Bills

North Adelaide Public Golf Course Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (19:30): I am not an avid golfer but I thought I would make a contribution to demonstrate the little bit of frustration that I and the opposition have with the late briefing today. I feel that the state government have played roughshod not only over the process here in the parliament but also over the Adelaide City Council. What we have seen today is that while the Lord Mayor is away, the government will play and this bill has been rushed into the house.

When listening to the brief, my attention was sparked. Obviously, I have played golf at North Adelaide and understand the intricacies of what remodelling a golf course is all about. My son lives on a golf course in the US and I have watched them remodel that course. My future son-in-law is a very avid golfer at Royal Sydney and I also watched that golf course be remodelled. It did take a long time and it did take a lot of money.

What we heard today in the briefing was that the Adelaide City Council will basically lose the rights to the golf course at North Adelaide. Being a former primary producer, someone who has developed a lot of country over my life, particularly with family farms and particularly with native vegetation, it was something that really did grab my attention.

I wanted to bring to the chamber's attention that the removal of vegetation, whether it be native vegetation or introduced species, always raises eyebrows for the authorities to be the authoritarian over those landowners or the custodians. With tree removal, there are a lot of categories particularly on a golf course and particularly on a farm that do not appear to ring true with the same ringing of the bell.

I did refresh my memory with tree removal. Obviously it has a lot to do with the species, the age, the number of trees, the height, the health, and the habitat potential and it comes with a point score. If the score for removal of that tree reaches the lofty heights of 15, it then has to go into an approval process. Obviously, there is an overall impact from the loss. Does it have heritage implications? It did bother me that for the removal of a tree there are no less than three new plants. We could see a very large significant tree being removed. I am sure that there will be a number of trees. I know the talk has been that we will see a minimal amount of tree removal, but let me assure you, when we are going to see a significant remodelling of a very old golf course, with the style that LIV Golf will bring to the game, I am sure that it will be a different format.

We saw some of the images in this morning's paper; some very fancy bunkers and some almost Dalmatian sand spots on the golf course that grabbed my attention. That is why I am wanting, if we are going to see significant tree removal, a little bit more detail: what does that mean with offset? What does that mean with a replacement? Where will those replacement trees be placed and what will it mean to the landscape and the Botanic Gardens that the Adelaide City Council currently have governance over?

As I have said, the government were caught unaware as to why it was being introduced today in such haste and the opposition are also quite intrigued at what the haste was. Why is it that we have to force this through today? Why is it that the government would like to have it through the Legislative Council potentially this week? There are underlying reasons. I have been in this place for a little while now—not as long as you, sir—but I have been here for a while now and it does sometimes make you a little bit cynical and gives you an impetus to look at an alternative motive as to why the government are hastily trying to push this bill through the assembly.

What also grabbed my attention today was a media statement, as I understand it it was from the Adelaide Lord Mayor, who is currently overseas on a mission to try to bring COP31 to Adelaide. As I would understand, she is very upset. She agreed in good faith and now has been left out in the cold, as has the rest of the council, and they feel that they are taking control of the course.

My bearings are not that bad. Obviously North Adelaide has a number of areas in it; the North Course, the South Course and the John E Brown Park. What I would like to know is, are we going to see the entire North Adelaide Golf Course remodelled? Are we going to see a portion of it remodelled?

What will it mean to the longevity of what that course has meant to many, many members and what is it going to mean for those residents who live up against that golf course? Many, or most of them, all have a street boundary between their residence and the golf course.

If the government is going to take control of that golf course, is it going to mean that those residents are going to be impacted on a regular basis, not just as part of the LIV Golf series invitation, but what does it mean for the rest of the year? What is it going to mean to those people who are passionate Botanic Garden lovers? Sometimes they can express their view to the detriment of progress, but I think they have a right to speak and they have a right to voice their concerns. This action today by the government will have the hairs on the back of their necks out, stiff and bristly, and they will be looking to have a comment in tomorrow morning's paper, I am sure.

Obviously, the government's priority is to ram this through the assembly. Should their priority be appropriation? We have to pass appropriation today or tomorrow, so that we can get on with estimates. My office was advised this afternoon that some of the estimates portfolios will be pushed out from Friday into next week. The writing is on the wall that the government's priorities are not right. They are not looking after South Australia. They are looking after the Premier wanting to be party Pete, popular Pete and Pete in paradise.

What we are seeing is that, to push this through in the way that it is being pushed through, everyone should be asking questions as to, 'What is the hurry, what is the haste, and why is it happening in this manner of time?' I am sure that the opposition will be asking pertinent questions to make sure that this bill is dealt with appropriately and we do get to the bottom of it. If some of my sneaking suspicions do come true, if they are not realised tonight they will be realised in good time, I can assure you.

I would like to think that the government, in their haste today, will be transparent and they will give all of the information that is asked of them so that we can enlighten the public, we can enlighten the Adelaide City Council, we can enlighten the residents and, just as importantly, we can enlighten the golf enthusiasts who want to come to North Adelaide and be part of the LIV Golf experience. I look forward to the committee process and getting on with it in due course.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION (Taylor—Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Housing Infrastructure, Minister for Planning) (19:40): I will make a very short contribution thanking members for their contributions. I think we are going to the committee stage and that will give the government some opportunity to explain some of the clauses referred to in the members' contributions. With that, I thank the house and close the debate.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr COWDREY: Minister, it is abundantly clear now that the Adelaide City Council have not been consulted on the bill, unless something has changed in the last little while. Who was consulted on the bill prior to it be being introduced today?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: We have not consulted anybody on the bill. This has been a matter for the government. We considered that it was the appropriate action to take to secure the event.

Mr COWDREY: Is there any reason that the government did not take a more collaborative approach, understanding that there was clear support in both chambers in terms of finding a bill that was perhaps able to be worked up together with the whole of the parliament? Through negotiation and sensible amendment, perhaps we would have landed on a set of circumstances with a bill that was (a) perhaps less ham-fisted but (b) perhaps less of a sledgehammer but still able to achieve the same outcome.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: There has been quite a collaboration with the Adelaide City Council for some time. I do not accept the opposition's characterisation of it, but what this bill does is it essentially facilitates the development approvals necessary to (a) construct the new golf course and (b) then operate it. That is what this bill does. I do not accept the opposition's characterisations of it, and of course, this is your chance for collaboration right now.

Mr COWDREY: If we are going to start in that vein, then I do not accept the minister's interpretation of what his own bill does, because it is clear in black and white that it does far more than what he has just alluded to. There are unprecedented levels of power that are vested in the minister as part of this. There is the opportunity for you to grab extended parcels of Parklands for purposes outlined. There is a range of other things involved in this in terms of whether the land will return to the Adelaide City Council.

So it does not simply achieve those two outcomes that you have outlined to the house today: it does far more than that. You know that, I know that and every other member of this house who has had the opportunity to read the bill knows that. The question for you is a simple one: when does the government envisage taking over the North Adelaide Golf Course or the section of land referred to here in the bill?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I was not sure which clause the honourable member was referring to, but if you go to clause 5(1)(a), essentially the operation of the act, as the member envisages it, comes into operation when the GRO plan is lodged, and that will be done once the design work is completed.

Mr COWDREY: Just a follow-up, sir.

The CHAIR: A follow-up; a supplementary, you mean?

Mr COWDREY: Yes.

The CHAIR: We will see. Go on; test me.

Mr COWDREY: Perhaps I will rephrase the question: when does the minister envisage lodging the plan with the GRO?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Once the design work is completed. That is when we will activate that part of the bill. Obviously, that is complicated work. Once it is completed, that is when that section of the bill will be activated.

Mr BATTY: Can the minister outline what he sees is the role and function of the Adelaide Park Lands Authority, and in light of that, why they were not consulted on this bill?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The government's primary engagement on these matters has been with the Adelaide City Council. They have been the main focus of who we have been consulting with or in negotiations with. Clearly, we want to pass this bill so we can secure the event and so we can, if you like, meet the deadlines. Of course, this bill gives the minister the ability to, I think, negotiate with the Adelaide City Council and other bodies as they see fit.

Mr BATTY: Apologies for my confusion: I think you have just said that the Adelaide City Council is the main body you have been consulting with, but in response to a question from the member for Colton, you said you have not consulted with anyone. Which is it? I suspect it is the latter, which begs the question again: why?

Perhaps you can update the house on how your negotiations with Adelaide City Council have been going. The Lord Mayor is tweeting from the other side of the world that apparently there were some sort of good faith negotiations continuing. The Premier met with the Adelaide City Council at least as recently as last week, and this has been totally sprung on them in the meantime. So can you provide clarification on whether you have consulted with anyone at all and also what the negotiations with council have looked like?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I do not want to play sematic word games with the member, but—

Mr Batty interjecting:

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: No, I am just pointing two things out. First of all, I was asked about the consultation on the bill and then we were talking about negotiations with the council—slightly different things. In terms of negotiations with the council, I am advised there have been 17 or so meetings about the North Adelaide Golf Course in an endeavour to negotiate these matters with the council. Obviously, they are important, good faith negotiations; nobody is being critical of the Adelaide City Council. This bill just reflects the government's desire to be able to upgrade the North Adelaide Golf Course and deliver the event for the state.

Mr BATTY: Similarly, can the minister outline his understanding of the role and function of the First Nations Voice and explain why the First Nations Voice was not consulted on this bill?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: In this act there are obviously references to the Aboriginal Heritage Act, and we will come to those clauses in due course. Obviously, we will aim to meet our requirements under those acts. Because of the timeframe that we are looking at—we want to secure the event for the state and we want to get on with building the North Adelaide Golf Course—in this particular instance we have not advised or consulted with the Voice, but I am sure, given that we have the Voice, there will be an opportunity to do that in the future.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Was the member for Adelaide consulted on the bill and, if so, when?

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Members on my left!

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The CHAIR: Minister, unless you are in your seat, you will not be recognised.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The member for Adelaide has obviously been advised and kept informed about the project. In terms of the bill, she was advised at the same time that all government members were: at the caucus meeting earlier this morning.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Does the member for Adelaide support the bill?

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Members will keep their comments to themselves, unless they want to leave the chamber.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: The minister is not responsible for knowing what another member may or may not vote for.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Has the member for Adelaide been given any special ability to cross the floor on this bill or to not support the bill, as the previous member for Adelaide Jane Lomax-Smith was given in regard to the Motor Sport Board permanent grandstand?

The CHAIR: The minister is not responsible for that. Next question.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: With due respect, sir—

The CHAIR: No.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: —that is a ministerial decision, for somebody to be able to breach the Labor Party convention of not being expelled from the party for having a different view from the party.

The CHAIR: Member for Unley—

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: There is a precedent for that. Jane Lomax-Smith was granted that precedent when she was the member for Adelaide.

The CHAIR: The member for Unley will resume his seat. The member for Unley is not a member of the Labor Party and he does not know how the Labor Party works; it is quite clear. It is not the minister's responsibility for that decision to be made. Next question, if you want to ask another question.

Mr TEAGUE: Just to be clear, we are here debating a bill called the North Adelaide Public Golf Course Bill 2025, which has been described by government members as a bill to make a golf course a golf course, or something of that nature, and that clearly transfers a lot of powers from the council to the minister primarily for the core purpose of facilitating the LIV Golf event, and we are here in the committee stage going clause by clause about just what exactly those powers are and how wideranging they are and so on.

At clause 1, the question has been put in terms of stakeholder consultation or the lack thereof, and the circumstances in which this bill has been presented to caucus members first thing this morning—first presented to members on this side at about lunch time, and then moved through all stages, interrupting the budget debate and so on—the unanswered question, it seems to me, is: what is the imperative for doing this today? Why can it not wait until tomorrow, or, if it is so urgently necessary, why not with the benefit of some explanation that can be shared with all of us?

I will indicate two things. I have heard reference to, on the one hand, what have been, we understand, ongoing negotiations with the city council, and I think I have adverted to, in the course of my second reading debate: are we to read between the lines that Adelaide City Council has been a bit hard to deal with, or this stuff is broadly familiar to them but they need it moving along? That would point to the reason for doing it, that it just was not going to get anywhere fast enough.

That still does not answer the question of: why absolutely today and at this kind of unusual short notice? I have also heard the minister just now say this is in order to secure the event for the period that remains, maybe for some longer period—who knows—but, even in that case, why absolutely today? Why is it necessary to be so start to finish and at so little notice?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: If the honourable member works back from 2028, which is a key date for LIV Golf and, really, a key date for the state because this is a very important event for the state, it has been a very successful event—as I understand it, the opposition now support the event, even though at the outset they did not, but we welcome their support for the event—if you work your way back from 2028, and this is always I think the challenge for any sort of construction project, you have a design phase and then you obviously have a phase in which you need to construct and build, and in this case turf has to grow, grass has to grow, the course itself needs to get constructed.

So if you work back from 2028, that is the driver here. That is a driver of, if you like, the timeframes. It is important for these projects to have certainty. In order to have investment, and in this case a very significant investment in the Parklands, in the golf course, which I think is welcomed by the Adelaide City Council—and they have had their own previous master plans in 2018 and before that, but it has eluded them up until this point—this bill gives certainty to the project and gives certainty to those timeframes, working back from 2028.

Mr TEAGUE: I thank the minister for that answer. I suppose where we are at is that in this process today, the minister has talked to things that might point to an imperative over months or even weeks, but not to the kind of urgency that we saw, say—without reflecting on the debate at all—with the first bit of legislation to address the dire situation in Whyalla where, for all sorts of reasons, the government asks the parliament to be taken into its trust and we are told there is an injunction-style emergency to being able to act in a really unusual way in circumstances where the value of assets and the whole circumstances of a town are in the balance, and we saw the capacity of the parliament to move something through basically on trust, at no notice, with massive urgency.

Any observer looking at this at this stage would draw a pretty clear contrast between that and what we are dealing with now but over a similar timeframe. So without more, it looks as though it is the government flexing or something. It has chosen to do this now on this day—why not? It could do it this day or it could do it tomorrow, but not to some sort of imperative that is going to be lost unless the thing is passed before midnight tonight or something. So if there is not, there is not, and people can look on and say, 'That's the government's style,' but there is nothing more imperative than, 'Well, this had to get done at some stage, so it may as well be now.'

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I would just refer the member to my previous answer about 2028. While, obviously, he refers to other bills, there have been bills which have been passed by this parliament before on many different occasions in order to create certainty for projects. That is what this bill is seeking: certainty of development approval and certainty of operation and that is a very important thing for this very important event, and we would obviously like to have bipartisan support for it.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Minister, is the passing of this bill a condition of the contract to take this event in Adelaide to 2031? In other words, if this bill fails or does not pass the parliament, does LIV Golf finish in Adelaide before 2031?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The honourable member wanders a little into hypotheticals, but essentially the bill is not a contractual requirement, but it is a contractual requirement to have it in North Adelaide, and obviously this facilitates us being ready in North Adelaide by 2028.

Mr TEAGUE: In light of that answer perhaps—and I think the minister has already answered the question by saying no stakeholders have been consulted on this bill, including the Voice, including the member for Adelaide until this morning, you name it—for the avoidance of doubt, nobody associated with LIV has been either consulted on this bill or its timeframe, and no contractual matters are hinging on this. Again, it is an opportunity to explain why we are here. Is that the case?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Of course, parliament is always the master of its own destiny. We had a bit of a debate before about the Adelaide City Council and the Parklands and the like. I invite members to look closely at those arrangements over the years, but essentially why now and why this bill is a compelling piece of legislation, a necessary piece of legislation, is that we need to be ready by 2028 and have the North Adelaide Golf Course upgraded in order for this event to be held there.

That is why it is important legislation. That is why we are here now. As I said before, we have had a number of meetings. The government has had a long series of consultative meetings with the Adelaide City Council. We think this bill is what is needed to secure the event for 2028, and that is important for the state.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

Mr COWDREY: The question of commencement again comes to timing, because this bill could have been moved two weeks ago, it could have been moved two weeks from now, essentially is—for lack of a better term—the vibe that the minister is putting out. The question then, naturally, in terms of that timeline relative to commencement, is around the negotiations with the Adelaide City Council. Had the negotiations with the Adelaide City Council broken down to a point where they were not reconcilable anymore?

Is this simply a bargaining chip that the minister wants to bring in here to show the power of what the government can do? Is there an intention to actually have this bill passed and use the powers that are within this bill, or is the government still seeking to negotiate with the Adelaide City Council and this is simply an on-the-side bargaining chip? Can we have clarity from the minister as to the status of the negotiations with the Adelaide City Council at this point and whether the government does actually intend to use the powers that are conveyed to it if this bill is passed?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: As my mother said, 'There is no time like the present.' This government is all about taking the necessary action to secure important events and economic growth in this state. As I said before, we have had fairly lengthy and collaborative meetings with the Adelaide City Council. This bill is not a criticism of them in any way.

We want to keep those meetings going, but we absolutely intend to use this legislation to deliver the event. It is important legislation. It is in no way a bargaining chip. It is, in a very real way, a tool to deliver an important event for the state and an important upgrade in the Parklands themselves. This bill, if you like, allows us to do that in a meaningful, collaborative and also very deliberate way.

Mr COWDREY: In response to the minister's answer, was notice given to the Adelaide City Council that the government was going to go down this track and draft its own legislation, in many senses, I assume, to effectively shift what would have been in a lease agreement or a contractual arrangement with the Adelaide City Council into legislation on terms that are, at best, very heavily skewed towards the government's interests as opposed to the Adelaide City Council's?

Was it ever communicated to the council that, 'Effectively, negotiations are no longer fruitful for us as the government. We are going to pave our own path from this point forward and draft up legislation and come in and force this on you'? Was that threat ever made to Adelaide City Council, or have they been blissfully unaware, assuming that the conversations had been going on that the minister has alluded to on multiple occasions as being fruitful, helpful, and positive? Because the two things do not make any sense. I hope you understand that, if all the conversations to this point have been fruitful, helpful and positive, why are we here? Why have we got this piece of legislation?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Adelaide City Council and the government talk about a whole range of matters and we talk collaboratively and the government respects the city council, but in this particular case it is not just the lease with the city council that is the issue; it is the deadline of 2028 and all the things that have to go in, all the things that have to be done.

This bill facilitates all of those necessary things that need to be done; that is, the design and then the building and then the operation for this very important event and this very significant investment in the North Adelaide Golf Course and thus in the Parklands. So what we are attempting to do is not close the door on the council in any way, shape or form. We want to keep talking to them, obviously. They are important for the city. They will have an important role to play in events that are in the city. But we need to pass this bill through the parliament in order to deliver the event in 2028 and this bill facilitates us doing that.

Mr COWDREY: I do not doubt that a piece of legislation was going to be necessary in terms of the mechanics of delivering what we have been talking about, but the nature of this legislation is different to what the minister has just alluded to. It is one thing to have a bill without any haste that provides a framework and mechanism for setting out an agreed contractual obligation or lease agreement that has been reached with Adelaide City Council in terms of how the land handover would happen, what the agreed terms would be, who would derive revenue, who would not, who would operate or otherwise. That all makes sense to everybody in this place. I do not think anyone is negotiating that point or arguing that point. That does make sense. There does have to be a vehicle.

But what you have cleverly not really discussed in your answer is whether you had reached a point of effectively having a roadblock with Adelaide City Council in terms of reaching those agreed terms, hence this legislation, or not. But I do not want to pose that question to you because I already have and you have already refused to answer it. So the question is simple. You alluded to a timeframe of 2028 and working back on multiple occasions to this point. Let me assume that you as minister, given the priority that you have given this project and the clear amount of effort and time and focus that has gone into this by the government, were personally a party to the negotiations.

The question is simple: did you give Adelaide City Council a drop-dead date that we need to lock in arrangements by this point in time otherwise we are going this alone? Because it does not make sense to anybody sitting here. If Adelaide City Council were not told, 'This is when we need to lock all this away. This is the deadline. There is no negotiation past this point', we can all go home. It makes sense, if that was the case. Did you give them a drop-dead date to have these arrangements sorted out by? If you have not, this is quite literally scandalous.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: We always flagged in public that legislation might be needed in order to facilitate the delivery of the event, and it is not the government's habit or inclination to deliver ultimatums to other levels of government. That is not the way we go about things.

Mr Cowdrey: You just hit them with a sledgehammer afterwards.

The CHAIR: The member for Colton!

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: No. I just would not characterise it the way the member for Colton does. I think this is legislation that facilitates an important event for the state. It is not an event where there is any doubt that it works. We know that it works. We know that it will work in the city. The member himself admits that we need legislation and is happy, apparently, to facilitate it. Now is your chance.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: When did you start formal discussions with the Adelaide City Council on the proposal that you have got before us today?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: As I said before, we have not consulted them on the bill. We were in negotiations with them around the North Adelaide Golf Course and the lease and all the other important features of, if you like, having LIV in North Adelaide in 2028, and, as I said before, the government has had a number of meetings around those issues.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Sorry, I did not hear that. What was the date you started discussions? That was my question. My question was what was the date? When did you start the discussions?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Not around the bill, but in terms of the negotiation of the lease arrangements around the North Adelaide Golf Course it was late February.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: That was late February this year?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Yes.

Mr TEAGUE: Maybe this is to be clear: there has been a lot of focus on negotiations with the Adelaide City Council, and I will be reminded—you might remind the committee—about the timing of the decision to move to North Adelaide at some stage from Grange. And you have already said that the owner, the operator of the event, has not been consulted on the bill. Is there anything in terms of a monetary consequence, investment or otherwise by the owner that is consequent on the passage of the bill, the substance of the bill, being secured? And therefore does that provide an explanation? In other words, had there been a conclusion to Adelaide City Council negotiations such as to secure the results that are the subject of this bill would that have triggered some consequence in terms of investment, reward of any kind from the owner of the event, and does this bill achieve such an outcome?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: We have been very open about the 2028 date and the movement to the city, to the North Adelaide Golf Course. We think that that is a positive for the event, and we think it is a positive for the Parklands and for the North Adelaide Golf Course, because there is going to be a significant upgrade to that golf course. And of course, this bill facilitates that latter project. Other matters which the member refers to are, of course, properly covered by commercial in confidence, because it is a contract, and you would not expect me to discuss that publicly.

Mr TEAGUE: Maybe then let me put it slightly more directly. Is there any consequence in terms of investment from the owner in the site that follows upon the passage of the bill, or alternatively, had that not been necessary, the conclusion of terms sufficient to secure the site for the project by negotiation with the Adelaide City Council?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: No, the timelines are all driven by our desire to upgrade the North Adelaide Golf Course by 2028. That is the critical date. Obviously we want to hold LIV Golf in the city in 2028, so if you work back from there that tells you why we are here and why we are discussing this bill.

Mr BATTY: Minister, is it your position that unless this bill passes tonight then LIV Golf will not be able to occur in North Adelaide in 2028?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: This bill is about providing certainty of delivery dates by 2028. Members opposite would be the first to criticise us if we did not meet our obligations and we did not meet that date. This provides certainty going forward about how we are going to do it and the manner in which we are going to do it.

Members can characterise it in various different ways. We often have these debates about other projects in the house. It is important. If you have a legislation of this nature, it provides an important level of certainty about the delivery—and in this case the design—of the upgrade of the North Adelaide Golf Course and, of course, the subsequent operations of the event as well.

Mr BATTY: So when did the minister first realise that there would not be a certainty of hosting LIV Golf in 2028 in the absence of this legislation? It strikes me that there has been a terrible mismanagement of the organisation of LIV Golf if the 2028 tournament is now at risk unless you rush through extraordinary legislation tonight. Did you just think of this today, or when did this realisation strike you that the 2028 LIV Golf tournament might be in doubt in the absence of this legislation?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Obviously we have been working on this since February, in discussions with Adelaide City Council, looking at the design work that is required and looking at all of the indicative timeframes that one might have to meet if we are to meet that 2028 deadline. This legislation is, if you like, the consequence of understanding what those timeframes are and understanding what we need to do to deliver the event. That is why we are here and that is why we are discussing the legislation.

Mr BATTY: On what date did you first give instructions to parliamentary counsel to draft this bill?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I think that would be covered by cabinet confidentiality, but obviously government has been thinking carefully about the delivery of what is already a very successful event. Those opposite might recall they opposed the event at the time. I think subsequently, after a leadership change, they thought better of it once they saw the success of the event.

We want to continue to deliver a successful event and we want to deliver it in the city. That will be an exciting opportunity for the city and the state, and it will help drive a whole range of economic and social benefits to the city and the state and a significant investment in the Parklands. What this bill does is facilitate investment in the Parklands in a golf course that the council itself had a master plan for but could not find the resources or the capacity to deliver.

That is not a criticism of them. It is just an understanding that this is a very significant project for the state. We want to facilitate it through this bill. Members can ask various technical questions, but I think the threshold question for the opposition is: do you support the state? Do you support development in the state? Do you support this event?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: When did you see the first draft of the bill?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Again, the honourable member is asking me a question he knows is covered by cabinet confidentiality. Of course I would not reveal that. Members can be here, asking these questions. The answers will be the same.

The CHAIR: It is not the minister's prerogative to break the confidentiality of cabinet.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: That is right. I am bound by cabinet confidentiality. I could quote to you what Chifley said about cabinets and caucuses. It is an important feature of our government, which I think the members were talking about before. It is an important feature of Westminster democracy, cabinet government, that cabinet confidentiality is preserved.

Mr TEAGUE: Having traversed as much as we have, it is still a mystery to me as to why we are sort of guessing as to the circumstances that have been playing out over these last months.

Mr Cowdrey: He is defensive about it.

Mr TEAGUE: Very defensive about it. We have sort of gleaned that there have been negotiations going on with the Adelaide City Council since about February, and we have known that the event is moving to North Adelaide for some little while now. Presuming the government has been going about the consideration and preparation of this legislation in an orderly way and has had this in its back pocket for little while, sort of ready all options—and you do not need to confirm or deny that, but that is just to give the government some credit for not operating in a mad panic—can the minister then advise the committee and rule out that this has been precipitated by some risk that there is another offer somewhere else coming in that is at risk of swooping in and taking the event from South Australia and you needed to act now in order to satisfy the owner-operator of the event that it is all is all hunky-dory, or that there is risk to some other aspect of the investment and the event is in jeopardy, hence the need to act immediately?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Back in February, the Premier quite clearly said that legislation might be needed. The honourable member is a former planning minister, so I think he has some experience in these things. To be clear, we want to deliver this project by 2028 because it will be a good thing for the state, a good thing for the event and a good thing for the city, so it is driven by that desire to invest in the North Adelaide Golf Course.

Of course, the honourable member would know and would have some experience when he was in government that with projects there is a series of metrics. Sometimes you watch the sand going through the hourglass, and you know you need to act. When you look closely at the step-by-step processes that are needed to deliver an outcome by a particular time, in this case 2028, and you work your way backwards and you see all the things that are necessary to make that investment and deliver that outcome, that is what has driven the government's actions, that is why we are here tonight, and that is why the legislation has the provisions that it has.

Clause passed.

Clause 3.

Mr COWDREY: In relation to clause 3, 'designated minister' is obviously referenced in several areas of the bill. Will you be the designated minister and, if not, who will be?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: If the member reads the section, it says that the minister is designated by the Governor, by proclamation, as the minister in whom the minister will vest under section 8. So it will be to whoever the Governor decides to give that responsibility.

Mr Cowdrey: Answer the question.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: That would be a matter on which I would imagine the Governor—not that I want to speak for her—Her Excellency, would take advice from the Premier of the day.

Mr Cowdrey: So, who is it?

The CHAIR: That's a hypothetical question at this stage.

Mr COWDREY: Alright, so you have no confidence that it is going to be you—that is something that is interesting anyway. In regard to the interpretation section, in particular I am interested in the project site and the definition of the project site interpretation. I mentioned in my second reading speech that I had not seen any reference from the government at this point to Park 27A and John E Brown Park. Whose idea was it that it was necessary for the minister to take control and to develop that park? Is that something that was a prerequisite provided to you by LIV Golf? Is that something that has been dictated to you by Greg Norman in terms of design of the golf course? Are you able to articulate why, for the first time, the public of South Australia is now privy to the fact that the government will be taking control and seizing John E Brown Park (Park 27A of the Adelaide Parklands) and why that is the case?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: John E Brown Park has an interesting history: it was named after a specialist in urban forestry who was brought out here from the United Kingdom by the state government and the council at the time, and we named a park after him. It is something of an irony that we named that park after him, because there is not much forestry in it. If the member walks through it he might find many things. He might find landfill that has been dredged out of the Torrens, he might find car tyres that are half buried in some sort of track. Sadly, he will find homeless people sleeping in tents. It is a very important thoroughfare for people in the western suburbs.

Many people would look at John E Brown Park and see an area that has not particularly been well cared for by the Adelaide City Council. The reason that particular park has been identified is that, during the design process, in order to provide a driving range, which is an important feature of golf courses and a particularly important feature in having people come and try and then move on to other areas of golf, which I referred to in my second reading speech, what drove the inclusion of John E Brown Park in the golf course—and that does not remove it from the Parklands and does not seize it (that is the wrong terminology to use; it just includes it in the golf course, it expands the golf course, and the golf course is an important feature of the Parklands, which the council themselves have operated for a very long time). This provides an ability to upgrade that particular park for a driving range, which then means we have to remove fewer trees on the golf course site itself. This is an important feature and has been driven by the design process and by a desire to limit the removal of trees as a result of the design upgrade.

Mr COWDREY: Sorry, I am getting more perplexed the more the minister talks, because he was talking earlier like the design process had really not started and that it could not start until we passed this bill because you would not have the parameters to then go to design. But, now you are telling us that the design has informed the bill. I am a little bit sceptical and confused as to how advanced or mature the design process is or is not, given the minister's answer to that last question.

We will come back to this when we get to clause 5, but I guess at first instance, out of the minister's answer, the pertinent question that arises is: was there any consideration to keeping the driving range within the existing footprint of the North Adelaide golf links given the fact that, as has been alluded to in the minister's second reading speech, the golf course is being reduced from two 18-hole golf courses and a par 3 golf course to a single championship golf course, so significantly fewer holes?

Notwithstanding the fact that there need to be wider fairways and obviously more space between and longer—I understand the practicalities of all of that—but you also alluded to earlier and it was alluded to during the briefing that there was going to be significant space that was available given the fact that we are going from such significant golf course holes to then just a championship course. Why was this not raised earlier with the public, that there was going to be additional land countenanced under the bill? And was there any consideration for keeping the driving range on the existing footprint or finding a way to make that work and, if not, why not?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The nature of design work is you obviously look at different options. That is not uncommon with all park design. That is why we have landscape architects and why we have golf course designers because, as the member would be aware, these are people with significant expertise in delivering world-class facilities and that is what this will be.

At the moment, as I understand it, as I am advised, there is no real driving range. There is an area that is used for driving practice when the golf course closes at different times. This will be a dedicated driving range. Of course, we explored putting it on the existing site, but, as I said before, that would necessitate more tree removals. We think that if the honourable member or the people of South Australia have that choice, more removal of trees versus putting the driving range in an at the moment underinvested in park, John E Brown Park, we think that they will take that choice to upgrade John E Brown Park into something that will get—

Mr Cowdrey: You could ask them. It's called consultation.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The honourable member says 'consultation'. You do not run straw polls on park design, you listen to experts and you have designers and you take the best advice so you can get the best outcome and you get the best outcome.

Mr Cowdrey interjecting:

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: That is the way. Let's have some respect for expertise.

Mr Cowdrey: Your expertise?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: No, designers of golf course expertise and the design process.

Clause passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The overriding of other state acts, does that mean that acts that cover government land acquisition and planning approvals are also overridden for this project?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The Land Acquisition Act would not apply here anyway. The Adelaide Parklands is owned by the state government. All that has happened historically is that we have given care and control to the Adelaide City Council and that has been a longstanding practice of state governments I think from colonial days. Under the Adelaide Park Lands Act, the previous one, the Adelaide City Council have to consent to any changes in land use. That is the only thing that is adjusted here. The Land Acquisition Act would not apply because it is already state government land.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Say, for example, a permanent structure was required for the event, or a future event on that land, who would make that decision? Would that need to go through SCAP, would it need to go through the Adelaide City Council, or would the minister grant that approval?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Working our way back—and this is in later provisions of the bill—the State Planning Commission is the relevant authority. You still have to go through a planning process, but it is deemed to satisfy and, of course, building rules, consents and all the other consents which are around disability access and safety and building standards will all still have to be met.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Where does it say that in the bill, that those acts are exempt? The disability act, for example; I cannot see that in there. But this bill says that this bill overrides every other act, except the Aboriginal Heritage Act. So how are you going to deal with disability? How are you going to deal with planning codes and approvals if these acts are no longer relevant to this bill?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: If you look at clause 11—Application of Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 etc—so it does not override it; it just applies in a particular way, and we can discuss that when we get to that relevant section.

Mr BATTY: I am interested in the note to this clause that: 'Nothing in this Act affects the operation of any Commonwealth law…', which I am sure must be enormously frustrating to the minister and a government that seeks total control and power. But I wonder what advice the minister has sought about what referrals, if any, might be required under the commonwealth's Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I have been a member of the commonwealth parliament, so I understand the commonwealth constitution very well. Even though we are a sovereign parliament, and that is a very good thing, we are still part of the federation and our glorious commonwealth. Of course, you would be aware that the EPBC Act has a self referral and if any applicant, or any entity thinks that they are caught up in those provisions they self refer and, of course, there are various provisions that relate to the environment minister and the National Heritage Council and the like. There have been plenty of cases in the Parklands where we have not been found to be caught up in that particular piece of federal legislation.

Mr BATTY: The Parklands, of course, are a national heritage place and my understanding is that a referral is required if it is an action that is going to have significant impact on the heritage value of the site. So my question is: will a referral be required in this instance?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Obviously as part of the process we will work through that and you self assess and self refer. That will happen in the course of delivering this project by 2028.

Mr BATTY: Regarding the minister's self assessment, does seizing power to take control of any portion of the Parklands and do what he wants with it impact the heritage value of that national heritage site?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The bill does none of the things that the honourable member asserts. It simply delivers an investment in the North Adelaide Golf Course, a golf course that has been there prior even to federation, as I understand the history of it, but certainly for a very long time, and it seeks to upgrade that golf course. It does not do any of the things that the member asserts in his question.

Clause passed.

Clause 5.

Mr COWDREY: My first question on clause 5 is on subclause (1)(a)(iii), which references 'certain road reserve areas in the vicinity of the areas listed in the preceding subparagraphs'. One would assume that that reference is to War Memorial Drive parking that is associated with the train station that is adjacent, or somewhere around there. Minister, given that you obviously have a sophisticated enough plan to be able to tell us where the driving range is going and you have considered other options for where the driving range could go, I am at the point of refusing to believe that you have no idea what the layout of the golf course is going to look like.

Are there going to be any changes to War Memorial Drive? Will there be a loss of parking along War Memorial Drive for those constituents of mine perhaps who drive into the city and park on War Memorial Drive prior to a football game or prior to coming in to work in the CBD? Clearly you have countenanced it enough to have its inclusion in the bill, and clearly you have a pretty decent idea of where the driving range is going to be, where it is not going to be and where the other holes would be situated. Can you give us some clarity in regard to War Memorial Drive and exactly what you are referencing that may or may not be changed in subparagraph (iii)?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: In relation to War Memorial Drive, it is obviously a very important road for the state and for the member's constituents, and I take his point. The operation of this act will mainly be during the building phase of the project. You might need to have lay down areas and you might need to close off parts of it for certain periods of time in order to facilitate the building, the construction or the upgrade of the golf course. It is for that purpose that we have included it.

Mr COWDREY: So, conclusively, there will be no realignment of War Memorial Drive? There will be no change to where the current road route sits?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: There is certainly no desire to do that by the state government. The state government would have powers over roads anyway. The Commissioner of Highways has powers over roads. This just gives important flexibility in terms of getting the project delivered, which is our main aim and the reason we are passing this legislation.

Mr COWDREY: My final question on this clause is again in reference to John E Brown Park. The minister referenced that he had made a decision, anticipating the view that the people of South Australia would have in regard to tree removal or otherwise, obviously making the assumption that the assertion made by the minister is correct in regard to the location of the driving range. I suspect I know the answer, but can the minister make it clear to the house if any consultation has taken place in regard to the John E Brown Park being included in the proposition to develop a golf course at North Adelaide?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Obviously, it was discussed with the designers because, as I said, it was design decisions that primarily drove the utilisation of John E Brown Park, and it has been discussed with council in the negotiations the state government had with them. Obviously, this is an area that needs investment. I think most fair observers, if they took the chance to walk through the site, would think it was a good thing. Of course, there is always a chance I am wrong about that, but generally speaking, I think people want Parklands to be utilised for some positive purpose. At the moment, John E Brown Park is underutilised. That is a description that I think is being very kind indeed.

Mr BATTY: Does subclause (1)(b) of this clause allow you to seize any section of Parklands to be captured by this act?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It gives the minister power to add areas to the GRO plan. The honourable member again uses language that is not correct. 'Seizing' is the wrong word. This is state government land already. You cannot seize what is already in public control. If the member wants to oppose the bill, he should be straightforward about it. He should be honest with his constituents and with the people of South Australia if he opposes the upgrade of a very important public golf course. In this case, we would only add land to the golf course area if it assisted in the delivery of the project and the upgrading of the course.

Mr BATTY: I guess we just have to take your word for it that you are not going to revert back to standard form, which is taking any bit of Parklands you want. We have seen it before at Park 21 West. Now, we see it here, not only with the two named sections of Parklands but also this extraordinary provision that says you can have anything that is necessary or desirable. What is the distinction between the words 'necessary' and 'desirable'? Why do we have to legislate to give you all your desires, minister?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Again, the honourable member cannot help himself. The state government already—for instance, I am the relevant minister for the cemeteries board. We have care and control of the West Terrace Cemetery. I am the minister for SA Water. There is a very important facility in North Adelaide, opposite the Piccadilly cinema, which is owned by SA Water. The Botanic Gardens are in the care and control of the state government and Botanic Park likewise.

So there are various areas in the Parklands for which different entities have care and control, and Adelaide City Council is a very important one, but the honourable member seems to think that this clause means anything other than it means. As I said before, we are trying to deliver an upgraded North Adelaide Golf Course, which is a public golf course. It represents a significant investment in the Parklands. That golf course has been there for decades and decades. It is now seeing the opportunity for an upgrade. It is very important. This clause just facilitates the upgrade, and the use of the words is necessary to deliver the project.

Mr BATTY: Perhaps I will turn to the two named sites, then. What biodiversity assessment has the minister done of Park 1 and Park 27A, and did that present any concerns about impacts to biodiversity and in particular to the eastern water skink, which is an endangered species found in Park 1?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: That is one of the areas that is in the design team's remit, and obviously they look at all of those features. This is a golf course, and of course, as the honourable member said—

Mr Batty interjecting:

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: No, it is the North Adelaide Golf Course and John E Brown Park and areas around that.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: In paragraph (b) it states:

..the Minister determines that it is necessary or desirable to include additional areas of land in the project site…

In that instance, how would the public be informed? Is there any obligation to inform the public that that is going to happen before it happens? Is there a process or right of appeal or challenge for such a decision?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: If you read further—it is not hard to read—the plan has to be deposited at the government registry office and has to be put in the Government Gazette.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: So there is no public consultation, just a government mechanism, and no advertising. Even select committees advertise in the media. When the government has a great new idea or some spending announcement, people get sponsored posts on their social media, they get things in their letterboxes and sometimes we even see ads on TV and on the sides of trams. You are saying that the only mechanism is to hide it in the Gazette, which has a readership of about 69 people in this building on a good day. That is the only mechanism that people get. Is it gazetted before it happens, or is it gazetted after it happens?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I have far more confidence in the Government Gazette than you do, and the 69 people who might be reading it are all people who are interested in the affairs of the state. So that it why it is the Government Gazette. Of course, it happens subsequent to the GRO plan being lodged.

Clause passed.

Clause 6.

Mr COWDREY: Earlier today in the briefing, the minister was not able in any way to give us an indication of how many leases or licences currently exist over the proposed site. I hope the minister has taken the time to go away and understand how many small business owners—or perhaps larger business owners; I am not sure—have existing leases and licences over the site. If he could read that onto the public record, and the years remaining on those leases or licences, it would be helpful for us to understand and would give context to the chamber as to how many affected parties there will be from a private business perspective. If he can also outline to us if any contact has been made by the government with any of those licensees or leaseholders.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It would be the Adelaide City Council which is the main entity. Of course, they manage a lease with the North Adelaide Golf Course. I think the Premier has had a number of conversations with the president of the golf course and with the club and the council. Obviously, we are going to be sensitive to those arrangements. There might well be private contractors and employees who work on site. One would anticipate, when you are upgrading a golf course, that it would mean more work, not less work, and more opportunity, not less opportunity. We are going to work through that process with the city council, obviously, and with the affected entities and employees.

Mr COWDREY: It has been alluded to in the media I think over the last couple of weeks—are there any restaurants or other venues that sit within that footprint that are going to be affected by clause 6 of the bill as proposed? As a follow on to that, has the government made any effort to understand the subleasing arrangements for other entities that may well sit under, say, the North Adelaide golf links or other potential restaurants or venues that sit on the area?

Off the top of my head, I am aware of a kiosk that sits up there. I am not sure if that is operated independently or if that is operated by the golf club itself. I do not have that detail off the top of my head. In regard to any other leaseholders, has the government countenanced any sort of compensation for those who are going to be negatively affected by the government essentially coming in and taking control of this land and putting aside existing leases and contractual arrangements that have been in place?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I think the member obliquely referred to the restaurant that faces the Torrens. I think that was one of his concerns. At the moment, the design does not incorporate that particular restaurant. The kiosk that he refers to is operated by the club, which obviously has an arrangement with council. Obviously, we will work with both the club and the council.

The Premier and the Hon. Mr Hunter went down there last week to meet with employees and the club more generally. This should not be a time for anxiety but excitement because it is an upgrade to what is a golf course in a beautiful location in something we all agree is a great cultural and social asset to the state, the Adelaide Parklands, and we want to see a good outcome there. So we will work with everybody we can, including the opposition, as we go forward.

Mr Cowdrey: Now.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Well, we always endeavour, where we can, to work with everybody along the way. It is not always an exercise in perfection, but we do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Mr COWDREY: Sorry, I had to contain my laughter inside on the back of the minister's last answer. In regard to the North Adelaide Golf Club, I guess consequent to the minister's answer, naturally, the next question involves the government's vision for the North Adelaide Golf Club moving forward. Is it the government's view that the North Adelaide Golf Club would continue to be a lessee either of the Adelaide City Council or of the government itself directly, moving forward?

Will the North Adelaide Golf Club still retain, post redevelopment, the operational licence for the North Adelaide golf links, or is this something that the government is effectively contemplating coming in, taking over and running itself and seeing, potentially, the golf club as a membership organisation to the side of the operation of the facility itself?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: No, the golf club is an essential part of the golf course and an essential part of this golf course's future. I think I said before that the Premier and the Hon. Mr Hunter met with employees last week and they have previously met with the golf club and its president, I believe. Obviously, there has been a very positive engagement and we want it to be positive. We see them as an important feature of a public golf course and we want to work with them to make a great public golf course, a world-class public golf course, which will be a really good thing for members and for the state and for everybody who chooses to visit our great city.

Clause passed.