 |
Legislative
Council |
|
 |
||
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
|
Legislative
Council |
|
|
||
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
In Committee.
Clause 1 passed.
Clause 2.
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: The Treasurer in his response talked about the boundaries of the ASER site. I have not been involved in the ASER legislation previously, so I was surprised at the delineation he gave. As I recall, I think Montefiore Road was one of the four boundary roads mentioned. Does that mean that the ASER site does extend to what we know as the Morphett Street bridge?
The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I do not have my adviser with me this morning. The advice I have is that the site is roughly the area bounded by Station Road, Festival Drive, Montefiore Road and North Terrace. So on that reading, I think what the honourable member is— The Hon. Diana Laidlaw: It must be a dogleg because TransAdelaide owns a lot of the rail land reserve and the station. The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Whatever it is, we are not changing the site in relation to this. I am happy to take it on notice. If the honourable member would like to delay the Committee stage, I can seek advice on it. However, we are not seeking to change it. The advice I have is that the boundary is Montefiore Road, Festival Drive, North Terrace and Station Road. The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I presume that the new development currently being proposed for the Torrens precinct or whatever it is called— The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Riverbank. The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Yes, Riverbank. I presume that that will all be covered by this legislation. Therefore, I would not mind a chance to obtain a little more clarification. It is not a matter of supporting or opposing the Bill, but at this stage it is an opportunity to obtain some clarification about the site to which this Bill relates and gain a very clear understanding of the boundaries and the development that is likely to be included within the site. I do not want to cause a delay, but it is an opportunity— The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Does the honourable member have the ASER Act in front of him? The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: No, I have the ASER Restructure Act, which is not the principal Act. In fact, I am not sure what the principal Act is. The Bill before us is an amendment to the ASER Restructure Act 1997. However, I presume ASER was established under another Act that I cannot— The Hon. R.I. Lucas: The Adelaide Railway Station Development Act 1994. If the honourable member has a copy of that, he will see that that is the definition from which we are working, so it might be covered in there. The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Yes. While we have this opportunity, as it relates to the development within the precinct, I want to get a clear understanding of precisely what that development might be. I do not want to cause undue delay, but it is an opportunity at least to put it on the record in this place by way of question. I apologise to the Treasurer, because I had not intended to follow this path. However, it is something that I think is worthwhile, particularly in light of some of the issues raised by the Hon. Ian Gilfillan. It is not a question of being opposed to the development but an opportunity to obtain a clear picture of what it will become. The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The honourable member may well find the answer in the Adelaide Railway Station Development Act 1984, because my advice is that the definition about which we are talking is outlined in that Act. I do not intend to delay the Committee stage, but I am happy to defer consideration, if that is required, and return to it later. In relation to the honourable member's question, the Riverbank precinct is tangentially related to this piece of legislation. The Riverbank precinct— The Hon. M.J. Elliott interjecting:The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes. The `Riverbank precinct' is our working title for the area bounded by North Terrace, Morphett Road, the Torrens River and King William Road. We are not legislating it, so we are not putting anything in statute. It is just the Government's working title for that area bounded by those three roads and the Torrens River.
The Hon. M.J. Elliott: So any new structure will probably go within the area bounded by the relevant legislation. The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Obviously, the Adelaide Convention Centre is part of the ASER project and that is the relationship. However, the Riverbank precinct takes in a whole variety of other potential projects; that is, what we might do with the river frontage, the Festival Centre and Parliament House. There are a variety of separate projects which may or may not be contemplated—for example, the bridge over the Torrens River from Adelaide Oval to south of the Torrens River. There are a number of possible projects that this Government, or future Governments, might pick up which are not formally part of the ASER development at all. The ASER development is a sub-component of the broader Riverbank proposal. The boundaries of the ASER development are specifically defined in legislation. The Riverbank precinct is just the Government's working title for the area. It is not legislated for or defined—and it will not be. It is just a working title for a number of projects within the Morphett Road, North Terrace, King William Road and Torrens River boundary. It is just that one of the projects within the Riverbank precinct was the Adelaide Convention Centre and, obviously, that has flow-on implications in relation to the ASER development.The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I just have a feeling and expectation that, in terms of structures, other than the potential footbridge that has been proposed across the river, any other building work that is likely to happen is most likely to happen within the ASER site itself.
The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Festival Centre—there is an $18 million project there, and that is actually outside the ASER site. Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Clause 1.
The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: When we were last discussing this the Hon. Mr Elliott asked some questions about the precise delineation of the site of the ASER project. During the afternoon we obtained some further information and I have provided a copy of a map to the honourable member. His first question related to a query about the Montefiore Road being the western boundary of the ASER project and whether that was correct as I had indicated. The map shows that that is the case; that is, the ASER project goes through to Montefiore Road, or Morphett Bridge as it would be known evidently on that particular section.
The Hon. Mr Elliott has raised some questions in subsequent discussions. On the map that I provided to him there was a very small section, which, I have now been advised, is 30 metres long and about three metres wide rather than one metre wide. I am advised that that was a part of the northern car park which had been built and, in essence, it was hanging over the edge of the defined ASER site. The Hon. M.J. Elliott interjecting: The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Something like that, I guess. It existed, but it was not within the ASER site. When the Act was debated some time ago there was an agreement to allow a change to the definition of the site. That one change under section 5 of the Act could be made by way of regulation. The amendment to the Act allowed, by way of regulation, the three metre by 30 metre section of the northern car park to be added to the ASER site. I am now advised that there were two regulations: one picked up by the Hon. Mr Elliott dated February; and one picked up by my office dated June or July. Both refer to the same provision. It was done first in February 1998 and redone in further regulations in June or July of that year. There are not two separate pieces of land, I am advised: the one piece of land has been added and it could be added only because of an amendment to the Act which allowed that to be the case.I am told that the ASER site is as we now describe it. That is it: no more land can be added to the ASER site by way of regulation. The only way land could be added to the ASER site is by way of amendment to the Act, which was the way this particular land was originally added, albeit by way of an amendment which then allowed a regulation to be issued to sort out the northern car park site. So, if any member had any concern that the Government could add, by way of regulation, further areas to the ASER site, I am advised that that is not now possible.
However, if the Government wished, it could reduce the size of the ASER site by way of regulation down to nothing. It is possible, by regulation, to reduce the area covered by the ASER site, but it is not now possible to increase further the ASER site by way of regulation if a Government chose to do so, and we have no intention of doing so. The Government can do so only by way of an amendment to the legislation. I hope I have clarified for the honourable member the precise definition of the site. In fact, this legislation is not seeking to change the definition of the site, as I think the Hon. Mr Elliott acknowledged in our earlier exchange today. If the honourable member wishes to raise further issues I am happy either to further report progress or to take his queries on notice and correspond with the honourable member on any issue about which he might have concerns.The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I expected that an officer would be present because I wanted to explore a little issues relating to the site, particularly in relation to expansions that have been proposed for the Exhibition Hall as part of the Riverbank project. As I understand, it is intended that the Exhibition Hall will be extended from its current position out over the railway lines and the northern car park: is that correct?
The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Yes. When the honourable member says `Exhibition Hall', does he mean the Convention Centre, as we are calling it?The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: The Exhibition Hall is part of the Convention Centre.
The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Yes. The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: There has been some discussion about the possibility of relocating the interstate terminal into Adelaide. One would imagine that that would have also been included in that ASER site development area. That seems to be the most logical place for it to be located. Can the Minister tell me whether or not that would be the case?The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The answer to the question is obviously `Yes'. The Riverbank master plan development—and I would be happy to provide the honourable member with a copy of the Riverbank master plan guidelines that have been developed—does mention the possibility. Again, it is one of these projects to bring Keswick into the city, if I can summarise it in that way.
However, that is not an insignificant project in terms of cost. The Government has not yet concluded the decision in relation to that. The design of the Adelaide Convention Centre extension, however, is being done to leave open the possibility of that decision, should this Government or some future Government decide that it wished to do that. It is the intention of the designers of the Adelaide Convention Centre extension to leave that particular option open, should a Government decide that it wanted to do that.
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I guess the city most comparable to Adelaide in terms of reliance on the motor car until now has probably been Perth. A few years ago some totally new rail routes were constructed in Perth. They are certainly trying to get people back onto public transport. The station precinct is a major part of any transport hub that you might want to develop. Whilst you are saying that allowances are being made for the interstate station, are allowances made for the possibility that rail traffic at some time in the future, as Adelaide's population grows, will be able to be catered for within this site and not be squeezed out?
The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I would really have to take some advice from the Minister for Transport and her department in relation to that. We need to acknowledge that there is some overlap, but we should also acknowledge what this Bill is seeking to do. It really is seeking to define what we have known to be the ASER site—the Casino, the hotel and the Riverside building shared areas—and who pays for what, in order to enable Funds SA to move down a path of sale of those properties.
I acknowledge, as we have discussed today, that there are obviously overlaps with the Government's intentions for the whole Riverbank area, which is a much broader description than just the ASER site, and that does include the Festival Centre, the Convention Centre and the potential options for the future of the Keswick terminal, and I would imagine that it also includes the sort of traffic or rail issues that the member is canvassing. I indicate to the member that, frankly, it is not an area within my expertise in terms of future rail planning.
However, I can tell the member that the Minister for Transport (Hon. Diana Laidlaw) has worked with me on the Riverbank Cabinet Committee, which I have convened. She has been an active supporter of keeping the transport options open within this precinct. She has kept a weather eye on the Keswick option but also on options in relation to rail, bus drop-off in this tourist precinct, taxis and traffic flows down North Terrace and past this region, as well as traffic flows through the region.
The Minister for Transport and Urban Planning has been an active member of the Government's planning consideration of this, so I can only indicate to the member that perhaps I would be happy to have the Minister for Transport have a discussion with him in relation to the transport view of the overall Riverbank Precinct Plan and any particular questions that he might have.
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I appreciate that. I will ask one more question and it might be one that has to be covered within those same discussions. There is still, if you like, land which is currently covered by the ASER legislation and which has not been committed for development, and that is the land immediately to the west of the Exhibition Hall and the proposed extensions to the Exhibition Hall and Convention Centre. Are there any proposals for development there? I know that the Investigator Science Centre has been trying to get a site within the city, and it has gone very quiet, and that tends to suggest that something is happening. Is it being contemplated as a potential participant within the redevelopment?The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: As convenor of the committee, I have had no suggestion that the Investigator Science Centre would be located in the area to the west of the Exhibition Hall-Convention Centre expansion that we are talking about. I am happy to advise the member that in terms of the Convention Centre extension there is a requirement for some of that area to the west of the existing footprint of the Exhibition Hall, and therefore also the Convention Centre extension, for service delivery options. There are also some transport options in terms of links off North Terrace into the car park—I think the northern car park off North Terrace, although I am going by memory.
The Hon. M.J. Elliott: Do you mean something like buses linking in? The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, cars as well: there are traffic options. I think there is also provision for a pedestrian walk-through. In one of the discussions we considered students from the University of South Australia and how they could safely and easily link from North Terrace through to the Riverbank precinct and to all the wonderful eating and entertainment areas we are going to have down there. The Hon. M.J. Elliott interjecting: The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: McDonald's, at least. There will be eating areas down there. I know that the Hon. Mr Brindal, who was a member of the committee as well, raised the issue of pedestrian access from North Terrace through that area. Part of the area that the honourable member is talking about to the west of the footprint of the Exhibition Building and Convention Centre extension is taken up by various options such as that, and certainly the notion of building something, in essence a greenfield site for the Investigator Science Centre, has not been canvassed with me. It would involve some problems with car parking and transport options, which the committee has been looking at in terms of that site. Clause passed. Remaining clauses (2 to 12) and title passed. Bill read a third time and passed.See the Democrats second reading speeches
on this Bill:
Mike Elliott 8 July 1999 and
Ian Gilfillan 29 July 1999
