Upper House hurdle for Adelaide Oval bill

. Source: The Advertiser

The State Government will this week introduce its Adelaide Oval Redevelopment and Management Bill, which will allow for the Stadium Management Authority's redevelopment of the Oval and the surrounding Parklands. On Monday, the Opposition will announce its position on the Bill, which will determine whether the legislation will pass Parliament.

If the Opposition opposes the Bill, the Government would need the support of four cross-benchers in the Legislative Council to pass the legislation.

The Advertiser understands the Government has two amendments to bring to Parliament on Tuesday, the first excluding Light's vision from the management area, and the second a concession on Creswell and Pennington gardens.

None of the Legislative Council's seven members will support the Bill in its current form.

Greens Members of the Upper House Tammy Franks and Mark Parnell say they are concerned about the use of the precinct surrounding the Oval and would consider amendments. "Basically this is a carte blanche to do whatever they want in the Parklands and I don't find that acceptable," Mr Parnell said.

Dignity for Disability MLC Kelly Vincent said she opposed the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval, and there was a "reasonable likelihood" that she would oppose the Bill.

Ms Vincent has been calling for the $535 million of taxpayer funding allocated to the Oval to be redirected to social services.

Independent MLC Ann Bressington said if she had the casting vote she would not oppose the legislation, but was still to make up her mind on the Bill.

"I have made it very clear I do not support the Adelaide Oval development. . . (but) I am not going to be the one responsible for blocking the development," she said.

Family First MLC Dennis Hood said he was "positive" about the development, but his vote would depend on amendments negotiated between the Council and the Government.

Fellow Family First member Rob Brokenshire said the party would "carefully consider" its position on the Bill, and he remained undecided.

Independent John Darley said he was not convinced the Government needed the legislation and would vote against the Bill in protest at the development.