Bills

Botanic Gardens and State Herbarium (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 4.

Mr BATTY: We are in the dying stages of this committee. I am sorry we could not finish it before lunch, but I thank the minister and Mr Harvey for returning because it is an important point that I just want to clarify. We are at clause 4 and amendment No. 3, which is the paid parking on Sundays backflip. Clause 4, as we have covered previously, in the minister's original bill that was introduced would have allowed paid parking to be introduced on Sundays and public holidays. This amendment removes that ability. My question to the minister before the lunch break was for her to please tell me whether the original bill that she introduced would have allowed paid public parking on Sundays and on public holidays at the Botanic Gardens. When I asked you that before the break—

The Hon. S.E. Close interjecting:

Mr BATTY: I did not get an answer from you before the break; you sort of shrugged your shoulders. I ask because, in contributions made by others in the course of this debate, I have been called a liar, effectively, for suggesting that paid parking might be introduced by the board, and that is what is allowed under this bill. My question is: but for this amendment passing now, would paid parking be introduced on Sundays and public holidays by the board under the bill you originally introduced?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The bill I originally introduced would not have meant that paid parking would have been introduced. It removed a prohibition. It was swiftly followed by an amendment, that was ignored in the public commentary by the opposition, that restricted that only to special occasions. Now, in order to preserve the reputation of the gardens, we have resumed the original position, which is that Sundays and public holidays are protected.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Defence and Space Industries, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water) (16:05): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I would like to add a point of clarification because I suspect that this bill may yet have some misinformation or debate surrounding it. The allegations that Wittunga was going to be subject to paid parking were made by the opposition and were objected to by the member for Waite. There is nothing in the bill that facilitated, encouraged or indicated that there would be paid parking for Wittunga.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS (Black—Leader of the Opposition) (16:05): Deputy Speaker, can you indicate at what point would be appropriate for me to make a contribution on the third reading?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Right now, while you are on your feet.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Excellent. Well, it is not something that I have done very often, Deputy Speaker, but I am very keen to do so on this occasion because I played a pretty straight bat when I made my contribution to the second reading but then came the contribution from the member for Waite and I thought, 'Well, that is not going to go without a response,' so that is what I am going to do for the next period of time.

The behaviour of the member for Waite drew to the house's attention—or she sought to malign my colleagues as liars for attempting to hold the government to account for creating a piece of legislation that removed a prohibition on a range of things and created the opportunity for the board of the Botanic Gardens of South Australia to do things that we felt uncomfortable with.

We felt that giving a future board, because of course it was ruled out by the current board, the opportunity to create paid parking on Sundays and public holidays would put a barrier to access to the gardens at Adelaide, Mount Lofty and Wittunga. It would create a barrier to people accessing those iconic state sites, those places that people go to and enjoy. It would create a barrier based on potential socio-economic challenges that people from particular parts of this state endure more than others. It would create a level of elitism around our gardens and we sought to push back against that.

As any good opposition should, we sought to oppose these provisions, or lack of provisions at the time, and we sought to create a situation where these gardens are as accessible as possible for people from across South Australia. That is the job of the opposition: to stand up for people when they are being excluded from things. Through this legislation, we were creating a situation that was potentially exclusionary.

The board—and we have to take them at their word. They are mostly made up of good people; not all, I might say, because this gives me an opportunity to put something else on the record, which would not have entered the record had it not been for the member for Waite. So the director and the minister and the chair of the board can hear this bit of information. Members of my team were harassed by board members over the Christmas period about our campaign against paid parking. Those directors ought to really reflect on it. I hope the chair contacts the directors today and asks about their conduct over the Christmas period. These board directors felt that they needed to harass members of my team and staff members as well. That is inappropriate conduct by board directors and they should be counselled accordingly.

The board has also put into the public domain—and this was mentioned by the member for Waite—that I initiated all this; this was all my plan. I certainly asked the board of the botanic gardens to explore ways to free up commercial opportunities for those gardens. We had had many successful activities/events around Illuminate. I remember the Fire Gardens project just before COVID as part of the Fringe in 2020. These are really successful projects and programs that could be undertaken within the botanic gardens' estate or using products from the botanic gardens. The member for Waite mentioned gin as being one of them. We have no problem if juniper berries are collected from plants within the botanic gardens and used in a process to create botanic gardens-branded gin. We have no problem with that whatsoever.

What we did not want to see as an opposition were gate fees on our botanic gardens: that when people rocked up to Wittunga Botanic Garden to visit the nature playground that had been built there when I was the minister they might be charged for the privilege to do so; that when they went into the Adelaide Botanic Garden to visit one of the many iconic sites there, such as the beautiful Moreton Bay fig tree avenue, they might be charged for the privilege to do so; or, that when they went up to Mount Lofty Botanic Garden and visited the rhododendron garden they might be charged for the privilege to enter that garden.

All we sought to do was to draw to the public's attention that a piece of legislation that was before the people's parliament was seeking to create a situation where prohibitions on certain activities, as the minister confirmed, would be removed and a future board—not this board, because this board is mostly made up of good people, though not all—could exploit the looseness of the legislation.

I remember when I studied statutory interpretation in law school, one of the things that we were told was that good statutes are precise and create certainty, so this legislation was not good. It got through the minister's office, it got through the board and it got through the Labor Party caucus. Do you know who should have picked up on it in the Labor Party caucus? The member for Waite. I suspect, though, she did not mind excluding people from Wittunga Botanic Garden. The member for Waite wanted to create this little elite enclave for her own residents and did not want people from other communities, perhaps my community, coming in. When she said that I was the 'Minister for Glenthorne', was she sneering at me and saying, 'Your residents can stick to Glenthorne and I will have my residents enclaved up there at Wittunga Botanic Garden?'

Well, when I was minister I sought to create opportunities to enliven Wittunga Botanic Garden, welcome people into Wittunga Botanic Garden and create features and destinations within that garden so that people would know that that garden existed and that it was not just a place for the people of Blackwood to enjoy. I hope the people of Blackwood do enjoy that garden, and they can do so now knowing that no future board will put a padlock on the gate and charge people to get in or surround it by paid parking. But I want our botanic gardens—great iconic assets of our state—to be enjoyed by people from all walks of life, from every corner of this state and further afield.

The opposition supports the board of the botanic gardens in their quest to expand commercial opportunities where sensitive and where appropriate to do so, but we do not support exclusionary activities which would lock the botanic gardens away from a significant number of South Australians who financially might not be able to get there and, as a consequence, because of their socio-economic status, have relied on free access for parking on Sundays and public holidays—the day that they could be assured that they could take their family there, get into nature, get into green space and enjoy those beautiful gardens without a cost impost being placed upon them.

I am proud of our public campaign to draw to the attention of South Australians what the government sought to do, what the board appeared to have endorsed in some form or another, or creating a pathway for a future board to undertake things. This board, this government, this Labor Party caucus, this member for Waite made a range of mistakes here. It did not need to be like this. We did not need to be here wasting parliament's time today moving amendments, but we are because poor legislation was placed in front of the parliament, imprecise legislation which led to uncertainty. The board can write to me time and time again trying to correct me, but I stand by every single piece of material that has been placed in the public domain.

What the government sought to do here was create what could be characterised as a picnic tax, an exclusionary activity raising the barrier for access to our Botanic Gardens—publicly owned state assets. It is about time the government took a good look at themselves. Perhaps the board should do that as well as they go forward. I am more than happy to stand by this campaign, and I will tell people well into the future what they tried to do, and I will tell lots of people later today that the government has capitulated and accepted our campaign to create opportunities for access to our precious Botanic Gardens.

With those remarks, I will conclude my speech, and I will celebrate with my colleagues, and particularly the member for Bragg, our campaign to successfully abolish or block the Malinauskas Labor government's picnic tax.

Bill read a third time and passed.