big-ticket item in relation to entertainment at this year's event. Has that been finalised? What amount of money has been set aside?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. My advice is that that has not yet been finalised and the amount will depend on who it is. If it is a Robbie Williams, I suspect that might be a different amount compared to someone else. I have to say a few years ago when Hilltop Hoods, Illy and G Flip all played in a concert together, it was probably the best concert I have ever seen. To the extent that I get any say in it, I would ask for a recreation of those three onstage.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Will there be preference to an Australian act, or will it be whatever is available or overseas?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that it is anticipated there will be a line-up over three different nights. It is anticipated there will be Australian acts as part of that. It is my further advice it will be the most appropriate and the most attractive for the audience that we are able to attract, which I hope will be Hilltop Hoods, Illy and G Flip.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: We are now almost four months away from the event, 16 weeks or whatever. Can the minister give us an indication if ticket prices have already been set, and what are they for the event?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that is in the final stages of appointing a ticketing agency. It is hoped that tickets will be able to be on sale in August, but that final price is still being finalised ahead of that.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Is the minister saying that the ticket agency is going to come up with a price, or is it the government or the Motorsport Board or whoever? Surely they would have been discussing that now, because you would have to book time for advertising for this event, and it is only 16 weeks away. Is there an approximate value?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. I do apologise if I have given the wrong impression. It will not be the ticketing agency that sets the price. I was just trying to give as full an explanation and full information about ticketing as I could. I am advised that it is in the final stages, but the ticketing pricing has not been set but it will be very soon.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: I refer to clause 8(1)(d) regarding functions of the board. Is there any concern that the functions of the board duplicates those of the Tourism Commission? How will the SA Tourism Commission and SA Motorsport Board actually work alongside each other? Can the minister just explain how does that work in practice?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the board will work very closely with the Tourism Commission, as they have in the past. For quite some time there was the board and the Tourism Commission. I have been previously advised that the reason it is seen as desirable to have a board is that we are recreating an event that was abolished. Having its own standalone board that works closely with the Tourism Commission, as it has in the past, is seen as the most effective and best way to give the event the best possible chance of success.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: Is there a likelihood that a board member from the South Australian Tourism Commission will also be appointed on the SA Motorsport Board to ensure that there is a conduit?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that it is envisaged that it will be someone on the Motorsport Board who has experience of tourism directly.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I have another question on ticket prices. Will the final ticket price be influenced by the entertainment that is signed to the event?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that the primary determination for ticket prices is the infrastructure costing and what needs to be recovered to make the event as commercially viable as possible.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: On infrastructure, as we know, the previous government flogged off various items. The main pit stand was also sold off. Can the minister update us on what infrastructure will now have to be either purchased or rebuilt? What is happening to that pit structure and the two overpasses that were sold off at peppercorn rates to the Tailem Bend race?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. I remember some time during the last term of parliament the honourable member and I were both on the Budget and Finance Committee when questions were asked about the infrastructure and what was happening to it. If I recall correctly, the answers we were given at the time were that some infrastructure was being sold off and some was actually being given away. I am advised that the sale of the pit building fell through, so that is able to be retained. Those overpasses are having to be manufactured new for use for this year's race.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Does the minister have the amount that will need to be spent on resurfacing the circuit, and have there been other problems that have arisen in relation to getting the circuit up to scratch and meeting the required standards of the relevant motorsport authority?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can inform the member that my advice in relation to that particular question is that the surfacing of the track is currently out to tender, so there is not a cost yet but it will be known once the tender process has finished.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Could we have an update of when that resurfacing will happen and what impact it will have on traffic flow leading up to the event?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My information is that the main resurfacing is intended to happen in late August, and we will look at whatever is necessary to make that happen.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: The previous government had offered an incentive to contractors for dismantling the infrastructure within a specified period of time. Will that also be applicable here in this instance?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In relation to the proposition the honourable member has put forward, my advice is that having had a look for those we have not been able to find any evidence of such incentives. We are still looking to see if there were, to see if that is something that could be considered in the future, but no evidence or documents have been found to suggest that those incentives were actually in place.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: With regard to the functions of the board, I have a question which is about both the current workings and the workings going forward with regard specifically to the Adelaide 500. My question is: who has the work health and safety obligations as the PCBU for the Adelaide 500? Obviously, we have not had a race for a few years but previously, and then going forward.

With a bit of indulgence I will explain why I am particularly interested. I note that there was a volunteer who took an industrial issue of work health and safety to the Ombudsman because he was denied access from the SATC to the documents he required for his complaint with regard to work health and safety in an incident that occurred to him in what was his volunteer workplace. He was denied access to those documents by the SATC claiming commercial-in-confidence.

The Ombudsman, of course, called this out. Going forward, who will be responsible as the PCBU for work health and safety, and who was responsible as the PCBU for work health and safety in previous years?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. In relation to the second part—who was responsible—that is something I will have to take away, and I am happy to do so, to try to find an answer. My understanding, from advice, is that ultimately it is the board that has the responsibility. But, again, I will have that double-checked and if it is not the case I am happy to bring something back to the honourable member.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I could not quite see it here but I was hoping you would say going forward it would be the board, and I would appreciate that clarity. I am not proposing to hold up this clause but I would appreciate that clarity in terms of receiving some of that information.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: It was also announced by the Premier that following the event this year Adelaide will host a gala awards night. Does the board have an involvement in the organisation of that post-event gala?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that no, the board does not. That is a Supercars Australia organised event.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I understand the government has entered into a several-years deal, has the government or will the government be contributing towards staging that event and, if so, how much?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that is a commitment from Supercars Australia to stage it at their cost.

Clause passed.

Clauses 9 and 10 passed.

Clause 11.

The CHAIR: There are amendments at clause 11 in the name of the Hon. Ms Franks.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Seeking your guidance, I note that first test case on the Parklands—I am not proposing to proceed with any of those amendments.

The CHAIR: Amendment No. 2 [Franks-1], amendment No. 3 [Franks-1] and amendment No. 4 [Franks-1].

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I am not proceeding with any of those.

The CHAIR: Thank you.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Sorry, I thought I had made that clear previously.

Clause passed.

Clauses 12 to 19 passed.

New clause 19A.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 5 [Franks–1]—

Page 13, after line 2—Insert:

19A—Insertion of Part 3B

After section 27C insert:

Part 3B—Reporting

27D—Board to report on ticket sales etc for motor sport events

(1) The Board must, in relation to each motor sport event promoted by the Board, or in relation to which the Board performs functions under this Act, prepare and provide to the Minister a report setting out—

(a) the total number of tickets sold or given away in relation to the motor sport event; and

(b) a breakdown of the different types of ticket available in relation to the motor sport event, and the number of tickets actually sold or given away of each type; and

(c) the total attendance at the motor sport event; and

(d) any other information required by the regulations.

(2) The report must be completed and provided to the Minister within 3 months after the completion of the motor sport event.

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament within 6 sitting days after receiving the report.

Noting the time, I will keep this very brief. I covered off on this in my second reading speech. This requires the board to report on ticket sales for their events, and that would include the total number of tickets sold or given away in relation to the motorsport event, a breakdown of the different types of ticket available in relation to the motorsport event and the number of tickets actually sold or given away of each type, the total attendance at the motorsport event and any other information required by the regulations. I would imagine this would reasonably be part of the annual report, but it goes on to specify how it would be tabled in parliament.

I am looking for more transparency. I am sure the public of South Australia, particularly those most impacted by these events, would appreciate that level of transparency going forward, given that we have had such a lack of detail of why particularly the Adelaide 500 was abandoned, no detail on the years as to why it could not secure sponsorship, claims of a $45 million economic benefit the last time the race was run, but a lack of detail being able to be provided in Budget and Finance about what was the breakdown of that. It is a reasonable expectation for the public to know how many tickets we sell, at what price point and how many we are seeing given away each year.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In its current form we will not support the amendment. However, sir, I would seek your advice about the best way for me to amend the honourable member's amendment. I wish in subsection (1) of her new clause to strike out paragraphs (a) and (b), but with the rest remaining. I assume that would mean renumbering (c) and (d) to (a) and (b). I will seek the support of the chamber to do that, and in that form I indicate that the government will support the new clause as amended as I have suggested. The reason for this is that, whilst the government is very keen on increasing transparency, it must do so in a way that does not lead to breaching any commercial-in-confidence parts of any contract entered into.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: With the explanation by the minister, the Liberal opposition believes that the new clause proposed to be inserted by the Hon. Tammy Franks in principle is very fair and reasonable to ensure transparency and accountability of government, but we agree with the minister for paragraphs (a) and (b) to be struck out or removed in order for the rest of the amendment to be accepted by the Liberal opposition.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I rise to indicate that SA-Best will support the recommendation from the minister for the amendment to the new clause.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I can do numbers and I can see that it is only the Greens who would insist that the total number of tickets sold or given away in relation to the motorsport event and the breakdown of the different types of those tickets be published in the annual report or similar. This is pretty basic information that I find is available in other major event reports, and it is a level of transparency that I would think the public would expect.

I am not sure how it really can be a breach of commercial-in-confidence to let people know how many tickets you sell and at what price point those tickets were sold, and how many tickets you give away for free to perhaps make your event look better patronised than it might otherwise have been. I feel the South Australian public does need to know how many freebies are given out to major events that they are heavily subsidising, not in the hundreds of thousands of dollars but in the millions of dollars.

I will not insist on a division. I am happy that the government has at least come part way to support part of the amendment. It is a step forward, and I am hoping that there will be further steps forward on this. I find the argument that this might actually impact on other events in practice and that it might scare off investment in events in South Australia if people had to actually publish their ticket sales and types to be somewhat ludicrous.

I think if all South Australians were able to know exactly what bang for their buck they were getting from the events we would be in a far better place, and I am sure that those across the border would appreciate that level of information, too, and it does indeed occur in quite a few events across the country.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move an amendment to the Hon. Tammy Franks' amendment as follows:

To strike out paragraphs (a) and (b) under subsection (1) of proposed section 27D, and re-order as necessary the remaining two paragraphs (c) and (d).

Amendment carried; new clause as amended inserted.

Remaining clauses (20 to 25) passed.

Schedule 1.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: In relation to the vesting of assets and liabilities of the commission and the board—and we saw under the previous government the rapid divesting of various items of infrastructure—does this government and the new board have any plans to protect any assets being sold off without consultation?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. I am advised that it is a good suggestion and that it is something we will turn our mind to.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: But will the decision be made by either the government of the day or the board, or will it be a decision that perhaps parliament could consider about the divesting of state-owned assets, much like privatisation and our pursuit of that.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his suggestion and contribution. I can assure him that this government has no intention of following the path of the last government in cancelling the event and doing a rapid fire sale or divestment of assets that are used for the event. I am happy to explore with the honourable member what possibilities there are for further protections.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: As a supplementary to that: does the Motorsport Board, if this bill now passes, have the ability to cancel any event they may deem fit to cancel—noting that there is not just one event here—and do they have the ability to initiate events without the government's say-so, or will they always require the government to sign off on that?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. My advice is that there is the possibility for new events to be contemplated. In relation to cancellation of events my advice is it is envisaged that the board would work with the government of the day in relation to decisions about discontinuing any event.

Schedule passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Attorney-General, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (13:01): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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