Legislative Council
AUSTRALIAN FORMULA ONE GRAND PRIX
(SOUTH AUSTRALIAN MOTOR SPORT) AMENDMENT BILL
Adjourned debate on second reading.
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I oppose this Bill. The Democrats want to make plain that, as so often, the opposition to the Bill is based on the location of the event and not on the event itself. The actual Grand Prix event was magnificently staged, but its long-term desecration of the ethos of the parklands is still with us. We are still suffering from that. That is why it was not even considered, apparently, as a substantial hindrance to proceeding with this now to have a V8 event taking place in the same location where we had firm undertakings that, when the Grand Prix event was terminated and there were funds in hand, the track would be removed and the Victoria Park parklands amenity would be restored. But all that just fell by the wayside. There was never any sincerity in that promise.
There was plenty of time to have acted on it, but it was always held in abeyance in the hope that something would crop up. Of course, something has cropped up (although I do not believe that Mallala is all that excited about the fact that there will now be a competing event in the parklands). We put up with the Grand Prix in that location for 11 years partly because it was a world class event, it brought the world to our doorstep and the economic spin-offs were said to be huge. My attitude to it was not the same, because I always objected to the alienation and degradation of public parklands. However, I believe that the great majority of South Australians either enjoyed the race or reluctantly put up with it because of its scale, its city-wide party atmosphere or some other perceived benefit. So it is with the Australian Formula One Grand Prix Act.
This Act gives great power to Executive Government to override the jurisdiction of local government to fence off and put up buildings on parklands and many other powers, such as to override the Noise Control Act. These are not the sort of autocratic powers that South Australians would normally support, but I submit that they put up with this extension of Executive power in the same spirit and for the same reason that they, reluctantly or otherwise, supported the Grand Prix. However, in seeking an extension of the Grand Prix board's powers, it seems to us that the Government is making two big assumptions. In the first place, it is assuming, I think unwisely, that the same public goodwill or lack of antagonism that existed towards the Grand Prix will exist in respect of any other motor sport event that it wants to conduct through city streets or park land.
Secondly, although this is a consequence of the first assumption, in all Government propaganda about the proposed supercar endurance race it has been assumed that an ongoing public subsidy for this event will not be needed because there will be support from sponsors and the public to ensure that the event will run at a profit. That is very reminiscent of the song sung for many years regarding the Grand Prix, with a whole lot of spurious arguments being brought up to try to show how much in equation the State benefited financiallyóalthough the Government was propping it up to the tune of many millions of dollars. Time will tell whether either of these assumptions is correct.
However, what we have to deal with now is this Bill. The Bill provides that the autocratic and anti-democratic powers used during the Grand Prix event would become available to the Executive Government in respect of any future event that has the support of a Minister. It means that virtually any event that uses a motorised vehicle or vehicles can come within the ambit of this legislation. Regardless of whether this event stands or falls, if we allow the Bill to pass, each year we will leave that area of the parklands vulnerable to a series of events of a similar duration and impact as the Grand Prix had on the lifestyle of Adelaidians.
I cannot emphasise that enough because it appeared to us - and by `us' I mean those of us who care and revere the parklands - that the tide was turning and that the authorities of local government, the Adelaide City Council and even this place were beginning to see how irreplaceably precious the parklands are and their potential as a world status feature. Professor Judith Brine, who is running for the Adelaide City Council, at a meeting in North Adelaide the other night re-endorsed my view and that of the Adelaide Parklands Preservation Association that the parklands qualify for world heritage listing. How exciting that would be; it would be a unique achievement for this city. However, how much will it be put in jeopardy if those who are making the appraisal can see a series of assaults on the integrity of the parklands? This is a major one but it is only one of a profusion of assaults that come from all angles.
The Chamber knows of the Democrats and my staunch opposition to commercial enterprises being put on the parklands. We have just seen a national wine industry centre put in the parklands, and there is enormous pressure for a commercial leisure centre to be placed in the parklands. It is so depressing that we do not learn from history. The chapter of history that contains the erosion of the parklands should be there as a classic example for us to stop, pause and reverse. We must remember the hollow promises made; for example, the old bus depot grounds that were to be returned to parklands. All these things were done apparently with an awareness that the parklands are irreplaceable and that they hold an incomparable status as an icon for this city. The Grand Prix was lost; it went to Melbourne. The promise was that the paraphernalia, the bric-a-brac and all the intrusion into the parklands would be bundled up and removed. Yet here comes what we always suspected - it was just a deceit, a smokescreen. Tragically, every year this Bill will sentence Adelaide - until such time as there is a Parliament with enough sense to reverse it - to a substantial erosion of the amenity, quality and general status of the Adelaide parklands. We will oppose the Bill at the second reading stage and seek a division on it.
However, I must repeat that our opposition is to the location of the event. It is almost inevitable that, whenever we stand up to defend the parklands, those who want to denigrate our position seek to portray us as opposing the event. I can only say again and again that our opposition is not to the event; the event is fine. For heaven's sake, let us not continue this pressure to diminish the quality and standing of our irreplaceable parklands. What could have more impact than a four or five day exclusion of access to the parklands and the impact of the noise of motor vehicles racing in them? I cannot think of anything more dramatically in contrast to what the parklands should be. The Democrats oppose the Bill.
The Council divided on the second reading:
AYES (14)
Crothers, T. Davis, L. H.
Dawkins, J. S. L. Griffin, K. T.
Holloway, P. Lawson, R. D.
Lucas, R. I. (teller) Redford, A. J.
Roberts, R. R. Roberts, T. G.
Schaefer, C. V. Stefani, J. F.
Weatherill, G. Zollo, C.
NOES (2)
Gilfillan, I. (teller) Kanck, S. M.
PAIR(S)
Laidlaw, D. V. Elliott, M. J.
Majority of 12 for the Ayes.
Bill thus read a second time.
Bill read a third time and passed.
[Home] [Head Office] [SA Branches] [What's Hot in SA] [Mike Elliott] [Sandra Kanck] [Ian Gilfillan]