Le Mans race in Parklands: Democrats Oppose Motor Sport Amendment Bill

	Extract from Hansard Legislative Council 4 July 2000

Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council		Parliament Index 2000 Autumn Sitting Index Browse by Subject Search all Democrats material About the SA Parliament Hansard on line

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: The Democrats oppose this bill, not because we have an objection to this particular Panoz, Le Mans style race or any other motor event. I do not claim that we are champions necessarily of it but that is not the issue. The issue is location, location, location. It is a difficult crusade to change the attitude that was just expressed by the Hon. Caroline Schaefer, that parklands are for the entertainment or enjoyment in virtually any form of the public of South Australia or people who come from other states.

I invite those who are in the least dubious about this to check the dictionary for the meaning of the word `parklands'. If we are to use this area for general entertainment venues, let us not continue with the facade of calling those precious hectares around the city of Adelaide, which are unique in the world, parklands. Let us call them situations of convenience for any whiz-bang idea that the government of the day might want to impose on the population of Adelaide.

It is probably no surprise that quite a lot of people who live within Adelaide and in the state generally do not have a great enthusiasm for car sports, but there are very few who do not have an enthusiasm for the parklands. It is a fact that some ministers in this current state government are seriously considering the declaration of the parklands in the world heritage listing, which is a significance that will last for centuries—indefinitely—one hopes, with constant international recognition and publicity. As indicated by other world heritage listings, it is an ongoing source of revenue in a passive, gentle way for the people who host world heritage items, and it would be abundantly so in Adelaide.

So, because it is essential for us to emphasise this I repeat: we are not opposed to motor events per se. We have had motor events in South Australia in various locations and they have been successful. There are motor events all over the world in venues which are not in the heart of cities which are extremely successful and get a lot of publicity in their own right. It is not essential for us to have it planted in the middle of the parklands and involving the closure of what are heavily used metropolitan and suburban roads for quite extensive periods of time.

The member for Norwood, Vini Ciccarello, has outlined some of the disadvantages to the people who live on the east side of the city. However, I want to distance the Democrat's position from that as being an over-riding cause for concern, because I do think there is a NIMBY principle: people do not want to have events in their own location which might diminish their quality of life. However, it is important to recognise that it does have an impact on the businesses and the convenience of people who live in the area adjacent to the race venue. However, from the point of view of our emphasis on protection and minimising the desecration of the parklands, the roads were closed for 10 days, but the period of time during which there were starkly visible buildings, developments and fences ran into months—and that is for just one motor event.

If we have another motor event at the same location, it will virtually eliminate that area as being the ambience of parklands. It excises an appreciable portion of the major feature of the Adelaide parklands, and that is that it is a coronet, a necklace—using words which are not mine; they have been used in promotional material for Adelaide. We take a chunk out—we amputate a piece out of the parklands—for motor sports. I believe that that really flies in the face of our responsibility as a parliament to protect a precious heritage, and arguably the most precious heritage of the city of Adelaide.

The argument is repetitive: whenever we staged the Grand Prix and then, eventually, the Clipsal 500 we adopted the same stand, so it is obviously no surprise to members of this Council. However, as I noticed in the second reading explanation, one of the consequences of this bill will be, as follows:

If that is the mindset, sadly not only of government members but also, I assume, a majority of the opposition, it will be a very difficult fight to prevent there being permanent structures in what was parklands. The area will probably be renamed Le Mans or Panos Park, or the Clipsal Straight with these structures covered in advertising. That may lead to the gradual erosion of some areas, and I hope that shocks some members. We have seen it. It is happening and it will happen even more if we have this second event in that area.

If that does take place then I believe that our argument for UNESCO to accept the parklands of Adelaide for World Heritage listing will be very much harder to achieve if not impossible because it will show that the people of Adelaide through their parliament are not prepared to protect the parklands over and above commercial gain, and short-term, spectacular and sensational display similar to a circuses syndrome.

I believe that that will make it very difficult for us to really benefit, in the long run, from this intrinsically valuable asset—the total and undivided parklands around Adelaide.

We will be opposing the bill. We hope that, in the fullness of the time, there will be some directed resources and thought to developing a permanent motor sports venue. There are plenty of opportunities for it to be done and the contribution that has accumulated over the years from governments of both Labor and Liberal persuasions can be diverted to establishing permanent structures. It reduces the annual cost of the events; it allows more events to be held. There is a lot of logistical and logical argument to support that development and that style of approach to motor sport rather than the punctuating of Adelaide's peace and calm in the parklands with what will be increasing pressure for turning Victoria Park and its environment—the roads and the other parts adjacent to it—into what will be known both in Adelaide and, further on, nationally as a motor sports venue that is stuck close to the centre of the City of Adelaide. It is for those reasons that the Democrats oppose the second reading.