GRAND PRIX

‘Hansard’ Extract

by the Hon. Mark Birrell, MP

Minister For Major Projects

Wednesday 18^th May, 1984

(Speech in defence of the plan to hold a Formula 1 Grand Prix in Melbourne)

I appreciate the opportunity afforded to the house by Mr Pullen's [ALP] motion to discuss the grand prix and publicly explain the government's approach.

The grand prix is a magnificent opportunity for Melbourne to showcase itself to the world, to add a new attraction to our capital city and to accelerate Victoria's recovery. Many issues are still to be resolved publicly, and this is part of the process of providing information to the public. The government believes matters will be resolved to the satisfaction of the vast majority of neighbours of the track in Albert Park and the vast majority of the wider Victorian community.

This is an opportunity to discuss the matters raised by Mr Pullen and to allay concerns, but it must be said that the motion is slightly premature in that the Premier has said on many occasions that the full plans and costings will be released once the Melbourne Major Events Company Ltd has approved them, which may be next month, following the approval of international safety authorities. I stress - I think there would be bipartisan support of this view - that the work of the international safety authorities is important for any such race. It is not surprising that it has always been the aim of the government to get their approval for any racetrack design. Their approval was desired before the tragedy of the Ayrton Senna incident. Why safety should be our priority is even more clear after that tragedy.

The plans for Albert Park and the street circuit will be made publicly available within the next couple of weeks, and comments will be sought from individuals and community groups, including local residents and sporting clubs.

The government has made a number of important commitments, which I am pleased to be able to put on record in this place.

Firstly, only one motor racing event each year will be permitted.

Secondly, there will be no loss of open space. Thirdly, none of the existing sporting clubs will be displaced from the park. Fourthly, facilities for the grand prix will be temporary. Any permanent facilities in the park will have multiple uses to benefit sporting clubs specifically.

An honourable member interjected.

Hon. M. A. BIRRELL -- No. Fifthly, contrary to mischievous press reports, the children's playground will not be affected: it will not be moved. Sixthly, contrary to mischievous press reports, MacRobertson Girls High School will also not be affected: it will not have to close and under the draft plan it will be expanded.

Seventhly, the road that will be used for the annual racing event will be only four lanes wide, one lane each way for traffic and one lane on each side for parallel parking. The road will be designed to ensure that the speed of traffic through the park is reduced, which is of major concern to local people and others.

Eighthly, an environmental impact study will be carried out by Melbourne Parks and Waterways to ensure the protection of the park's natural values. Ninthly, only a small number of trees will be lost or moved, while 5000 new trees will be planted.

Albert Park is an area for sporting activity and passive recreation, both of which will benefit from the numerous improvements to parkland and sporting facilities. I am pleased to again direct to the attention of the house the -- --

Hon. D. R. White -- You haven't mentioned the golf course.

Hon. M. A. BIRRELL -- The golf course will stay. I would not have thought that the Labor Party, in its championing of the rights of the ordinary citizen, would have put the golf course high on its agenda! If the Labor Party wishes to, it can.

I am also pleased to put on the record the initiatives of the government in ensuring that new sporting facilities are built in Albert Park. As was announced recently, the government is engaged in building a new, $52 million sports facility for Albert Park to be called the Melbourne Sports Centre. This integrated sports facility will provide a new stadium for swimming, basketball, table tennis, squash and badminton.

Hon. Licia Kokocinski interjected.

Hon. M. A. BIRRELL -- I would like the comment, `It is a bribe', to go on record. This project was promised by our discredited predecessors who, as usual, did not deliver. The government is delivering a fully funded project which has the benefit of ensuring that a large, ugly area in Albert Park will be cleared of its buildings.

Hon. D. A. Nardella interjected.

Hon. M. A. BIRRELL -- If the honourable member had listened, he would have heard that I said the cost was $52 million. I realise it takes a long time for things to sink into his head.

The sports centre project will allow the government to demolish the ugly World War II-style buildings that currently house sporting facilities for, for example, basketball.

That area will be turned over to parkland, a change that is long overdue. All of that will be delivered through the initiatives of the Kennett government. It was promised time and again by the Cain and Kirner governments, but when it came to the crunch their promises came to nothing.

Albert Park has a history of intensive sporting activity and active and passive recreation. It will now benefit from numerous improvements to parkland and sporting facilities.

Any major event raises environmental issues that must be addressed. That is not surprising. It would have been possible to oppose the siting of the National Tennis Centre in parkland by the Cain government on environmental grounds, but that project went ahead on the basis of a policy announcement with no consultation by the Labor Party.

Equally, it would have been possible to oppose Melbourne's 1996 Olympic bid on environmental grounds, because the proposed development in Albert Park would have resulted in a net loss of open space. The Cain government's proposal was simply to drop a large facility in Albert Park regardless of a net loss of open space.

In that plan the Labor Party showed its true colours. In government the Labor Party did not consult on key policy decisions. It was prepared to see a net loss of open space in Albert Park. It promised massive developments for Albert Park but because of its government's incompetence it did not deliver. The Kennett government is presenting a fully funded centre, housing sporting facilities, with no ensuing net loss of open space. That is long overdue.

If honourable members want the grand prix for Victoria and Melbourne, the planning issues have to be tackled rather than used as pathetic excuses to undermine the whole project.

The Labor opposition's response when this event was announced is interesting. It did not call for consultation and assessments. The Labor Party's response was clear and unequivocal: it supported the grand prix at Albert Park.

On ABC radio news at 1.00 p.m. on 17 December 1993 the Leader of the Opposition, Mr John Brumby, made his position clear on behalf of the Australian Labor Party. He said:

“I am a bit of a petrolhead from way back, so this is a great decision: great decision for Melbourne, great decision for Victoria.”

I cannot put on the empty-suited presence of Mr Brumby. I repeat the Leader of the Opposition's comments:

“I'm a bit of a petrolhead from way back, so this is a great decision: great decision for Melbourne, great decision for Victoria. I look forward as Premier in 1996 to welcoming the grand prix here to Melbourne.”

Hon. G. H. Cox -- At Albert Park!

Hon. M. A. BIRRELL -- Yes, at Albert Park. The Australian of 18 December 1993 quoted Mr Brumby's reaction in these terms:

The announcement also prompted a rare show of bipartisanship with the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Brumby -- --

Hon. Bill Forwood -- They don't support their leader!

Hon. M. A. BIRRELL -- Just listen:

... congratulating the Kennett government and others involved in the negotiations.

Hon. Jean McLean -- He hadn't realised the damage that would be done to Albert Park.

Hon. M. A. BIRRELL -- Mrs McLean's interjection is interesting: she suggests the Leader of the Opposition hadn't realised -- --

Hon. Jean McLean -- He hadn't realised how crooked the whole deal was.

Hon. M. A. BIRRELL -- I am prepared to concede that Mr Brumby is often not up to it, but he speaks on your behalf. You recently re-elected him. He is your man. He supports the grand prix at Albert Park, and has said so. I repeat the comments reported in the Australian:

The announcement also prompted a rare show of bipartisanship with the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Brumby, congratulating the Kennett government and others involved in the negotiations.

I presume he was congratulating Mr Walker, the person who conducted the negotiations. The article continues:

Mr Brumby said the race would be an important boost to Melbourne, adding to its reputation as a major sporting capital ...

Mr Brumby, a car enthusiast, predicted the Australian grand prix would be comparable to that of the Australian Open.

Let us just forget about the location for a moment. Mr Brumby has answered all the pathetic attacks made on the grand prix by Mr Pullen. Mr Pullen's speech was all about the fact the grand prix may not be a good investment, but Mr Brumby said it will be an investment 'comparable to that of the Australian Open'.

Your own leader says he supports the event. He supports it in economic terms. I must say it is a rare occasion when I agree with him.

Mr Brumby has answered all the accusations made in Mr Pullen's speech. He is on the record as supporting Albert Park; he supports the economic investment; and he wants to drop the flag at the Albert Park grand prix. He will not even be leader of the Labor Party then!

The Labor Party has been hypocritical in developing an attitude to the issue after it had already put its position on the record. Mr Brumby, in print, radio and television interviews, supported the grand prix at Albert Park. He thanked Mr Kennett and the people who negotiated the event. He thanked the people who should be congratulated on achieving this coup for Melbourne.

What matters then -- and what still matters -- is that Victoria won the bid for the Albert Park grand prix. Public discussion prior to the announcement of Melbourne's successful bid for the event would have jeopardised our chances of success.

The former Labor government often announced major plans for Melbourne without prior community consultation on the policy issue involved.

Melbourne's bid for the 1996 Olympic Games featured a plan by the former government to develop a $250 million sporting centre at Albert Park in place of the historic South Melbourne Cricket Ground and surrounding parkland. The former government proposed a $250 million development that involved the demolition of the cricket ground and the construction of new buildings on that land and the surrounding parkland.

The opposition's suggestion that community consultation should have occurred before the announcement of the grand prix is therefore not only unrealistic but smacks of absolute hypocrisy. Of course there is a real place for community input and consultation about how to maximise the benefits for Albert Park from the grand prix, how to minimise any perceived impacts and how to answer legitimate questions.

Melbourne Parks and Waterways commenced work on a draft Albert Park strategy plan in February 1993 and released a detailed draft for public comment in December. It is a great pity the shadow minister did not refer to that document in any detail during his contribution to the debate. It makes perfectly clear that the plans envisaged will overcome more than 30 years of inactivity at Albert Park.

Since the release of the draft document Melbourne Parks and Waterways has been working on a final plan to reflect the numerous public submissions and the need to accommodate a grand prix event once a year. As the General Manager of Melbourne Parks and Waterways, Mr Jeff Floyd, said in his public statement on 13 May this year: 'These requirements are not incompatible'.

In fact the need for a redesigned park road will slow through traffic throughout the year to the benefit of the park.

The level of car fumes pumped into Albert Park each day by heavy traffic in Queens Road, Aughtie Drive and Lakeside Drive should make us all realise that the petrol fumes of grand prix cars will not be a new challenge for the park. Far from it.

Many submissions have been received in response to the draft strategy plan -- and I welcome them. They have been invaluable in preparing the final proposed plan, which will incorporate the proposals for the grand prix and, as I stated earlier, will be released by the end of the month.

The final proposed plan will be subject to an extensive period of consultation and public input. The detailed planning and design work required to create the Albert Park master plan will draw on the experience and the views of individual park users and sporting clubs.

Honourable members interjecting.

The PRESIDENT -- Order! I gave Mr Pullen protection from the Chair so that his speech could be heard by honourable members. The minister is not being helped by Ms Asher having a conversation with Mr White and others. I ask both sides of the house to allow the minister to continue.

Hon. M. A. BIRRELL -- In particular, detailed consultation with affected sporting clubs will take place to finalise the development of new park facilities. The consultation process will include full briefings for Albert Park sporting clubs from Melbourne Parks and Waterways officers.

Already, and notably, the Chairman of the Albert Park Users Group, Mr Peter Dakin -- --

Hon. D. R. White -- Provided they agree to the track, which you have not disclosed.

Hon. M. A. BIRRELL -- Mr White may not want to hear these facts. The Chairman of the Albert Park Users Group, Mr Peter Dakin, who is also a member of the Albert Park Strategic Advisory Committee, has welcomed the opportunity to improve Albert Park's existing sporting facilities -- facilities he is reported in the Herald Sun as describing as 'shocking'.

The General Manager of Melbourne Parks and Waterways, Mr Jeff Floyd, also described the state of the park facilities when Melbourne Parks and Waterways commenced its management responsibilities just a couple of years ago -- in January 1992:

Melbourne's much loved park has been seriously neglected.

Buildings were either falling down or had become safety hazards, a number of key facilities were not sewered, the roads carried high speed traffic and the lake was choked with mud and weeds.

I also point out that the former Melbourne Parks and Waterways operations manager, whose comments were quoted by Mr Pullen and whose demise he implicitly regretted, was poleaxed by the Kirner government. He was not appointed as manager of Albert Park under the Kirner government. He was demoted under the former government and recently retired of his own free will.

Hon. D. R. White -- Because he disclosed the plan of the track!

Hon. M. A. BIRRELL -- Firstly, he did not disclose the plans; secondly, he did not know about them; and thirdly, he was embittered from the day the Kirner government let him down.

As Mr Peter Dakin has rightly said, this is the first opportunity in 30 or 40 years to give Albert Park the boost it has needed for so long -- and with the financial benefits flowing from the grand prix the vision for Albert Park can be realised in 5 years, not 50.

It is opportunistic and premature for the opposition to move this lame motion at this time. The government has in place a comprehensive consultation strategy to ensure that a full range of views are heard and considered before the Albert Park master plan is finalised, and the draft strategy master plan is the focus for those views to be raised and considered.

As for the financial and economic implications, the main financial implication for Victoria is that the grand prix will bring enormous benefits to the state economy and the state overall. It will boost Melbourne's image on the international tourist map and will create a range of spin-off benefits for the Victorian economy.

The government and the Melbourne Major Events Company Ltd have both said from the outset that the costs of staging the event over 10 years may outweigh the direct revenue from ticket sales, merchandising sales and the like. But the opposition's recently developed focus on this aspect of the issue misses the real point of the exercise.

We know the opposition says it supports the grand prix for Victoria, although it is embarrassed to say that to local people who are against the project and is duplicitous in its statements to them. The opposition has to say it is in favour of the grand prix because it recognises all the benefits the event will bring to the state, in particular, the television exposure of Melbourne to the rest of the world, which will be worth millions of dollars to the Victorian economy.

The total cost of capital works is intimately linked with the cost of improvements to Albert Park and will be released once the government and the Major Events Company have approved the project plans.

Hon. D. R. White -- When?

Hon. M. A. BIRRELL -- If you had listened you would find out. The Premier has said on the record again and again that the plans will be released at the end of the month.

The coalition government can give an undertaking that taxpayers money will be spent responsibly and will be accounted for. In the short time since it came to office the government has demonstrated an ability to manage the Victorian economy in the best interests of taxpayers, and it will apply the same rigorous standards to the staging of the grand prix.

The attacks on Mr Ron Walker and the Melbourne Major Events Company Ltd, led by the king of bile and vitriol, Mr White, are a sad example of the `tall poppy' syndrome. Mr Walker, it should be remembered, was appointed to the Major Events Committee by the Kirner Labor government. He owes his position on this company to his appointment by the Labor government, not by the Liberal government. Any suggestion of a conflict because of Mr Walker's interest in the Melbourne Major Events Company and Crown Casino is a cowardly slur. Let us never forget that Mr Walker was appointed by the Kirner government, which recognised his longstanding contribution to Melbourne -- a contribution that is continuing.

If the opposition were serious about its concerns for Albert Park it would contribute constructive ideas about the future management of the park rather than resorting to baseless attacks on and innuendo about an individual whose outstanding contribution to Victoria over the years stands in stark contrast to the dark years of economic decline under the former Labor government.

I turn now to the issue of the alternative sites that have recently been suggested by some spokesmen for the Australian Labor Party, even though the ALP is still on the record as supporting the grand prix at Albert Park and is raising these matters only in local forums.

The opposition's call to examine alternative sites to Albert Park fails to deal with Melbourne's successful bid. To secure the grand prix for Victoria a street circuit had to be offered because a street circuit was currently being offered in Adelaide and the event was running extremely well. Offering another identikit racing complex such as Sandown would not have been successful.

Adelaide had a street circuit running through the city and public open space. The historical connection with racing at Albert Park and the fact that it was a street circuit close to the city made it an ideal venue.

As recently as yesterday the Chief Executive of Melbourne Grand Prix Promotions, Ms Judith Griggs, was reported in the Herald Sun as saying that Albert Park is the venue to which Melbourne has committed itself in the grand prix contracts. To put it as simply as possible: Albert Park will definitely be the venue for the 1996 Australian Formula One Grand Prix.

Once again the challenge facing the opposition is to accept this reality and to contribute to the event's success. The attractions of Albert Park extend far beyond the legal contracts. The reality is that it is connected to previous Australian grands prix ; and a street circuit is necessary for the staging of the grand prix.

Albert Park has a special place in Australia's motor racing history as the original home of the Australian grand prix.

For the world, Albert Park will be a spectacular setting for the grand prix and will rank alongside Monaco and Adelaide for its scenic beauty. The background for television viewers throughout the world will be Melbourne's dominant skyline and Port Philip Bay.

Extensive research by Tourism Victoria has identified inner Melbourne as our principal tourist precinct. The government's special arrangements for Melbourne's central activities district, such as 24-hour shopping, are designed to strengthen Melbourne's appeal to major international events.

No other venue could have won the grand prix for Melbourne because only Albert Park combines the proximity to central Melbourne, the scenic beauty, the motor racing heritage and viability of a street circuit.

The last word on the question of relocation should go to one of the Save Albert Park protest organisers, Mr Iain Stewart, who made it clear in the Australian on Monday of this week that no matter how good the plans are for Albert Park his group will continue to oppose the government.

Regrettably, he described the imminent release of the Albert Park planning as 'irrelevant' no matter how fair and publicly acceptable the plan is.

Mr Stewart is not seeking consultation, he is seeking to object continually, regardless of how acceptable the plan is to the local community or anyone else.

He is effectively against a grand prix for Victoria because he will not even look at the plans with an open mind. That puts him out of touch with many of the people who protested last Sunday, who simply want answers to questions rather than having a dogmatic and unbending attitude to the issue.

One of the key questions he asked when I met him was, 'Will this be only an annual event?'. It was a key question put to the government by others, and I give full credit to the representations made to me by Ms Asher, who also said, 'Will this be an annual event?', and the answer is, 'Yes. It will not be held 6, 5, 4, 3, or 2 times a year. It will be an annual event run over one week'.

Hon. Pat Power interjected.

Hon. M. A. BIRRELL -- In responding to that interjection I remind the opposition that Mr Pullen made it quite clear in his speech that it would be a `three-day event', and that is about what it is. It is a five-day event, but Mr Pullen described it as a three-day event.

Hon. Pat Power -- It is a five-day event.

Hon. M. A. BIRRELL -- Yes, and that is no secret. The government has made it clear it is a five-day event, but the main day will, of course, be the Sunday.

A number of points need to be emphasised. There will be no need for the Labor Party's proposed public inquiry. The opposition, in this limp attack, has failed to make a valid case for any inquiry. Its own background as a Labor government makes it clear that its call for an inquiry is absolutely hypocritical.

The Melbourne Major Events Company Ltd and the government have both already made a series of public statements and commitments about the need to improve Albert Park's facilities, natural values and turning what was an area -- --

Hon. Pat Power -- How many holes of the golf course will be affected?

Hon. M. A. BIRRELL - As I made it clear at the beginning, the government will announce the plans within a matter of weeks, and I find it remarkably humorous for Mr Power to be homing in on the golf course. His interjection indicates how the opposition clutches at straws.

Labor's earliest argument was that a community playground was going to be obliterated. That of course was a lie. Its next argument was that MacRobertson Girls High School was going to be obliterated. That again was a lie. Now it is focusing on holes on a golf course. Boy, you are really desperate!

The government has also undertaken to release full details of its plans for Albert Park by the end of the month and to engage in a further round of thorough public consultation about the park's future.

The government congratulates the Melbourne Major Events Company on securing the grand prix for Melbourne. I join Mr Brumby in congratulating the people involved and the organisers, who include Mr Walker. Mr Brumby was right when he said that this event was good for Victoria. He was right when he welcomed Victoria winning the right for the race to be run at Albert Park.

The management of Albert Park will continue to be conducted by Melbourne Parks and Waterways, which is to be commended for the efforts it has put into the Albert Park master plan since February 1993, in full consultation with the community. Albert Park will be the venue for the grand prix because it is the best street circuit in Australia.

Adelaide has demonstrated its ability to create a successful inner-city street circuit that goes through the city and public open space. The Adelaide street circuit is regarded as the best grand prix circuit in the world. It has drawn significant public attention to Australia and particularly to Adelaide. It is a role model because it has shown that it can do the job well.

The government has no doubt that the grand prix can be done just as well in Melbourne as in Adelaide, and it looks forward to the full details, which will be released in about two weeks, receiving the full support of the international safety authorities and the agreement of the board. It is at that time that information will be disseminated to the people, particularly those living in the local areas.

It is in the overwhelming public interest that factual information be provided to them on a project which is of great benefit to Melbourne and Victoria.

I welcome Mr Pullen's moving this motion because it has given me and my colleague, Ms Asher, who will speak later in the debate, the opportunity to provide Victorians with extra information on what great achievements are being made in securing an important international event.

Back to Speeches & Articles

Back to Home Page