Bills

North Adelaide Public Golf Course Bill

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION (Taylor—Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Housing Infrastructure, Minister for Planning) (16:00): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to facilitate the development of the new North Adelaide Golf Course, to provide for its ongoing use as a championship golf course and public facility and for other purposes. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION (Taylor—Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Housing Infrastructure, Minister for Planning) (16:00): LIV Golf Adelaide has delivered major economic benefits to South Australia, contributing $136 million to the economy in its first two years alone. LIV Golf has served as a vehicle to showcase South Australia to a global audience, with a broadcast reach of more than 500 million viewers across 80 countries.

The inaugural event in 2023 attracted over 77,000 attendees, with 43,000 international visitors to Australia from 37 countries. The 2024 tournament drew more than 94,000 attendees and generated over 79,000 visitor nights. During this event, approximately 40 per cent of ticketholders came from outside South Australia. Proving the event's popularity, 2025 delivered bigger and better impacts for the state with a record of 102,000 attendees.

Adelaide has hosted the Australian fixture at the Grange Golf Course since the first event in 2023. The initial agreement to host LIV Golf in Adelaide was for two years, with an option to extend for a further two years up to 2026. The state has secured an extension of the LIV Golf agreement for a period to 2031. The North Adelaide Golf Course will be the exclusive home of LIV Golf in Australia following a redevelopment by Greg Norman Golf Course Design. This firm has delivered more than 100 iconic golf courses across 34 countries and six continents.

The redevelopment of the North Adelaide Golf Course is necessary to provide the required facilities and amenities to accommodate year-round use for the public world's best tournaments and tourism for South Australia. Our National Heritage listed Parklands have had a golf links since the late 19^th century. As part of the evolution of the precinct, the North Adelaide Golf Course was developed in the early 20^th century and is the most centrally located golf course complex in any Australian capital city.

The necessary redevelopment of the North Adelaide Golf Course carries arguably the greatest potential of any public-owned golf facility in the country. The development will make it a world-class landmark venue to secure major tournaments, as well as drive national and international visitation and tourism to South Australia.

Considering its unique location within the Adelaide Parklands and sightlines to the Adelaide CBD and River Torrens, a new North Adelaide Golf Course is an amazing platform on which to showcase our state to the rest of the world. The economic potential of golf tourism is significant with the average domestic and international golf traveller spending significantly more per trip than non-golf travellers in Australia.

When a round of golf is played, there is a 43 per cent increase in spend on international trips. The average spend increases by 38 per cent on international travels and 72 per cent on intrastate trips. This is an economic multiplier which adds to our multibillion dollar tourism industry. The redevelopment will create one of the world's best public golf courses for year-round use for all South Australians. No matter who you are, or your background, this will remain a public golf course in public hands.

Golf has seen unprecedented growth across Australia in the past five years. Emerging is an increasingly younger and more diverse player base. Off course and alternative format golf also tends to attract a younger audience due to the reduced barriers to entry, such as time constraints. Off Course Golf often acts as a feeder to more formal participation and future growth within the sport.

The existing North Adelaide Golf Course is currently comprised of two 18-hole courses on approximately 75 hectares of Parklands, together with one par 3 golf course. The current golf course does not contain a dedicated driving range facility or the amenities and infrastructure for the development of the sport at the scale required. This is also about getting more people more active more often.

The City of Adelaide, through successive councils, had investigated options for the redevelopment of the North Adelaide Golf Course, but this has never progressed. The operations of the existing golf course are also limited by restrictions on the current permitted uses. It is essential that we respond to the economic opportunity which presents itself. A new North Adelaide Golf Course will create an accessible, high-quality public golf venue, encouraging expanded accessibility that caters to golfers of every age and skill level.

The redevelopment will enhance the Adelaide Parklands for both non-golfers and golfers alike. The upgrades will connect the spaces to improve public access and movement in and out of the city through the Parklands. This is incredibly important due to the increase in development at such key areas as Southwark and Bowden.

This legislation will ensure that the redevelopment of the North Adelaide Golf Course can go ahead as soon as possible to host the LIV Golf tournament in 2028. This will not occur at the expense of the Adelaide Parkland's public amenity, environmental importance or character. The state government and the City of Adelaide have already been working together on additional design and planning activities for the redevelopment works.

The legislation commits a positive duty to consult with council on the development and to resolve the future ownership and operating structure of the North Adelaide Golf Course. The redevelopment of the North Adelaide Golf Course will be constructed on what is defined in the legislation as the 'project site'. The 'project site' will include the area currently operating as the North Adelaide Golf Course as well as the intention to include Park 27A, also known as John E Brown Park.

The use of Park 27A will see the transformation of an underutilised area of the Parklands to provide more usable space and will reduce the impact on trees. The legislation has outlined a significant protection of trees within the golf course precinct. For every tree removed, no less than three new trees or seedlings must be planted within the project site or support zones. This policy for vegetation management will provide significant visual and environmental enhancements to the Parklands and golf course.

The legislation also ensures that future operations and maintenance of the golf course are not restricted and allows the staging of tournaments and other events as required. Under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016, the redevelopment of the North Adelaide Golf Course will be classified by the Planning and Design Code as 'deemed-to-satisfy'. This approach will ensure that planning controls will still remain and building rules consent will still be required, mandating quality, safety and integrity of any facilities constructed.

It is important to highlight the cultural significance of the Adelaide Parklands for the Kaurna people. The application of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 is not affected by this legislation. No ground disturbing works will proceed without consultation with traditional owners and the relevant approvals under the act.

The legislation establishes safeguards and limitations on the various components of the site and its surroundings. To avoid the environmental impact, it defines the project site and support zones which will be utilised to facilitate construction, but with clear limits about what can occur in these zones. The support zones are explicitly for developing facilities and amenities for the golf course and the future staging of events. Additionally, the legislation imposes an ongoing obligation for those areas to be made good once their use is complete.

This is a project that will facilitate the redevelopment of the North Adelaide Golf Course to be a world class facility that will support world class events. The golf course will remain as a public golf course for anyone and everyone to enjoy. The redevelopment will enhance and protect the environmental features of the Adelaide Parklands and build on South Australia's presence on a global stage.

This is a project that builds and drives economic, social and community benefit for generations of South Australians to come. I seek leave to have the explanation of clauses inserted in Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

Explanation of Clauses

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Short title

This clause is formal.

2—Commencement

The measure will commence on assent.

3—Interpretation

This clause inserts definitions for the purposes of the measure.

4—Effect of Act

The measure has effect despite any other Act or law of the State. It applies to land notwithstanding the provisions of the Real Property Act 1886 and the Land Acquisition Act 1969 does not apply to a vesting of land under the measure.

Part 2—Project site

5—Project site

The project site will be delineated in a plan or plans to be deposited in the GRO and identified by the Minister by notice in the Gazette but is to include the area currently operating as the North Adelaide Golf Course as well as Park 27A in the North Adelaide parklands and certain road reserve areas in the vicinity of such land.

6—Cancellation of leases and licences

All leases and licences existing in relation to the project site are to be cancelled in accordance with this clause.

7—Preparations for handover of project site

This clause requires the Minister to consult with Adelaide City Council in relation to the handover day. The Council must vacate and handover possession of the site to the Minister on or before the designated handover day and the Minister is able to issue directions to the Council to ensure an orderly handover.

8—Vesting and care, control etc of project site

On handover day the project site vests in the designated Minister in an estate in fee simple, free from all dedications, encumbrances, estates and interests other than those indicated in the plan or plans deposited under clause 5. The Minister to whom administration of the Act is committed is vested with care, control, management and use of the site.

Part 3—Carrying out the project

9—Consultation requirements and protocol

This clause requires certain consultation to be undertaken by the Minister with the Adelaide City Counsel and the development of a consultation protocol.

10—Application of Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988

The Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 applies in relation to any Aboriginal sites, objects or remains found in the course of the carrying out of the project on the project site or the support zones.

11—Application of Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 etc

This clause specifies requirements of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 the are to apply to a development proposed to be undertaken, for the purposes of the project, on the project site or the support zones and that such development will be taken to be classified by the Planning and Design Code as deemed-to-satisfy development for the purposes of that Act (and that the State Planning Commission will be taken to be the relevant authority for all purposes under that Act).

12—Application of other State laws to project

Except as is specified in clauses 10 and 11 or as may be determined by the Minister by notice in the Gazette, no assessment, decision, consent, approval, authorisation, certificate, licence, permit or permission and no consultation, inquiry, notification, process or other procedural step is required under a State law in connection with the project or the performance of functions under the measure.

13—Requirements relating to trees

The Minister must ensure that for every tree that is removed during the project not less than 3 new trees are planted within the project site and support zones.

14—Support zones

Support zones and support services and facilities are defined. Specified powers are conferred on the Minister for the purposes of the provision of support services and facilities in support zones in connection with the development on the project site. Provision is also made in relation to the exercise of those powers.

15—Roads

The Minister is authorised to open or close any roads in connection with the development on the project site (both temporarily and on an ongoing basis).

16—Minister may make provision in relation to vesting etc of project land, structures or property

This clause allows the Minister to make provision in relation to land, structures and property by instrument in writing, in order to implement leasing or other arrangements that may be agreed between the Minister and the Adelaide City Council or for any other purpose connected with the operation of the measure that the Minister thinks fit.

Part 4—Operation of golf course

17—Interpretation

This clause defines certain terms used in the Part. The Part applies to the North Adelaide Golf Course as in operation following the completion of the project.

18—General operation of golf course

Subject to this Part, following the project the North Adelaide Golf Course must continue to operate as a public golf course and must not have permanent fencing around its perimeter for the purpose of excluding members of the public from the course (subject to subclause (2)).

19—Use of golf course for approved events

The Minister can, by notice in the Gazette, approve an event, specify a declared period for the event and temporarily close any roads as needed.

20—Minister to have care, control etc of golf course for declared period

The care, control, management and use of the land comprising the North Adelaide Golf Course vests in the Minister (to the extent that it is not already so vested) for the declared period for an approved event and the rights or interests of any other person in or in relation to the land are suspended.

21—Approved event support zones

Support zones may be created for an approved event in accordance with this clause. No permanent buildings may be constructed pursuant to this clause and the Minister must, after the end of the declared period for the approved event, ensure that the public amenity of the approved event support zones is restored.

22—Temporary fencing of land by Minister

This clause deals with fencing for the purposes of an event.

23—Application of Major Events Act 2013

This clause allows the regulations to modify the application of the Major Events Act 2013 in respect of an approved event.

24—Application of certain laws to events and activities

Various laws do not apply during an approved event and an activity carried on by or with the permission of the Minister on the North Adelaide Golf Course will not constitute a nuisance.

25—Application of Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016

Future development on the North Adelaide Golf Course land will be taken to be classified by the Planning and Design Code as deemed-to-satisfy development for the purposes of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016. The Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 does not, however, apply to or in relation to any works within the North Adelaide Golf Course or an approved event support zone that are certified by the Minister as being necessary or desirable in connection with the conduct of an approved event.

Part 5—Miscellaneous

26—Other actions to give effect to Act etc

This clause provides for the making of alterations to the Planning and Design Code (or other instruments), that are, in the opinion of the Minister, necessary or desirable to give effect to this Act or for the ongoing operation of any facilities on the project site or support zones. The clause also provides for the grant of a statutory authorisation at the request of the Minister if that is, in the opinion of the Minister, necessary or desirable to give effect to this Act, for the ongoing operation of any facilities on the project site or in connection with an approved event (whether on the project site or an approved event support zone).

27—Delegation

This is a delegation power for the Minister.

28—Duties of Registrar-General

The Registrar-General may be required to take certain steps for or in connection with action taken under the Act.

29—Evidentiary provision

This clause provides for facilitation of proof of certain matters by evidentiary certificate of the Minister.

30—Certain fees etc not payable

Fees and charges are not payable to the Adelaide City Council in respect of the exercise of functions under the measure.

31—Regulations

Regulations contemplated by, or that are necessary or desirable for the purposes of, the measure may be made by the Governor.

Mr ELLIS (Narungga) (16:10): I rise to make a couple of comments on this bill, and initially would like to bemoan the process we have gone through to get to this point. We heard the Deputy Leader of the Opposition rise and criticise the process and bemoan the lack of consultation they were afforded as a part of the development of this bill process but I have to report, as a crossbencher and on behalf of the crossbench, that we were afforded even less.

We saw the Deputy Leader of the Opposition brandishing a copy the bill with some notes on the front, and reported a briefing that was offered at 10 minutes to one, or 10 past one—I cannot quite remember.

An honourable member: It was 10 to.

Mr ELLIS: Well, that was in excess of what we were offered. We have now had this bill presented to us, and I think I can report on behalf of the crossbench that we have all seen it for the first time. We have had this bill presented to us for the first time, 14 pages of it, and now presumably, on account of standing orders being suspended, we will be expected to vote on it one way or the other—after having received it just now. It is a tremendously frustrating process.

This is something we would have liked to be able to take back to our communities and report to them the basis on which we cast our vote, one way or the other. Plainly and simply we will be unable to do so because of the fact that we have not been afforded an explanation both of the need for its imminent passing and of the contents of the bill we have been presented with. It is extraordinarily frustrating: we have not had the briefing, we have not had a discussion with colleagues, we have not had any sort of investigation of the merits of this bill, yet we will be expected to vote on it one way or the other in the not too distant future.

We could tolerate that if it were an isolated incident but, as an estimation, I think this has happened at least half a dozen times over the course of this parliament, where we have had a bill sprung on us with little to no notice and we are expected to make our minds up on it with very little opportunity to consider the pros and cons. I get it that when you have a considerable majority in the parliament it must be extraordinarily tempting to treat this place as an inconvenience and try to bypass it as best you can.

It is a mere formality, the outcome of a vote in this place, and it probably does not matter a great deal which way one person votes or another. It will be 27 or 28 (I cannot quite remember) votes all cast in one direction, which in essence will mean that the bill passes, or does not pass, in accordance with those votes. I understand the frustration and the wont, I suppose, to treat the crossbench and, to a lesser extent, the opposition with disdain and just ram it through and not necessarily worry about whether we have been afforded the opportunity to consider it properly, but it is an important part of the process.

We will be held to account by members of our electorates on the votes that we cast under the expectation that we have had an opportunity to consider how it will impact them and serve their best interests. That is just plainly and simply impossible for us to do right now on this bill, and it is an incredibly frustrating thing.

I think I can speak on behalf of the crossbench—if I cannot, they will stand up and correct me—that we would beg and plead with the government that where this is necessary, for whatever reason they deem fit, to please keep us in the loop. We could have been presented with the opportunity at least to have a look at it this morning, to have a discussion about why it needs to pass this afternoon, and to have a quick question and answer on the content of the bill so that we could attempt to understand what is being enabled here.

We have asked it before and we will ask it again: please keep us in the loop. It is a courtesy, if nothing else, and it is much appreciated by us here when it does happen. To be fair, it happens more often than not. More often than not, we are afforded briefings and offered briefings on bills, from the most trivial to the most impactful. But I would estimate that on half a dozen times throughout the course of this parliament we have suffered this lack of process, where it is sprung on us with little to no notice and we are expected to cast our vote. I would plead with the government to attempt to do better on that front.

Having said all that, based on my reading of the line on the front page of this bill, which is all I have had the chance to read at this stage, I do not necessarily intend to stand in the way of it. I can well see the benefits that LIV Golf coming to Adelaide will have for our state. If it is an imitation or a copy of the benefits that the bringing of footy to the city has had, it will be a welcome thing. The liveliness that has brought to the city and the economic activity that has brought to the surrounding businesses has been a tremendous benefit to our city and has really generated interest and envy around the country for what bringing sporting events to a centralised location can do for a capital city. If this initiative has the same impact as the footy, it will be a wonderful thing.

I can also see the benefit of having a publicly owned world-standard golf course. I do imagine that it will be one of the best ones in the world. There are some pretty impressive challengers for that title. Pebble Beach is a publicly available golf course that has hosted numerous US Opens. Torrey Pines is owned by the City of San Diego, I think, and it hosted two PGA tournaments this year, including Tiger Woods's event. So there are some really good ones. Bethpage Black is a publicly owned golf precinct in the state of New York.

Mr Cowdrey: You forgot the Patawalonga.

Mr ELLIS: The Patawalonga could well be on that list, if it is long enough. There are others. Of course, the home of golf, St Andrews in Scotland, is publicly available. But they all have a similar problem in that when there is a world-standard course that is publicly available, the waiting list for people to attempt to play that course is astronomical. In Scotland, you literally have to enter a ballot to try to get on that course. So while it is publicly available and theoretically available to everyone and anyone, it is a difficult thing to get onto those courses.

Out here behind us now, we have two 18-hole courses, which to my understanding are full for most of the time, and we will be condensing that down, I presume, to 18 holes and half as much golf course. It will become all the more competitive for players to try to get on that course, and there will need to be a system where we can ensure that people who want to play on that course have the ability to do so and there is not an astronomically expensive green fee in line with the demand that the course will drive as a result of being such a high standard.

So there are teething problems that will need to be figured out to ensure that it is actually accessible for everyone, it is affordable for everyone and it is not the same people booking tee times every week to ensure that they can hoard those time slots. It might be a ballot system, it might be something else, but there will be teething problems to ensure that it is truly accessible to everyone and anyone.

The other point, the final point that I would like to make—and this is something I have put in writing to the government—is that I would love to see the state of South Australia seize this opportunity to provide some benefit to regional South Australia as well. I think the wonderful benefit of Gather Round has been in Mount Barker, where we have a new oval, and it has been in the Barossa, where we have a new facility. It has been spreading that benefit across South Australia so that we are all brought along for the ride, so to speak.

This golf course in the middle of the city will be a wonderful asset to South Australia, but I would like to see some of that benefit spread. I have put to the government previously that it would be wonderful to see nine more holes built at Port Hughes to bring that up to an 18-hole golf course. In 2010 or so, Greg Norman, the architect of LIV Golf, the person who brought it to Adelaide initially, designed a course in Port Hughes. The developer started building it in accordance with his design before, unfortunately, going bust in around 2012 and leaving it half finished.

So now we have what I will call—and it might be disputed—a world-standard nine-hole golf course at Port Hughes that is half finished and partly surrounded by vacant land that could host the next nine holes, and there is no meaningful way that we can investigate the completion of that course. There needs to be some assistance. The community club that has taken over the running of that course now does not have the means to ensure its completion, and there is no opportunity, as far as we can see, for the developer that has taken over the residential part of it to invest in the completion of the golf course.

So we need some assistance. I think it would be a tremendous synergy to have Greg Norman, who kickstarted The Dunes Port Hughes and designed the course, who brought LIV Golf to Adelaide, to have both of his projects finished at once—the North Adelaide course and the Port Hughes course. I think it would be a wonderful way to spread the benefit around the state as opposed to locking it in North Adelaide and the city. I think it would be a really impactful tourism drawcard for our region to bring another nine holes, which would make it two full courses with greens. For the first time we could be able to attract people to our region to stay the night, play 18 holes at Wallaroo on Saturday and 18 holes at The Dunes Port Hughes on Sunday before driving home.

I have put it in writing for the government before and received what I would describe as a lukewarm response to ponying up the money. But I would urge them if they are not willing to fund the next nine holes then please assist me and please assist the club in developing a method that we can try to get that completed because it would be a tremendous synergy for Greg Norman, it would be a really wonderful thing for our region and I think it would spread the benefit from the LIV Golf windfall around the state and ensure that we have widespread acceptance of it for the future to come.

Again, just to summarise, we would tremendously appreciate if the government would find the time to consult the crossbench before these things are done. I really congratulate the government on consolidating their golf course in the city and making it a world-standard publicly available golf course, but please can we bring Port Hughes along for the ride and finish that course to its standard to provide for our region.

Mr COWDREY (Colton) (16:21): I rise this afternoon to make a contribution to this bill and indicate that I am also the lead speaker for the opposition in regard to the bill that has been put before us. I suspect that my contribution may be a lengthy one, one that sets through the events that have taken place up until now, that works through some of the broader issues that have been identified in the very short period of time that we have had an opportunity to peruse the bill.

But I think the best place to start in regard to my contribution is about process, and I come making this contribution in the house today in a position that is less informed than what would be ideal, and I am in this position purposefully, not because I wanted to come to this debate less informed than I otherwise should be, but because the government has made sure that those members of the opposition, and more so members of the crossbench, are walking into this place being asked to make decisions, being asked to make contributions, knowing full well that they have brought a bill into this place for the purpose of ramming it through this house in an undemocratic way, in a way that is a clear abuse of process. And they do this for what purpose?

This is the question, because if we set out where the vast majority of parties that sit in this place are positioned in regard to LIV Golf, it is very clear: the government clearly are supportive of LIV Golf, the opposition clearly are supportive of LIV Golf, we have members of the crossbench who have indicated their commitment and their support of LIV Golf. So the question that naturally comes from presupposing that the vast majority of members in this place in fact support LIV Golf is: why in the world would the government do what they are doing today? If their working understanding is that the vast majority of this chamber supports LIV Golf, why would they not come to the opposition, why would they not come to members of the crossbench, and simply say that there is an issue?

Publicly, to this point, if we turn back the clock to the announcement of the Premier earlier in the year with regard to LIV Golf moving to the North Adelaide site, we had a commitment from the Lord Mayor and the Adelaide City Council that they were supportive of LIV Golf. To the best of my knowledge that position has not changed. So why in the world—if there was an issue with timing, knowing that there is goodwill in this chamber in regard to support for LIV Golf—would the government chart the course that they have of introducing this bill today, with no pre-warning for the crossbench in this chamber at least, having put the bill in front of the opposition at 12 past 12 this afternoon? It just does not make any sense.

If there were a legitimate need for this bill to be debated this afternoon, then the government would have come to the opposition prior to today. They would have come to members of the crossbench prior to jamming it into the house at two seconds to noon—and this is a pattern. It is a pattern that those on the government benches have taken in regard to legislation in this place. I am running out of fingers, unfortunately, in terms of the number of bills that have been forced in with zero or a very small amount of consultation, coming into this chamber with standing orders suspended to pass them through.

I do not begrudge that there are at times sets of circumstances that put themselves in a position where immediacy is at the forefront. There was the bill earlier in the session of parliament around AUKUS, and the site that was involved there, and obviously there was the Whyalla rescue bill. All these pieces of legislation were introduced in this way where there was a clear articulation of need, a clear articulation of why the government was undertaking what it was undertaking. There can be a degree of understanding on both sides of the chamber when that is the case, but it does start to venture into the territory of The Boy Who Cried Wolf when we start seeing additional instances of these bills being introduced with no clear understanding or articulation of why the need is now.

It is hard to take a view when you have been given less than a couple of hours to go through a document of several pages that clearly has significant consequences for the state, for the Adelaide City Council for that matter and, more broadly, residents of North Adelaide one would assume, and residents of Adelaide City Council certainly in regard to potential impacts to their ratings base based on revenue shortfalls that may or may not occur off the back of the piece of legislation that has been put before us today. It is hard for us to form a view without actually undertaking consultation with the affected stakeholders.

I certainly have not had a chance to speak with the Adelaide City Council Lord Mayor or any of the associated elected members of that body, I have not had an opportunity to speak to anybody at the North Adelaide Golf Club or to any of the other proprietors or leaseholders of other organisations or council facilities that sit around the North Adelaide Golf Club as it is at the moment, and the opposition certainly has not had an opportunity to speak to any of the North Adelaide or Adelaide residents who may or may not be affected by what is being debated today. The question remains not just on our side. It is very clear that we have not had that opportunity; we have not been provided that opportunity. The question is: has the government?

It was only give or take a couple of weeks ago that we saw pictures on social media of the Premier arm in arm with the Adelaide City Council Lord Mayor at the SDA dinner looking like there were no issues with the relationship whatsoever. I might just read for the benefit of the house the statement that has been made by the Lord Mayor on her social media today in regard to the issue. I quote directly from that post:

Council was deeply disappointed to learn of today's announcement through the media.

The Lord Mayor added, 'It is also worth noting that, as at the time of writing, it appears members of the Legislative Council have not seen the legislation that they are being asked to vote on today.' I pause to note that members of this particular house who are being asked to vote on this piece of legislation today, as evidenced by the contribution made earlier by the member for Narungga, have also not had that opportunity to see the piece of legislation prior to being asked to vote on it—the opposition, of course, only with a couple of hours' notice. I continue to quote:

From day one [of the announcement about LIV Golf moving] to the city, the Lord Mayor [asked that council have a seat at the table so it could] work hand in hand with the State Government to achieve a mutually beneficial arrangement.

After all, Council has managed and invested in the North Adelaide Golf Course for more than 100 years.

…the Council has been negotiating in good faith with State Government [since the announcement] and we understood we had an agreement to move forward together [and to come to]…a decision that not only suited the government but suited the community.

It is unacceptable for the Premier to leave Council out in the cold in the middle of [a negotiation]. I do not agree that our…involvement would drag the process out to make the event unviable.

What is unviable is for the government to intervene [in the way it has with] legislation like a sledgehammer when we are in the middle of [a negotiation].

Just last week, the Lord Mayor attended a briefing where the Premier updated North Adelaide Golf Course staff…

The Premier made no mention of dissatisfaction with negotiations to date or of the process being dragged out by Council.

It is also incredibly disappointing this announcement was made while the Lord Mayor is overseas trying to help secure COP31—the most important conference in our state's history.

A great deal of work and countless staff hours have gone into trying to assist the State Government with its plans.

Council remains committed to the North Adelaide Golf Course remaining publicly owned and operated.

Council will…fight to ensure there is a minimal loss of trees and that any fencing would be temporary and only relate to the staging of the tournament…

Like everyone, we [await the details of the legislation]…but it is impossible to describe this as anything other than a Park Lands takeover.

Those are the comments from the Lord Mayor of Adelaide in regard to what we have before us today: an insinuation by the Lord Mayor of Adelaide that this is bullyboy tactics by the state government trying to get their way in a commercial negotiation. That is scandalous. What we are being asked to do today is scandalous, if that is the case. If that insinuation of bullyboy tactics in the middle of a commercial negotiation is what is occurring before us today, then we have a scandal on our hands in this parliament.

There are further questions in relation to consultation that go beyond what we have seen to this point. Has the Law Society of South Australia been consulted on the legislation that has been brought before us today? Have any of the planning stakeholders been consulted in regard to what is being brought before us today—essentially, legislation that is asking for all existing planning processes, all existing state laws, to be put to the side. Has the member for Adelaide been consulted on this bill? Was she asked her opinion on this bill prior to it reaching this chamber?

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: Does she support it?

Mr COWDREY: And does she support it? Will she support it? Will she support the bill that has been brought into this place?

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, the member for Colton has the floor.

Mr COWDREY: I suspect that the idea to bring this legislation did not dawn on the minister last night, that he had ample opportunity to consult with others to bring this to other parties prior to introducing it to this place. But this has been a premeditated and executed strategy to avoid scrutiny on this bill and the question is: what are they scared of? Do they not want this in the public debate? Do they not want to have a conversation about what this means for the Parklands moving forward?

Troublingly, if you go through this bill, I do not know about others in this place but in my rudimentary and early understanding of the proposal of redevelopment, there had not been any mention of additional Parkland sites being included in that proposal. This is the first that I had heard that John E Brown Park or Park 27A, as it is known, was to be included in this proposal. It is still not clear exactly what areas may or may not be included in the proposal because effectively this bill is asking for unfettered powers for the minister to determine at his discretion, at his will, at a timing of his pleasing, whether he wishes to expand, contract or bring in, bring out new pieces of Parklands to sit within the project site.

It has been alluded to as a frustrating process. I certainly back up those comments that were made by the member for Narungga for a range of different reasons because I think there has been some additional context that has perhaps been provided through the statement that I read out earlier by the Lord Mayor of Adelaide. Working through this document, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who is much more learned in the legal profession than I, alluded to this bill effectively looking like a lease agreement or a contract.

Perhaps that is the genesis of this, the commercial negotiation, the commercial terms that the government was wanting to reach with the Adelaide City Council; perhaps that is why we are here, that effectively they were not able to reach terms. Usually when a lease agreement or a contract is drawn up it is done so on terms that are mutually beneficial or at the very least agreed to by two parties.

Effectively, what we are being asked to vote for in this place today is a set of terms, a lease agreement, a contract, that is being forced on a party without their knowledge, as it turns out. It is also not clear, given the significant scope that is being provided within the clauses of this bill, exactly what is being agreed to because it can be changed at the discretion and will of the minister.

Far be it for the opposition to be able to provide a considered position in regard to the bill, given the process that we have had to get to this point. Again, we will be asking the government to explain clearly why the need for haste here, given the number of years that are still to transpire, given the comments of the Lord Mayor of the Adelaide City Council, and given the fact that not a single member of the government to this point has raised any concerns publicly, as far as I am aware, that there was any crunch point being reached in terms of the negotiations with the Adelaide City Council.

If I start to work through clause by clause, what is troubling as I go through is the concentration of power that is being potentially provided to the minister in this instance, and the erosion of accountability that comes with both the process that has been undertaken to this point and what is being included in the bill today.

Let's be very clear again that the opposition supports LIV Golf. As has been indicated by members on the crossbench to this point, they support LIV Golf. Again, without fully understanding what we are being asked to vote on, what we are being asked to consider here, potentially at first blush we are being asked to support legislation that grants sweeping executive powers with minimal scrutiny. Watching established legislation being put to the side without any consultation having been undertaken with the vast majority of stakeholders that are being directly impacted is actually quite difficult. It is quite difficult to be put in this position and, again, all for an end that leads to reduced scrutiny and a government that is running from scrutiny as fast as they possibly can.

It is not necessarily that there are members in this house who oppose what is being proposed by way of redevelopment, by way of event, but the way that this has been gone about is scandalous. It goes to the arrogance of this government to waltz in here and lay this down without having spoken to the vast majority of parties involved, both within the deliberative function and at the passage of the bill through this place, and the numerous stakeholders who will be directly and indirectly affected in the South Australian community.

Clauses 5 and 6 in particular, as we walk through the bill, were explained to us very briefly this afternoon. The bill is segmented into five or so sections. The first indicates the project site and, in particular, clauses 5 and 6 define as best as possible the existing area of the golf course, again with the addition of a particular section of Parklands—John E Brown Park—that again, to the best of my knowledge, has garnered no mention in the government's public debate to this point that they would be making a Parklands grab on an additional area not discussed and not provided publicly prior to this bill being introduced into this place today. The definition of that site and the ability for the minister, by looks, to effectively change the site is concerning.

Regarding the cancellation of leases and licences, we do not know what currently exists. The minister, when asked the question in the briefing today, was not able to furnish us with any understanding of how many leases exist on the existing site and who they are. That was not able to be provided, despite the fact that there is a section in the act that specifically deals with that issue. I would have thought the minister perhaps would have at least had a rudimentary idea of how many current leases are involved, how many potential small businesses are going to be affected, and the impact on those lease and licensee holders.

The other question in regard to all of this, as we start to slowly move through some of the initial clauses, is timing. When is the government proposing to take over this site? Again, it is a question that has not been answered by the minister to this point.

In relation to 'Preparation for handover of the site', again a rudimentary first glance of this provision effectively provides the minister the opportunity to at least consult, in this instance, on what he would like to see undertaken on the site prior to handover, but the terms must be specified by the minister. So it is not really clear if the Adelaide City Council will be undertaking a range of remediation activities, all paid for by ratepayers of the Adelaide City Council, if those are the terms that the minister wishes to impose on those ratepayers. It is not clear whether the state government will be making any contribution to those particular things that he sees as being necessary for preparation of the site prior to handover.

With 'Care and control of the project', again, there are a number of provisions here as we slowly work through. Words in the minister's earlier remarks that stood out to me were 'improved connection for those moving through the Adelaide Parklands site'. Within the powers in this bill, under clause 8, there is certainly the opportunity for roads to be closed, changed, rerouted, moved. Again, something that I think at the very least the government could come clean on is whether it intends to keep War Memorial Drive in its current form and whether there are any plans for War Memorial Drive to look differently from what it does today.

The other issue that stood out to me in the briefing that we received earlier from the minister and his staff was, in particular, a question around the land to the city side of War Memorial Drive. There was a question about the par 3 site, and I believe from my memory again, and I am doing my best to recall, it was the adviser from DPC that provided an answer. But it was a question in relation to the use of what is the existing pitch and par 3 site, or in fact it may have been a reference to the John E Brown Park, which the minister referenced as being an underutilised area of Parklands.

The Hon. N.D. Champion: Have you ever walked through it?

Mr COWDREY: I have actually.

The Hon. N.D. Champion: It is pretty underutilised.

Mr COWDREY: 'Underutilised' was, I thought, an interesting term, in reference to the vast majority of the Parklands. I actually understood that was what we were trying to achieve: underutilisation of the Parklands. But the answer that was provided was that that space would be used for the driving range, potentially. Then we went on to ask other questions, obviously given the nature of the redevelopment, going from, essentially, two 18-hole courses, a 71 par and a 69 par, down to one championship course.

In a later answer the minister said that there was significant land that was not going to be fully utilised through the remainder of the golf course lands. So it does beg the question: if there is existing land on the North Adelaide side of the already golf course developed side of the land, then why would the driving range not be on that side? Again, these are questions that it is hard to even have a considered opinion on without first at least having sat down and spoken to some people or at least being afforded a couple more hours to provide a more sensible series of debates.

Requirements relating to trees are included at clause 13 of the bill before us, which is under part 3—Carrying out the project. Again, it says that, except for those laws set out at clauses 10 and 11, those being the application of the Aboriginal Heritage Act and the application of the PDI Act, all other state government laws will not be applicable to this site unless they are determined by the minister. It is not clear whether the EPA act or some of the other pieces of legislation that oversee developments in South Australia—the litter control act, the Local Government Act and a range of others—will have an impact on this particular proposal.

If we move to trees and clause 13 of the bill, we still have not had an answer in regard to how many trees are going to be removed. However, it is interesting to note that the minister has allowed himself sufficient wiggle room. If we talk about the requirements under existing state legislation in regard to native vegetation, replacement of it and those schemes that exist, this has simply been whittled down to one sentence. Clause 13 provides:

The Minister must ensure that for every tree that is removed in the course—

I hope that 'in the course' also relates to the rest of the land, not specifically the golf course itself. I assume that also applies to any other development on the land that has been designated as the project site. Although, again, it does not appear to be overly clear—

…not less than 3 new trees (or seedlings for not less than 3 new trees) are planted within the project site and support zones.

We will get to that in a moment. There is sufficient scope for the minister to potentially take down numbers of mature trees and replace them with seedlings. Again, if we had some further context in regard to at least a ballpark figure of what the minister is proposing, it would give us more opportunity to provide a sensible response in regard to the proposal. But, alas, no such luck in regard to that issue. If we move on to clause 14—Support zones, it provides:

(1) The support zones are the areas of land indicated, from time to time, as support zones in a plan or plans to be deposited…identified by the Minister by notice in the Gazette…

In those support zones can be a range of functions to support the redevelopment. Again, the ask was made this morning as to what those particular pieces of land may relate to. The response still baffles me slightly, in that the answer given was again that this new piece of Parklands that had not been discussed before, the name of which I will find in a second, would be a potential spot for one of the support zones to go, noting that that is already in the project site. So why would you need an additional clause in terms of capturing additional Parklands, let's assume, for support and storage, for utilisation of utilities, etc., in regard to the developments?

In terms of the operation of the golf course—and again, this is where things start to get probably more interesting from the perspective of Adelaide City Council rate payers and the Adelaide City Council itself—the council is being asked, effectively, to enter some sort of negotiations post the project being undertaken to determine a structure for what the operation of the golf course would look like moving forward. That is, essentially, what was described to us, but not that that needed to happen. The government could retain control and operation of the golf course for perpetuity, should it wish.

The key operative word in the legislation is 'if': 'if' the government wants, 'if' the minister wants. So we would like to understand what the minister's intentions actually are, and if the minister's intention is not to keep this land, this golf course, in government hands moving forward, then why include it in this legislation? Why not simply set out that the land and the operation of the golf course would be returned to the Adelaide City Council at the conclusion of said project being undertaken? If there was no intent for the government to keep that land in perpetuity, why even include it in this bill?

There are more questions than answers that come from what is being proposed today. It certainly is not a positive reflection on the processes of this house to be asked to come here today, with little to no notice, to debate a bill of such significance that potentially jeopardises a revenue source for the Adelaide City Council—and, again, potentially effects ratepayers bills through that council—without any pre knowledge, without any understanding, without any clear justification from the minister in terms of the urgency.

It is a poor, poor reflection on a government when it simply resorts to numbers, to deal making, to pass legislation, to avoid scrutiny, and to inflict their will on the people while circumventing true democratic process.

Mr BATTY (Bragg) (16:57): Well, here we go again—another Parklands pillage from the Malinauskas Labor government, another arrogant minister from the Malinauskas Labor government coming into this place trying to introduce extraordinary legislation to seize even more of Adelaide's Parklands, another broken promise from the Malinauskas Labor government that promised us, only a few years ago, that it would protect Adelaide's unique Parklands.

They have absolutely trashed that promise ever since, just like they are seeking to trash parliamentary procedure today by expecting us to pass this legislation after only seeing it for a couple of hours, just like they are trying to trash the Adelaide Parklands at every available opportunity.

We have seen this film before—and you did not like the ending, you did not like the ending last time. It was two years ago that very similar legislation got introduced here when Malinauskas Labor last tried this trick, trying to seize a bit of the Adelaide Parklands and dispel all the rules, allowing them to do whatever they wanted with a patch of Parklands.

That was at Park 21 West, one of the most biodiverse areas of the entire Adelaide Parklands. They tried to do that with no consultation, no consultation with groups that had cared for the Parklands like Bush For Life, no consultation with First Nations people, no consultation with the Adelaide Parklands Authority, no consultation with Adelaide City Council.

Is it starting to sound familiar? Here we are again, the exact same situation. It was only stopped last time because of incredible public backlash to their latest Parklands land grab after promising they would protect Adelaide's unique Parklands. Here we are, a couple of years down the track, trying to do the exact same thing in the exact same way, without any consultation. We are seemingly going out of our way—

The Hon. N.D. Champion: It's a golf course becoming a golf course.

Mr BATTY: The minister interjects that this is a golf course becoming a golf course. I think he is right that most fair-minded people would not mind if this was simply a bit of green open public Parklands currently operating as a golf course remaining as a bit of green open public Parklands operating as an even better golf course, but that is not what this piece of legislation seeks to do. It is totally lost on me why, if we want to achieve that aim, we need to pass this bill today in record time without any consultation.

It is totally lost on me today why we need to give the minister unfettered power not only to that patch of Parklands, the golf course, but to any other bit of Parklands he wants. It is not just a golf course becoming a golf course. If the minister believes that, he has not even read his own bill that he is introducing into this place. Once again, it is Malinauskas Labor trying to engage in a Parklands land grab, treating the Parklands like their own personal land bank, giving themselves extraordinary power instead of going through proper processes to get LIV Golf into the city, something we all want, something we all support.

We support LIV Golf. We support LIV Golf in the city. We do not need this bill to make it happen, because what you are trying to do is not just get LIV Golf into the city but do it in your typical fashion and try to also kill a bit of Parklands along the way. We have seen the film before. Why has there been no consultation? Why come in here with a bit of secret legislation to seize more Parklands and not tell anyone about it?

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Secret? You're holding it.

Mr BATTY: I am holding it as of two hours ago. Has the Lord Mayor seen it? This is totally secret to the Adelaide City Council. There is no secret about that because the Lord Mayor, from 16,000 kilometres away, has taken to Twitter to tell us that she has not seen it. It is a ridiculous process that we are in here. The only reason for the urgency, as far as we can tell, is to try to get this done while the Lord Mayor is away. Why are you afraid of the Lord Mayor, applying a bit of scrutiny and having this go through the proper process, engaging with Adelaide City Council like the Lord Mayor tells us via her social media missives she has been doing in good faith over this time?

No, instead we have to come in here: the Malinauskas Labor government, dictator style, grabbing all the power, doing whatever they want, not consulting with anyone and taking Parklands along the way. That is all this bill seeks to do. It is an extraordinary land grab from a government that constantly treat the Adelaide Parklands as their own personal land bank. Last time, it was Park 21 West in the South Parklands. This time, we learn from clause 5 in this bill that it is a parcel of Parklands currently operating as the North Adelaide Golf Course. That, of course, is Park 1 of the Adelaide Parklands, currently operating as the North Adelaide Golf Course and also known as Possum Park.

But it is not just that. Again, it is a bit disingenuous for the minister to be constantly interjecting that it is just a golf course turning into a golf course, because then we move on to the next section: you are also taking the area known as John E Brown Park or Park 27A. It has not been explained to us why, or why we need to pass this extraordinary legislation effectively to vest this in the minister and suspend the law of the land at that particular piece of Parklands. There are certain road reserves surrounding it as well, and here is the kicker: the minister can also determine any other section of the Parklands that is necessary or desirable to include in the project site.

So if the minister over here desires any more Parklands, what this legislation says is that he can go and take it, and we know they have a habit of taking Parklands. It is in their DNA. After promising that they would protect Adelaide's unique Parklands, what we have here is a minister walking into parliament trying to get us to legislate that he can have any bit of Parklands he desires. It is ridiculous for him to keep saying that this is just a golf course turning into a golf course. We are more than happy with a golf course turning into a golf course. We are more than happy to see LIV Golf in the city. What we are not happy about is the minister coming in here with legislation we have not seen, trying to take every single bit of Parklands that he so desires. It is outrageous.

Along the way there will be no rules applied, no rules applied to the minister as well, because they just get in the way, don't they? They get in way of your Parklands land grabs because, if we look at clause 12, he makes it very clear that no assessment, decision, consent, approval, authorisation, certificate, licence, permit or permission is required under the law of the state for the minister's newly seized bit of Parklands, wherever he may desire. Furthermore, no consultation, inquiry, notification or other process or procedural step is required under any bit of Parklands now that the minister so desires.

What else are we excluding? He says there will be no fence. If we go to clause 18, nothing in here prevents the erection of fencing or other barriers in relation to particular areas forming part of the North Adelaide Golf Course, if the minister desires it. What else are we excluding? Why not exclude the Environment Protection Act as well for any bit of Parklands where the minister so desires? Why not exclude any regulations or by-laws under the Local Government Act for any bit of Parklands that the minister so desires? Why not exclude the local nuisance act while we are at it, the Local Nuisance and Litter Control Act, for any bit of Parklands that the minister so desires?

Do not come in here and tell us this is a golf course in the Parklands turning into a golf course in the Parklands. What it is is seizing any bit of the Parklands that the minister so desires. We can have LIV Golf in the city without this legislation, and that is the really sad bit about what we are doing today. It does not have to be this way.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr BATTY: It does not have to be this way. I thought you might have learnt your lesson. You might have learnt your lesson, but here you are. Because we can have the golf, we can have the golf in the city; that is something I support, that is something you support, it is something we all support. But it is totally unclear to me why we need this bill to achieve that end and it is certainly unclear to me why we need to give you any bit of power you want over any bit of Parklands. It is totally unclear why the government would come in here with a sledgehammer, putting a sledgehammer right through the negotiations that Adelaide City Council was entering into in good faith with no consultation with any relevant party. What a nuisance. But it does not matter because the nuisance act does not apply to the Minister for Planning anymore in any bit of Parklands that he so desires.

So, I think this is a very sorry state of affairs we are in. We have an arrogant government that does what it wants, that treats this parliament like some sort of inconvenient rubber stamp, and it is a really big contrast that we have seen in parliament today when it comes to priorities. It is also a really big contrast you can see in this parliament today when it comes to Parklands policies. On the one hand you have had the Leader of the Opposition outlining in his budget reply speech today, Liberal policy about protecting the Parklands, talking about our plans to World Heritage List the Adelaide Parklands, not if—we will probably trying to exclude that as well, won't we, if the Minister for Planning can get his hands on it?

We have had the Leader of Opposition talking about our plans to World Heritage List the Adelaide Parklands. We have had the Leader of the Opposition in his budget reply speech today talking about our plans to return more green space to the Adelaide Parklands, and what do we have in contrast? We have a Labor government who walks in here, suspends standing orders to introduce extraordinary legislation that vests in the minister any bit of Parklands he so desires and says that once he has it, once he has his hands on it, none of the normal rules apply. The law of the land does not apply. They are above the law for any bit of Parklands that the minister wants to seek.

I think this is a very, very sorry state of affairs. It did not have to be this way. Most, if not all, people in this place support LIV Golf, support LIV Golf being in the city. What we do not support is giving you the entire Adelaide Parklands. What we do not support is you trashing parliamentary procedure just like you have trashed your own Parklands promises.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI (Unley) (17:09): I am not going to repeat what other members have said, but I will use this opportunity to do what I do at every opportunity, and that is to speak up for women who are oppressed and women who are victims of domestic violence, whether that be coercive control or discrimination. We need to look at who the government is in business with on this project—Saudi Arabia.

We all know that women face extreme and often outrageous forms of discrimination in Saudi Arabia, and there are some striking examples of the male guardianship system where women are treated as legal minors. They need permission from a male guardian—whether that be a father, a brother, a husband or even a son—for travel abroad, marriage, leaving prison or accessing some healthcare services. It is government policy and law in Saudi Arabia, and until 2018 women were banned from driving—the only country in the world where that was the case.

We know that there is punishment for activism. Women's rights activists pushed for reform, such as the right to drive, and were arrested, imprisoned and allegedly tortured. Even women who successfully campaigned for the right to drive are punished today. They are imprisoned and punished today for the activism that actually delivered change in Saudi Arabia.

There are restrictions on dress and public behaviour. Women are required to wear the abaya in public, which is a full-length cloak, and headscarf. The muttawa—religious police—patrol streets and detain women for not dressing modestly enough or for interacting with men who are not their relatives. There is segregation in public places.

Public life has been highly gender-segregated in Saudi Arabia for many, many years. There are separate entrances for men and women in restaurants and public buildings. We saw that in South Africa for white and coloured people—and the whole world turned against South Africa; they identified that discrimination of race was wrong—but for some reason the world is ignoring discrimination against women in many other countries of the world. This is no different. You do not choose what race you are born, you do not choose what sex you are born, yet the whole world tackled South Africa and they won, yet the world is still doing business with Saudi Arabia.

Of course, there are limited roles in public-facing jobs and in the media. There is employment discrimination, and many women are barred from certain professions. In some sectors, women are not allowed to work without male permission or presence. Until recently, women could not serve as judges or hold high-ranking positions in many public offices.

Of course, there is a lack of legal protections for women. Domestic violence was not recognised until 12 years ago. Until 12 years ago, domestic violence was not a crime in Saudi Arabia. However, the testimony of a woman in court is only worth half that of a man in certain legal cases. There is no such thing as 'he said' or 'she said' in Saudi Arabia; it is what 'he said' and 'she said' and 'she said'. You need to throw in one extra woman in order to turn the balance around—two against one—in order for there to be any consideration of the evidence that is being presented by those women if they are giving evidence about any situation in Saudi Arabia. It is usually about the treatment of women when this is most damaging.

Women face immense difficulty in proving rape and may be charged with adultery if they cannot produce four male witnesses who saw them being raped—a near-impossible standard—and if they cannot do that they are then charged with adultery. It is an extraordinary situation that this still happens in 2025. Why do we continue to see governments enter into business arrangements and completely ignore this? I just wonder whether there was a conversation with the Premier or any of his advisers about that, using that opportunity to disapprove of those practices. It was a perfect opportunity to speak up for women and raise women's rights in Saudi Arabia when signing this contract.

Of course, in marriage and divorce laws, girls as young as 10 have been married off and despite the fact that they claim this has been restricted in recent years, it still happens. There is a blind eye that is turned. Women seeking a divorce face many more legal and financial hurdles than men—and do not forget, women do not control the finances of the family. They do not have access to the finances of the family, so where are they going to get the financial resources to initiate a divorce of their own? Fathers nearly always receive automatic custody of children over a certain age.

There is an extraordinary difference in the way women are treated in the civilised world, in countries that are run by democracies and in countries that have recognised that old cultural practices of many years ago, when women in the West were expected to give up their jobs when they got married, were wrong. We have all realised how wrong that was. Unfortunately, Saudi Arabia still does not see any of the faults in the way they treat women in their country.

Although we are debating a bill that will excise a large part of the North Adelaide Parklands in a manner that has severely restricted the ability of the public and other members of parliament who are not members of the government to examine the bill, understand the bill and actually question the bill as to whether the bill is appropriate, we know the parliamentary process often delivers amendments to what the government first puts forward in this place. That is why the convention has been, through the history of the Westminster system, that new bills sit on the table before they are debated—but not with the large majority and the arrogance with which that majority is being used by the Malinauskas government.

This is a warning of what will come if the Malinauskas government is returned without losing a seat, or even gaining seats, and how much more arrogant they will be in their second term of government in those circumstances. They are behaving like they want to be an emperor or a king, much as Saudi Arabia is ruled by a king. The contempt for the parliamentary system that we have seen from this government is just extraordinary, and that is what happens when you have governments with large majorities. The number of times that the Premier is not in this place when there is a division, even though the Premier has not sought a pair, shows complete disrespect and disregard, again, for the parliamentary process.

I know that my constituents would not be happy and that groups like Focus and others that are very interested in the Parklands in particular would not be happy. The Adelaide Park Lands Association is an organisation that has been around longer than most of the people in this place have been alive, and it has survived government after government, personality after personality and mayor after mayor to protect that asset that was delivered through the foresight of Colonel Light nearly 200 years ago.

I think men in this place, in particular, need to use every opportunity to call out discrimination and violence against women, and remind everybody that we still have a long way to go in fixing that issue not just here in Australia but around the world.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:19): I rise to address this second reading debate that we are having now a little more than an hour on from having just indicated to the house all the reasons why the opposition opposed the motion to suspend. I will not reflect on that vote of the chamber, but here we are having a second reading debate, therefore, not much the wiser than what a few hours has afforded.

What has emerged since I was last on my feet in relation to this bill is that the Lord Mayor, or perhaps the Acting Lord Mayor on behalf of the Lord Mayor—it is not abundantly clear to me—at or about precisely the time I was on my feet explaining the reasons why the Liberal opposition opposed the suspension of standing orders, opposed the pushing through all stages of the bill immediately this afternoon, just as I was speaking about that, a statement that is attributed to the Lord Mayor of Adelaide and published at about a quarter to four this afternoon, and which might have emanated from council, has made it very clear in a way that I was not quite fully able to, because I did not know, that the bill, in fact, and I knew this much, is news to the council. The council, therefore, does not have a view about the bill, for obvious reasons.

What the statement that I understand my colleague, the shadow minister, the member for Colton, has read into the Hansard that has been published by or on behalf of the Lord Mayor, makes clear is that there has been active engagement and that has now been, as it were, interrupted or punctuated by this bit of legislation that the house has now been moved to debate as this matter of unusual urgency.

I encourage those who are interested in the debate to read and to take on board the view that would appear to be a view expressed on behalf of the Adelaide City Council. One can be left in no doubt from that statement that the council has a keen interest in being involved in the process. Indeed, the statement refers to the council's management and investment in the golf course for more than 100 years. That is the assertion in the statement, as well as a clear assertion in the statement that, in circumstances, with the announcement of the LIV Golf moving to the city, the council is interested to be a participant in that process.

Clearly, those matters will out over the course of the time ahead. It is what it is. But if it is the Lord Mayor making this statement, then I have to hand it to the Lord Mayor, because it would appear that if she is, as I understand, in Europe presently, then she has managed to issue this statement at or about shortly after 8 o'clock this morning local time so that it can reach us in the course of this debate. Indeed, if it is issued by the Acting Lord Mayor on behalf of the Lord Mayor, then much the same might be said to say how quickly the councillors have been able to express a view about where they find themselves. I think it is regrettable all the more that there is not just in the ordinary course an opportunity for that view to be expressed beyond this sort of extraordinary urgency that the government has decided this bill merits, although without any more particular reasons being provided.

In terms of the ordinary course, I just refer specifically to clause 10 in the bill, and another of the relatively new processes of this place that has followed on the establishment of the Voice in South Australia. I understand that in a way confirmatory of the way that the standing orders ordinarily operate, the practice of the parliament—in accordance with our new sessional orders and the act—is that once a bill is introduced, then the Clerk, or a member of staff on behalf of the Clerk, will write to the Voice the following day and give the notice that that is part of the business of the house, so that the Voice is apprised of it. According to the processes available, the Voice is able then to determine what it might do about legislation that is before the house.

Now, in circumstances of the suspension of standing orders in order to move through more quickly than that, then that function is sort of rendered impractical, not that we have seen the Voice exercise its statutory capacity to come into this place to participate in debate. But it certainly serves as ordinarily an opportunity for that to be picked up and commented upon, particularly in circumstances where it might otherwise not be the subject of specific consultation.

That might be a question for the government in the course of the committee processes as to whether or not, unlike the Adelaide City Council, the government, perhaps knowing that it might be moving this through the house very, very quickly, sought a view from the Voice about clause 10. This is in circumstances where we are making specific provision about this chunk of the Parklands that the golf courses occupy, largely, with the bill going out of its way to stipulate that the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 applies in relation to the land and, in particular, insofar as it relates to the carrying out of the redevelopment works that are to be contemplated in terms of the improvement of the golf course that might be anticipated to follow on the passage of the bill.

There are just two key statutory and governmental participants that one might ordinarily be thought to be not only entitled to express a view about the legislation, let alone the subject of it, but also have the opportunity to consider what is being proposed. I can only assume, to give the government its due, because this bill really does resemble more of a sort of heads of terms of agreement as much as it resembles ordinary legislation, the sorts of terms where one party is being told what is going to happen by the other party. I can only presume that much of the content of the bill might resemble the matters that have been the subject of some negotiation over the journey, especially given what we have seen from the Adelaide City Council in terms of the Lord Mayor or the Acting Lord Mayor's communication just now.

If we are here sort of reading the play, then perhaps we can say there has been some negotiation. Some of the substance of what is in the bill might not be coming as a complete surprise to the Adelaide City Council, if not other stakeholders, but legislation it is out of the blue nonetheless.

As others who have participated in this second reading debate so far have already traversed—and I might say, I think the only contributors to the debate, other than the minister, have been those of us on this side of the chamber doing our best, perhaps with the least amount of notice, to get to grips with it and then make some contribution to the elucidation of what is going on—it would be interesting to hear from members on the government side, who presumably have had more time than the rest of us, more notice, more explanation, the opportunity to debate it within their own party room and so on and so forth, to explain to the house how this has come to be and why the house should support it. But we have not had the benefit really of any of that kind of contribution from government members, at least so far.

I would be interested, for example—and please jump in to correct me if I have missed some aspect of the debate; I have not been here for the entirety of it—to hear what the member for Adelaide might have to say to contribute to the debate, just as I would like to hear from many other members of the government about how we have got here and how it is going to impact local communities, stakeholders and so forth.

With the limited amount of time that is available to me for the purposes of my contribution, I just refer to some aspects of the bill that I would flag some curiosity in. I think the member for Colton, the shadow minister, has already flagged an interest in the number of such leases and licences that might be affected by clause 6 of the bill, which provides for the cancellation of all leases and licences that are held in relation to the project site. The provisions might be there, but if they are I have not found them, in relation to compensation for any such lease or licence holder that might be affected detrimentally as a result of that. It would be interesting to know what that clause is really directed to achieving and the scope that it is anticipated to cover.

There are interesting matters in relation to the handover of the project site and the vesting of care and control of the project site that are the subject of the next couple of clauses. I have flagged an interest within part 3 of the bill and an interest in how clause 10 came about, and that is the application of the Aboriginal Heritage Act and what appears, on the face of it, to be the inability in the usual course for the house's processes of notification to be enacted.

There are a number of deemed to satisfy provisions, including the deemed to satisfy provision that applies to all development proposed to be undertaken, for the purposes of the project, the subject of clause 11(2). That and the processes within it are a subject of curiosity. The minister's capacity to make provision for the vesting of project land, structures or property at clause 16 is a matter of interest as well.

In terms of the provisions for the operation of the golf course—because I have heard it by way of interjection in the course of the debate—the opposition has been told that it really should not cavil with this too much because it is a bill to render a golf course a golf course. It would be interesting to have on the record the way in which that is going to work, including pursuant to clause 18.

As we know, for the time being the council advertises with some pride, I think, the relatively modest price of access to the three courses. The par 3 course costs in the order of $20 a round, and somewhat less for concession holders. The North Course costs as little as $21.50 to get a round, as I understand it, and the South Course costs between about $27.50 and $46.50. The provisions the subject of the bill certainly do not address that question of practical access, cost of access and so on.

The balance of clause 18 also goes to a matter that I expect will be the subject of pretty keen public interest, and that is the erection of fencing or other barriers. In that regard, I flag that there appears to me to be nothing standing in the way of the erecting of a more permanent fence if the minister forms the requisite view as to its necessity. So I flag that particular matter, as well as the general public interest in that area of the Parklands remaining as fully accessible and, frankly, beautiful in its amenity for as much accessibility for public enjoyment as is presently the case. I think reference has been made to the exclusion of laws that are found at clause 24.

If that sort of walk-through is some indication of a starting point in terms of some familiarity with the bill, I hope it also provides an indication of just how wideranging and perhaps consequential the bill is and why it merits some scrutiny rather than undue haste in its passage.

Mr TELFER (Flinders) (17:39): I rise to speak on this North Adelaide Public Golf Course Bill 2025. It is one which, as has already been articulated in some of the contributions, we have not had a lot of time to digest, to fully understand or to ascertain the ramifications of this bill passing this house.

It is fascinating, and I am always amazed, at how much of a more than passing interest people from my electorate have in what goes on in this place. Often in a non-sitting week when I am around the electorate—and I am sure the next time I am lucky enough to be back home, over the best side of the gulf, the Spencer Gulf, of course—people will be asking me, 'What was high on the government's priority list, what were the hard hitting things you were debating in the house this week?' People are honestly interested in it.

Sometimes I could reflect on a health bill or an infrastructure project or some of the important hard hitting things that the people in my electorate, if not necessarily having a first hand interest in, would understand would be a priority of the government. If I were to say to them, 'Actually, we were debating a bill on the North Adelaide public golf course,' I think it would probably say it all as to what, unfortunately, we are starting to see are the priorities of the government.

When I am back in my electorate on the weekend I will be up visiting and talking to farmers who are suffering from some of the most horrendous drought conditions they have faced for generations. We could be here debating that sort of a bill, to actually be proactive in looking at what is really hurting communities, especially in regional areas, but no—we are debating the North Adelaide public golf course bill.

It is not just that, it is not just a bill that we have got to at the bottom of a long list of different pieces of legislation; it is a bill that, at the start of the day, we did not even know about. It is a bill that lunchtime today was the first time we actually got to have a look at it, a bill that we have only just started to unpack in terms of what its ramifications are just in the last little while.

I am amazed that we can be asked to stop all other proceedings. The Appropriation Bill is what is on the top of the agenda for parliament at the moment. We had to suspend standing orders and we had to go over and above the Appropriation Bill. That should be a priority. We have to have the Appropriation Bill done before we can go into the estimates process at the end of the week; the Appropriation Bill, the budget, the major bill that is what the whole operations of government hinges on. No; that is secondary to the North Adelaide Golf Course Bill.

It is amazing, amazing that that is a priority to stop everything else. It is not the scenario that we saw with the challenging situation with Whyalla, not something like the major state and national economic challenges that have been faced that you stop everything else for; no, it is golf in North Adelaide. Why today? Even when that briefing—which we got right before we started debating this bill—was given to us, the question really was why? Why is it being pushed through today? Why the urgency? The explanations that were given were, 'Well, you know, we have to have this locked in by 2028, so it's gotta happen, it's gotta happen now.'

As I reflect on what I will be trying to tell my constituents about the priorities, I also come at this bill with a mind for what it means for local government, as the shadow minister for local government. There has already been some discussion about what the impact of this is with the City of Adelaide council. Without a clear reason as to why we are discussing and debating this bill at the moment, it makes me reflect on exactly what has led up to the point where the government have decided it is necessary to legislate their ability to hold an event in the North Adelaide Parklands.

Did they get to the scenario through negotiations with the City of Adelaide where they thought that they could not actually get to a point of agreement? I do not know. I do not know why we are debating a bill that, on the face of it, in flicking through it, looks more like a contractual agreement. It looks more like a lease agreement than anything else, an agreement between two parties that you get to after negotiations. Instead it is coming in over the top and saying, 'This is the way it's going to be. We know best.'

Throughout this document, there are a whole bunch of references to the City of Adelaide. The speakers before me have already articulated some of the immediate responses from some of the representatives of the City of Adelaide about exactly what they think of this bill being lobbed onto their responsibilities, and responsibilities absolutely they are. Look at clause 7. It talks about the minister designating a handover day:

(1) The Minister must, before designating a handover day for the purposes of this Act, undertake consultation (in such manner as the Minister thinks fit) with the Adelaide City Council in relation to the handover of the project site.

On face value, that is the height of disrespect. It sets no framework at all as to what that consultation is going to look like. It is whatever the minister thinks is fit, whatever they want. Is that real consultation? It is whatever the minister thinks fit. Not just that, after that consultation that the minister thinks fit with the Adelaide City Council:

(2) The Adelaide City Council must, on or before the handover day, vacate and handover possession and control of the project site (and all facilities situated on the project site) to the Minister, in accordance with any directions of the Minister.

So the minister can say what sort of consultation they want. The minister can set whatever condition and whatever direction they want for the handover of this land. This is not a good faith negotiation of a contract or a lease: it is a takeover. It is a hostile takeover. For this to be the basis of a priority of the government, to rush a piece of legislation in, I think says it all. We go on and look at some of the other impacts on the Adelaide City Council:

(3) A direction of the Minister under subsection (2) may include, without limitation, requirements for any of the following to occur before the handover day (or any later date approved by the Minister)…

So whatever the minister says goes, once again, and that includes tasks to be undertaken and completed by the Adelaide City Council in relation to the project site or any operations on the project site. This piece of legislation says not just that the minister has the power to take that land, take control of that land and that project site, at any time they want with only the consultation that they think fit but that they also can make the Adelaide City Council perform tasks to be undertaken and completed in relation to the project site or any operations on the project site. It includes:

(c) the handover (on such terms as may be specified by the Minister) of any personal property the Minister thinks necessary or desirable—

the desires or the whim of the minister—

in connection with the project or with the ongoing care, control and management of the project site or facilities on the project site.

What is the project site? We will cover that when we ask questions around the definitions and the like, but from clause 5 we know that it is the area that was, immediately before the commencement of this act, operating as the North Adelaide Golf Course—that is a defined footprint—and the area known as John E Brown Park, Park 27A. We know the footprint of that piece of land. It was described in some of the interactions on this bit as an underutilised or unutilised area of the Parklands. Certain road reserve areas, etc., are included. But then it states:

(b) if, after the commencement of this section, the Minister determines that it is necessary or desirable—

there is that word again—

to include additional areas of land in the project site or to remove any areas of land from the project site—

well, I do not think that would happen; I think if it is desirable for them to add more in, it will—

is the area or areas of land delineated in a plan or plans to be deposited in the GRO and identified by the Minister by notice in the Gazette for the purposes of this paragraph.

So this bit of wording here basically says this is the project site footprint, or anything else that the minister may desire. It is pretty outrageous overreach from a government that has their priorities as golf in North Adelaide over the top of the debate we could have around the budget.

So it is any bit of land that the minister desires without any real need for consultation over and above what they think fit and, not just that, it is anything that the minister wants the Adelaide City Council to undertake or complete in relation to the project site or any operations on the project site on that footprint at all, whether that is the existing footprint that is in the legislation or whatever the minister desires.

What are the ramifications? We have set out that indeed there is a fair bit of obligation on the Adelaide City Council and there is a fair bit of power well and truly resting with the minister. The bill states:

If the Adelaide City Council fails to comply with the direction of the Minister under subsection (2), the Minister may take any action required under the direction, or necessary for the direction to be carried out, as if the Minister were the Adelaide City Council (including action in relation to any person or any property of a third party).

So, if the minister gives a direction, however outlandish that is, to do with the project site, which is whatever they desire, and it is not done, they can then act as the Adelaide City Council. It is sounding more and more like a dictatorship than any sort of collaboration around a contractual lease agreement. This is what we are being asked to debate and the government wants agreement on.

The Adelaide City Council have been boxed into a corner with this. They have no sort of capacity to be able to negotiate. They have no powers at all because if they fail to comply with the direction of the minister, those powers are going to be superseded and taken by the minister. Not just that, but here is another little kicker in clause 9:

(1) The Minister—

(a) must ensure that Adelaide City Council are (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) given an opportunity to provide the Minister with a statement outlining the matters relating to the project that the Council would like to be consulted on—

what a great privilege for the Adelaide City Council to have at least an opportunity to provide the minister with a statement outlining the matters relating to the project they would like to be consulted on. It does not say they will be consulted. These are things that they may want to be consulted on. The clause continues:

(b) having regard to the statement provided by the Council, must determine a consultation protocol—

Yes, that is alright, a bit of structure—

(containing such requirements as the Minister thinks fit)—

once again, these are optional little feelgood statements within a piece of legislation, but the reality is the minister can just decide to supersede, override and wield their power.

Now this sort of structure within a piece of legislation, if it was an emergency situation, if it was a situation where there was a significant economic risk to the state, like I said, if we were talking about some of the debate which was had around the Whyalla Steelworks piece of legislation, you could start to think maybe this is a necessary measure. But we are talking about Parklands in North Adelaide that the government wants to have a North Adelaide public golf course on. These are absolutely extraordinary powers.

A minister has not just the power to declare at any time that they want to take a piece of land over and above what the footprint already is, but they can decide what level of consultation, if any, they think is fit. They give the privilege for the Adelaide City Council to at least have an opportunity to provide the minister with a statement, and then the minister can do with that what they like. They can put it straight in the shredder with all the powers that the minister may hold in their hands.

At the very same time that the debate has been had in the other place around the Biodiversity Bill, I find clause 13 fascinating. This is 'Requirements relating to trees', which provides that:

The Minister must ensure that for every tree that is removed in the course of undertaking the project not less than 3 new trees (or seedlings for not less than 3 new trees) are planted within the project site and support zones.

The area in North Adelaide we are debating, or certainly the footprint within the designated project site—but also whatever the whim of the minister might be if they want to expand the project site—there is a bunch of trees that are through there, and a lot of them are well-established, big, substantial trees. If a tree is removed in the course of undertaking the project, it is quite alright to just plant three little trees to make up for it, three seedlings, somewhere else that is suitable.

As a regional member who is constantly hearing from their constituents about the challenges of landowners conforming with the Native Vegetation Act, and now what the government is pushing through with the Biodiversity Act, I constantly hear frustrations from landowners/farmers—people who are managing their land in a very effective and sustainable way—and how there is a frustration that, even if they were to seemingly look sideways at an established tree on their property, let alone think about removing it, then the full weight of the law would bear down on them.

For single trees in a paddock that have grown up through a stone heap that may be in the middle of it, there is an obligation on them if they were to dare remove the tree. If we were to give them the opportunity to take out an established tree and then plant three seedlings wherever they like, well that would be fantastic. I reckon every single landowner out there at the moment would take up that opportunity. I have planted thousands more trees than I will ever take out, and most landowners in regional South Australia are exactly the same.

This requirement, this 'do as we say you will have to do, not as we are actually doing', that for every tree that you replace you only have to plant 'seedlings for not less than 3 new trees' is just another arrogant slap in the face from this arrogant government who have as their priority things like the North Adelaide Golf Course when regional communities, in particular, are going through some of the most challenging times, not just with drought. Also, to have support for investment in infrastructure from government is necessary for those communities to be sustainable into the future. They would be crying out for any sort of financial attention or investment from the government, and those communities would be contributing just as much as a LIV Golf tournament.

So as I start to unpack this bill that we are being asked to consider in due haste with no lead-in time, I reflect not just on what this means to the relationship of the government with the Adelaide City Council, not just how much they are willing to brush off what the Adelaide City Council might think, but also what people in my community would be thinking when this is a priority for a government that seems to be more worried about the fluff and bubble of this sort of thing rather than the reality of the economic challenges that are being faced in their regional community, and the need for there to be health infrastructure and ongoing investment in those communities to make sure that they are sustainable well into the future.

Sitting suspended from 17:59 to 19:30.