Adelaide Oval Redevelopment And Management Bill
21/06/2011
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (17:26): I rise today with, to say the least, a divided mind and a divided heart. Logically, I know that this bill will be passed with the conditional support of the Liberal Party and that a vote against it will merely be what is sometimes termed ‘gesture politics’. I also know that I do not support the essence of this bill and that sometimes a gesture is worth making.
As many honourable members will be aware, I have opposed this development from the start. This is because I know that the $535 million that this government intends to spend on a sports facility could be much more valuably employed in other areas, specifically in providing care and services to some of the most vulnerable, at-risk and needy people in our society.
As we all know, the latest budget saw an allocation of $10.8 million over four years toward the provision of disability equipment. I am told that this amount of funding will provide roughly 600 such items each year over that four years. As an example, using this logic, it would seem that if the money going toward the oval redevelopment were to be put towards disability equipment it could provide roughly 118,900 pieces of equipment. When we look at that calculation can we really believe that people with disabilities were, as the Treasurer puts it, the big winners in this year’s state budget? I think it would be fair to say that we are not quite preparing for a victory lap just yet.
This is, of course, just one example of a better use of this money that I can think of; there are a few others. The government could clear the unmet needs list, for example, but it will not. This government could clear the 100-day waiting list at hospitals and facilities such as the Hampstead Rehabilitation Centre, but it will not. This government could provide the mere one hour of extra in-home support which some people require in order to get out of hospital beds and back into their homes with their families—it will not.
This government could keep all young people with disability out of nursing homes—it will not. This government could provide adequate respite and support for unpaid carers—it will not. This government could continue to run the Disability SA client trust fund that would give people with disability and mental illness and their families the sound knowledge that their money is being well managed instead of being absorbed by fees as is likely to happen under the Public Trustee, but it will not.
This government could keep Ward 4G open to provide young people with eating disorders with appropriate care and support—it will not. This government could keep the Parent Helpline running overnight so that desperate parents could get advice and support when they are most in need, but it will not.
These are all human services which constantly take the back seat while we are told that they are too expensive or that the money is simply not there in the first place, and yet here we have the development of what is essentially a luxury item for which the money is being handed over seemingly without the blink of an eyelid. I am not saying that sports and associated tourism are not important. No. I believe that there can, and hopefully will, come a day when South Australia can indeed be proud of projects like the oval redevelopment, but that time is not now.
I am, like many others, saddened, angered, embarrassed and ashamed. I am ashamed that this redevelopment comes at not only an extravagant fiscal cost, but also a heavy human cost. I am ashamed to live in a state which prioritises grandeur ahead of care. I am ashamed that this government would rather build monuments to its reign than provide for the people it was elected to serve.
However, since I am faced with the inevitability that this money is out of reach for those who need it most, I may as well consider how it is going to be used. What I do not want is that this money be used to justify the felling of the 10 Moreton Bay Figs which have stood shady through hundreds of summer test matches, or that it be used to destroy the habitat of some of the amazing wildlife Adelaideians are still privileged to have living in their CBD.
Because of these concerns, I am likely to support the bill if the Liberals’ amendments are adopted, but please remember that this decision has caused a terrible amount of angst for me. To illustrate my dilemma a little further, I would like to use a quote, but this is not a quote from any of our great philosophers or any such people, instead I have taken it from the Hon. Gail Gago’s second reading explanation of the bill. The Hon. Ms Gago states that:
The Adelaide Oval redevelopment is not only seen as a world-class piece of construction, but also as a piece of psychological infrastructure that lifts the spirits of the state.
This is an interesting statement for many reasons, but I am primarily interested to hear that the government believes that our state is at a point where it can afford psychological infrastructure. Personally, I believe that if you cannot afford to spend money on actual buildings and services which provide essential things to your citizens, you should leave the psychological infrastructure to future generations.
In total, the disability sector was given an extra $56 million in this budget and, as I have already pointed out, that amount will not do it, it will not solve the crisis; $535 million would have got us closer, closer to building something we really could have been proud of, the foundations of a more person-centred and egalitarian society.
Instead of spending that $535 million on infrastructure and services to help real people in the real world, it is being spent on psychological infrastructure. If it were not so terribly sad, the use of those words could be almost comical. I would suggest that this government needs to reflect heavily on its own priorities, as this particular choice indicates to me that this government’s own psychological infrastructure is crumbling rapidly.
As I said, I am likely to support this bill with the Liberals’ amendments, which we are yet to see, as the Hon. Mr Lucas pointed out in his rather in depth contribution, provided that these amendments provide adequate protection for our Parklands. However, I reiterate that I do so feeling that I am choosing between the lesser of two evils.
When I was first elected I was told to prepare for some pretty rough and trying times. Let me assure you that for me today is more than just a tough day in the rat race. This development is an insult to the values that I hold dear, the values that guide me in my life and my work, values that I dearly hope this government will some day learn to hold itself, but, unfortunately, I will not hold my breath on that.
