Mike Elliott, Australian Democrats in the SA Parliament

Extract from Hansard

Legislative Council
8 July 1999

Mike Elliott
Leader Australian Democrats
Member of the Legislative Council

Parliament Index
1999 Budget Session Index
Browse by Subject
About the SA Parliament
Hansard on line

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I note that the Hon. Ian Gilfillan will make a further contribution to the debate on this Bill at a later point. The Government says the aim of this legislation is to simplify the management of ASER to improve the prospects of sale and the value of Riverside as a community asset. Since 30 June 1998, ASER, owned by Funds SA, has been looking to improve the value of the asset before sale. The structure of ASER was originally set up as one complex but it is now divided, and different parts of the complex rely on services from other parts, for example, air conditioning. The ASER Corporation formed to manage things needs a simple, practical management regime.

In my consultations I spoke with, among other groups, the Adelaide City Council, as this is happening within its area, and the legislation in part goes beyond the site itself. The response I received from the Adelaide City Council identified one area which it felt would require some clarification, and that is in relation to clause 20(b) of the Bill. Clause 20(b) of the Bill provides:

The corporation may main maintain and operate facilities and make provision for the safety of persons and property in areas adjacent to the site associated with the use and enjoyment of the site if authorised to do so by unanimous agreement of the stakeholders.

I am not sure what facilities the Government might have had in mind, and I would be interested if the Government indicated at the end of the second reading stage what facilities it had in mind. Certainly, when it talks about making provision for the safety of persons and property I imagine it is talking about the sort of patrols that currently operate in the Casino precinct, and this appears to authorise them. I am not sure what authorisation they functioned under previously, but again I would like some clarification at the close of the second reading stage as to the implications within this Bill regarding recognition of the provision for safety of persons and how far that authority stretches.

I note that this clause deals with the authorisation of stakeholders. When you go back to the principal Act you find that the stakeholders are those who occupy subsidiary sites, and they are defined by regulation as subsidiary sites but they do not include the Casino site. So, the subsidiary sites are distinguished from what is considered to be the common area, which again is simply defined by regulation. The stakeholders at the end of the day are those people who have subsidiary sites. This appears to require the consent—or unanimous agreement—of the stakeholders to provide these services, but it is worth noting that these services are being provided in areas beyond the site itself, because this deals with locations adjacent to the site.

We should ask the question: if the security is being provided by what is a private body in an area which goes beyond its own site, how can it be justified that it is sufficient that just the stakeholders themselves authorise the provision of such services, whether or not there should be some consent, agreement or involvement of whatever other parties might also be interested? It is not specific: it provides in general terms for `areas adjacent'.

There are some questions about how much authority this grants to whatever security services are provided. There are questions about what authority it gives to operate other facilities and, where they are provided beyond the site itself, what involvement is available for other parties who are affected and who are potentially owners or in some other way vitally interested in the area beyond the site. Before I decide whether or not we need to move an amendment, I await with interest the response of the Minister on that matter in particular.