Bills

North Adelaide Public Golf Course Bill

Committee Stage

Debate resumed.

Clause 7.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to the preparation for handover of the project site, as I understand it anyway, effectively the minister may determine what works need to be undertaken by Adelaide City Council to have the site up to his liking or desirable level of handover, and that there may be a range of activities that Adelaide City Council are tasked to undertake, but it does not appear to countenance any sort of compensation for that work being undertaken by Adelaide City Council. So can the minister give a clear idea of the scope of works that are contemplated under the clauses that are included, and whether Adelaide City Council will be provided with a level of funding to undertake those works?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: This clause is a clause that we have not anticipated the use of yet. It is in there—

Mr Cowdrey: It gives extra power just in case.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Well, you do things once and do things properly and, in terms of this legislation, we want to be able to deliver the project by 2028. This is a useful power for a minister to have in their negotiations with Adelaide City Council, but—

Mr Cowdrey: So it is a bargaining chip.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Well, it is not a bargaining chip.

Mr Cowdrey: You just said it was.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: No, I did not.

Mr Cowdrey: A useful tool to have in negotiations is a bargaining chip.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I said it is a useful tool to have because you can direct them if you need to, and then you can work out the arrangements to perhaps compensate them afterwards. It is an important provision. Of course, in all these things, member for Colton, when ministers engage with councils and others, often there is what is in acts and then you obviously sit down and talk things through about how you might deliver a particular project. That is all we seek to do here.

Mr COWDREY: Sorry—I am just getting over the statement that was just made by the minister, because the plain English reading of 'a useful tool to have in a negotiation' is also known as a bargaining chip. Colloquial language would simply tell you that that is the case. Despite earlier asserting to the house that this bill had nothing to do with the negotiation with Adelaide City Council, and that it was in no way a bargaining chip, the minister has just admitted that this is a bargaining chip. The inclusion of this particular section—

The Hon. N.D. Champion: I said the clause was a useful tool.

Mr COWDREY: The inclusion of this particular section of the act is simply here as a bargaining chip with Adelaide City Council to get them to undertake things that the minister sees fit, and then he may or may not contemplate to give them some remuneration for their work after the fact. The minister has quite simply said that he sees, at this stage anyway, no useful purpose for the inclusion but to cover all bases.

I am not sure what we are here to do tonight, but we are not here to grant the minister extraordinary power that he does not even contemplate using. That is in itself extraordinary. The process that we have had to get to this point has been extraordinary. The explanation by the minister has certainly not got close to the mark in terms of giving an understanding of why the government, the opposition, the parliament is here tonight debating this bill. Quite simply, at one point the explanation was because the grass needs to grow.

There is no contractual reason why this bill needs to pass, as came out of the minister's mouth in an earlier answer, so again I will pose the question as simply as I can: what was the impetus for us to be debating this bill today with powers that you are not even contemplating using? Is this a bargaining chip? Is this about negotiations with Adelaide City Council and nothing more than that?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The honourable member keeps working himself into a lather about issues which we have already discussed and countenanced. This is a useful power. Obviously, we will keep talking to council. It is the sensible thing to do. There might come a time in the project's life where it makes sense for Adelaide City Council to do something, and the minister might need this power to do it. If we came back in a couple of years' time with a new bill, the honourable member would be saying, 'Well, why didn't you include that in the bill we discussed?' This is an important power. It is not an excessive power. It is an entirely practical power for the minister to have, and the member is just getting himself worked up on issues that we have already traversed in a very significant way.

Mr COWDREY: I guess I will ask the question plain and simple then: have the minister and the government negotiated in good faith with the Adelaide City Council?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The government has had 17 meetings. That would signify a commitment of time and effort, which indicates goodwill on our part, and we will keep meeting with them, as we have to on so many things, but especially on this project. I understand the honourable member perhaps has to put questions in a particular way, but we are endeavouring to craft a bill that delivers a project which is important to the state, and ultimately very important to the city and very important to the Parklands. It means significant investment in the Parklands and significant investment and upside for the city itself.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I refer to subclause (4), minister, which provides:

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 be carried out…

Have you been briefed on what circumstances would require such a provision in a clause in this bill? Can you give some specific examples as to where you would use such a heavy-handed process?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: That subclause clause really relates to subclause (2), so it is really about the handover of the course and facilitating that.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Could you expand on that, then? What situation? Would it be a refusal or would it be taking court action or would it be some other legislation being introduced? How would you deal with it? What are some of the things that you were briefed about that you could actually do to enforce that power under that situation?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The member for Unley asks me to sort of peer into the future. To the extent I can, it is simply the enforcement mechanism for subclause (2). You need to have some mechanism, some enforcement mechanism, in order for the law to be effective.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: But you need a tool for the enforcement. Were you briefed on what tools would be available to you under this clause?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It is just the provision that obligates Adelaide City Council to comply with this particular clause related to handover. It is quite clear.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: No, it is not.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I have every confidence the Adelaide City Council will—

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: It is not clear at all. Well, why is this here then? Why is it in the bill if you have confidence?

The CHAIR: Member for Unley, you have asked a question. Allow the minister to answer the question.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It is in there so that subclause (2) can be brought into effect, and it relates to the handover of the course to the state government.

Clause passed.

Clause 8.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: In this clause, what prevents a change of use outside of the original purpose of this act once these powers are vested with, say, some future minister? Some future government might decide that it is no longer going to be Parklands. Does this bill actually give the minister the power to do that? Let's say LIV Golf pull up stumps. They do not want it anymore. It is an asset that is now a drag on the government and there is a move to find a solution and someone thinks they could approach the Walt Disney corporation to see if they were interested in that space, for example. The question is: what safeguards are in there to prevent a completely different use of that land that the minister may decide that the land is suitable for?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Clause 18 prevents that.

Mr COWDREY: Regarding clause 8(4), I just want to traverse the issue of War Memorial Drive and the road reserves because this is, again, where I am a little bit confused as to the wording. If we reference again clause 5, we talked about the road reserve areas in the vicinity of the areas listed in the preceding subparagraphs and you agreed at that time that that was in relation to War Memorial Drive as that is the only road reserve that runs between the two parcels of land that have been described. Then at subclause (4) it states:

(4) For the avoidance of doubt, any areas of road, or road reserve, that vest in the designated Minister under this section will, on that vesting, cease to be areas of road or road reserve.

So does War Memorial Drive suddenly not become a road or a road reserve given that it has been, as the minister indicated earlier, captured by clause 5(1)(iii) earlier in the debate?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: No. Later in clause 15 there is a whole section on roads. This mainly refers to small access roads, the likes of which already exist in John E Brown Park, so it is mainly there for that purpose.

Mr COWDREY: Again, just to be clear, clause 8(4) is a catch-all, right? So any of the areas of road or road reserve that vest with the minister are no longer road reserves, right? You said earlier that clause 5(1)(iii) captures War Memorial Drive. We had a discussion about parking and the fact that that would not be an issue and that, in terms of the project itself, there would be no consequences to War Memorial Drive being captured, apart from the fact that it may be closed from time to time for laydown areas or otherwise.

But the minister has sort of given a view to the committee that War Memorial Drive itself would be captured by clause 5(1)(iii). I can understand the minister's position if simply War Memorial Drive was not captured by clause 5(1)(iii), but, given the earlier answer alluding to the fact that it was captured but would only be closed due to there being a need to unload, offload or to secure deliveries or otherwise at certain points in time or to have a road closure, I am confused if it is captured by clause 5(1)(iii). Clause 8(4) seems to be a catch-all. It is irrelevant whether it intends to capture other things. It is captured by its very essence of being under clause 5(1)(iii), which the minister has said was the case.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I apologise for the confusion, honourable member . He was talking about parking and the like in the road reserve around War Memorial Drive. War Memorial Drive will only be captured if it is included in the map that the minister puts into the GRO. It is I think likely that areas next to War Memorial Drive might be captured, because there is an interface there. But if you look at clause 15—later on—there is a whole section about opening and closing roads and the measures, and it refers to the act, when we get to that.

There are two elements of this. There is, if you like, what is in the GRO map and then subsequent to that what the honourable member was talking about—parking on War Memorial Drive. So it would be the extent to which that map might encroach on those parking areas and may or may not be encroaching on the road itself. What this refers to is roads within the project area. So you can think: if the honourable member drives down opposite the Raptis fish markets at Bowden and looks in there is a small access road that goes into John E Brown Park, and, of course, there are access roads within the golf course itself.

Mr COWDREY: Just to 100 per cent clarify, the minister is essentially saying that War Memorial Drive itself will not be captured as part of the project site, despite the earlier answer.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Well, I was apologising for the confusion. The honourable member asked me about parking on War Memorial Drive. It is a very, very wide not so much road, but the verge along War Memorial Drive is quite wide in places, and some of that area would I think be potentially be in the GRO map. And we were talking about parking. So I think that is where the confusion arose.

What this section of the bill refers to is those roads within the project area. Of course the GRO map will be published, so members opposite and the public will fully understand what roads are included and which ones are not. As I said, clause 15 covers any other road closures that might need to occur.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Will roads that are adjacent to this site be subject to temporary speed reductions as the section of War Memorial Drive that runs by the Adelaide Oval is whenever the football is being played, and how many days of the year will we see 25 km/h zones along the roads from Port Road to Montefiore Hill and War Memorial Drive and other adjacent roads around the site?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Events always require analysis by traffic engineers and safety experts about how best to preserve pedestrian safety and how best to manage the event, so that is, I think, anticipated later on in the bill in terms of not so much the construction of the new upgraded golf course but the operation of the event itself. That gets left to the people conducting the event.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: So you are unable to answer whether temporary 25 km/h zones will be imposed around the around the site when events are on?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: If the honourable member has ever been to WOMAD, the Adelaide 500, the Supercars bp Adelaide Grand Final, the football or any of those events, these are normal things to manage events. Of course, the event coordinators would be guided by appropriate assessments of what is safe.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: So that work has not been done yet; is that what you are saying?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I would not expect it to be done at this stage. We are in, if you like, design and then construct and then when the event occurs that would be a matter that would be anticipated then.

Clause passed.

Clause 9.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to clause 9—Consultation requirements and protocol, which again, when you look at the clause itself, operationally seems reasonably redundant given the path that has been charted and given the legislation, but I will play devil's advocate with the minister. If the council comes back and says, 'We want to be consulted on every aspect of the proposal,' what does that look like?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Clause 9 does have consultation requirements in the protocol. Again, the member invites me to anticipate what may or may not happen at Adelaide City Council's end. I guess what I could say is that we want to consult appropriately with Adelaide City Council and we are going to keep that engagement up, but we also want to deliver the project by 2028 and we want to upgrade this golf course.

Mr COWDREY: When was the last time the minister met with Adelaide City Council in relation to the project?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It would have been at the last meeting of the Capital City Committee. I would have to find the date for the honourable member. The last time I spoke to the Lord Mayor, I think, was last week on another matter.

Mr COWDREY: Has the minister been party to any of the 17 meetings that he alluded to earlier?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: No, they have been meetings essentially between the council administration and the state government's Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Clause passed.

Clause 10.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: How will traditional owners be consulted if Aboriginal remains or objects are found during the excavation and building of the golf link, and what is the process if work must stop for cultural reasons?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: As the honourable member can see, clause 10 outlines that we will fulfil our obligations under the Aboriginal Heritage Act. We have lodged applications under section 21 and section 23, which essentially set out the protocols for exactly the circumstances that the honourable member anticipates in his question. Those protocols allow you to deal with those very important heritage matters.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Has any preliminary work been done to assess the risk, and are you confident that it is unlikely that there will be any delays caused by matters unknown, such as the discovery of remains or artefacts?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: In answer to the previous question, the last Capital City Committee meeting was on 28 May, just for the opposition's information. Section 21 and section 23 of the act put in place protocols which manage that. That act is used on many different projects around the state. It is an appropriate way of dealing with these matters in a sensitive, consultative manner, so that is the process we are going through.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: We are hearing tonight the urgency of this project. What you are saying is that there has been no preliminary work done in this area. There is only one act that needs to be complied with for this bill—this bill does not override the Aboriginal Heritage Act—yet from what I hear from your answer, minister, is that no preliminary work has been done to see if there is even a risk for this project.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: No, there definitely has been work done as part of the early design works. Given the history of this site, of course that is a prudent thing to do, as is lodging the relevant applications under the relevant act, sections 21 and 23.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: So work has been done. What was the result of that work?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The honourable member has to understand the outcome of that work is to lodge applications under sections 21 and 23 of the act. That is the appropriate way to deal with these matters. There are a range of sites around the state. In Noarlunga at the housing development there we have been through this process. Sections 21 and 23 are the appropriate mechanisms under the act to deal with it. You might do preliminary work, but of course you cannot predict what might be found in the course of construction.

Clause passed.

Clause 11.

Mr COWDREY: Minister, I did like the fig leaf that you tried to hide behind earlier in regard to the fact that the Planning and Design Code applies to the development.

The CHAIR: Member for Colton, I have been pretty patient. There is an element of argument and commentary going into the questions. Can I suggest you just ask questions? 'Fig leaf' is actually beyond the question itself, and there have been others that have been made. Can I suggest that you keep the language to specifically asking questions?

Mr COWDREY: I am not sure that there was an adequate description outside of that. At any rate, the claim from the minister earlier in his contribution to the debate made reference to the fact that the Planning and Design Code applies to this development. Of course, what he did not mention is that under clause 11(2):

All development proposed to be undertaken, for the purposes of the project, on the project site or the support zone will be taken to be classified by the Planning and Design Code as deemed-to-satisfy—

therefore leading to an automatic approval.

There is no mechanism of assessment for the State Planning Commission. That is the authority that gives the vested power under the design code to set out, but it does not have any power to have a look at the development that is being proposed by the minister and to perhaps have any sort of evaluation. So what the minister wants, the minister will get in terms of development proposed on the site, under clause 11(2). I just would like the minister to make that clear to people, because I do not think it is clear within this chamber and within the broader house that essentially anything that is proposed is going to be deemed to satisfy, therefore will be built on the site. That is my understanding.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Well, it should be your understanding. It was in the second reading speech and, if you check the Hansard, it is exactly what I said to you in the previous answer. That is exactly what I said to you. I said there is this whole section about the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act, and it all relates to deemed-to-satisfy. Of course, in the speech there is a clause about deemed-to-satisfy being in the PDI Act and about meeting the relevant building rules.

It is important for members opposite to understand that what we are endeavouring to do here is to deliver a project by 2028, to deliver for a very important event a very big upgrade and investment in the Parklands themselves, and this is the mechanism through the PDI Act that we are utilising to deliver that. It is not the only place where deemed-to-satisfy is used. It is used for a range of purposes in the act and, of course, it allows the relevant planning authority, in this case the state planning authority, to properly assess them.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Can the minister advise whether a permanent grandstand and function centre would fall under the deemed-to-satisfy development under this section?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Any works are going to be considered deemed to satisfy. Clearly, as part of the design process here looking at the clubrooms, which I think is important to make an assessment about whether they are fit for purpose—golf clubs need clubrooms, it would seem to be an obvious fact. Of course we want, as I said before, to deliver an event and an outcome for the state that is first class and top quality.

Mr COWDREY: Nobody is doubting what the minister has said—it is just the power that he has given himself in going about what he has in this particular way. The reference to there being other places that we do deemed-to-satisfy developments: yes, that is the case, but usually there is a code that sits underneath that, which has been thoroughly consulted on and gives rise to what is acceptable within that particular area of development that then you would deem something to satisfy against. Whereas what is being given here by the minister through the wording of this legislation, and in particular this clause, is a green light to anything that the minister sees fit, without any consultation with anybody, without any view being derived from impacted parties, perhaps, without there being any consultation from North Adelaide residents or others. It does not matter who it is: there has to be an acceptance from the minister that he is green-lighting himself to approve whatever he proposes.

Nobody on this side of the house is necessarily saying that it is a bad thing if there is some greater degree of framework around it, like saying, 'If that is to do with a clubhouse, if that is to do with a driving range structure that is no more than a certain height and includes what you would understand or see as what would usually be included in a clubhouse', or perhaps if we had some specifics in regards to what the minister was fundamentally wanting to see developed on the site. But the minister has not chosen to do that: he has basically said, 'Look, here's my magic lamp, if I rub it, it is going to turn green and I am approved, no matter what I put in there'. What the minister is proposing and trying to compare it with for deemed-to-satisfy pathways in existing areas where there are zones and clearly a framework that needs to be adhered to in terms of building heights through to—I mean, let's be fanciful. If the minister wanted to build the Walker Tower on this site, could he do that?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: You just proved why being fanciful is rather ridiculous, because in later parts of the act it says it has to be a golf course, a public golf course, and quite clearly—

Mr Cowdrey interjecting:

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Come on. I mean, be serious. I do not know what more we can do as a government when we put it in the second reading speech—

Mr Cowdrey interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Order!

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It is in the second reading speech, it is in Hansard in the previous question that you asked me, and it is here in the act. The member can engage in florid language and fanciful propositions, but this act ensures that this bit of Parklands, as it has been for decades and decades, is a golf course and will remain a golf course. We are trying to deliver a good outcome for the state.

Mr COWDREY: Okay, let's take a less fanciful example. I have been to numerous public golf courses that have apartment buildings on site. We know the Labor Party has a propensity for putting apartment buildings in the CBD. I am not saying that that is a good or bad thing, but I am saying that it is possible under what is being proposed here. It is not unusual at a golf course for there to be apartment buildings—that is not an unusual thing by any stretch of the imagination. For the minister to fall back on the fact that they have made it very clear that it has to be in regard to a golf course, the definition of that is not included in the act, as far as I am aware. There is no definition of what constitutes a golf course, what developments will be prohibited and prescriptive that can only be developed. Is there a definition of golf course in the bill that I have missed, minister?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Clause 18 delineates it as a public golf course. It has been a public golf course for all these decades and it will be a public golf course in the future. That is what this bill will facilitate. In terms of housing, the honourable member's own leader suggested there should be more housing in the CBD today, not in the Parklands, in the CBD, something I am happy to agree with him about. If you look at where the government is putting housing, it is putting housing at Southwark, putting housing at Bowden, putting housing at Prospect, putting housing at Seaton, all around the state, Noarlunga, Smithfield—

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Order!

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: There is housing going up in the CBD. Go to Tucker Street, go and have a look. You, member for Unley, would be happy to know that that housing in Tucker Street is for over 55-year-old women who are at risk of homelessness. So, let's just be clear: this is about the delivery of a public golf course, not for housing, not for office blocks, not for any of this other stuff, and, obviously, as part of the process, we have given numerous undertakings about negotiating with the club and the council, talking to them, consulting with them, let's not get into fanciful fantasies about this. That is the proposition. It is quite clear what the government is trying to achieve here.

Mr TEAGUE: Perhaps to take another view of it, and let's all get enthusiastic for a moment about what might be among those deemed to satisfy development plans for the project, and, among those entities who would be included in those not consulted about the bill, I take it will be the North Adelaide Golf Club and its members. I understand the patron of the club is the Lord Mayor. Maybe that is ex officio, that close connection. We read that the North Adelaide Golf Club has been in existence since the 1890s. The council has adverted specifically to its association with the North Adelaide Golf Course's care and control for more than 100 years and that points to a longstanding heritage at the site.

Indeed, I think the club goes on to say that it might be the longest lasting club at its original site, so there are lots of continuity and heritage involved. Is there any reassurance, encouragement or indication in relation to the plans, as far as the adequacy of the golf club building facilities, that investments there will look to honour that heritage, enhance what is there, be faithful to the history, all those sorts of things from the golf club perspective or, on the other hand, is it really transformative and yes, there is a long history but it is about to change and there will be quite significant dramatic change altogether?

I am not closely familiar with those clubrooms that are there. From time to time and in my distant memory, I have played the odd round over the years. I cannot think of exactly what shape they are in right now. Just like the old scoreboard and the stands at the Adelaide Oval are heritage that is good to maintain, is it a matter of building on that heritage or is it a matter of a fairly thoroughgoing transformation?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I think we covered off on this when we talked about the leases earlier. I do not know if the honourable member was here in that part of the debate, but we talked about the club, in particular, being an essential feature of the future of what is a public golf course, an absolutely essential feature. As I understand it, the clubrooms themselves are not heritage listed. They are not particularly important in that respect, but the club absolutely is. The club has a long history and, of course, as I understand it, there is a fair degree of enthusiasm amongst the members for the future, because obviously they will be members of a better golf course.

Clause passed.

Clause 12 passed.

Clause 13.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Just referring to replacement trees, the clause provides:

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.

How does that compare with what farmers must do, for example, if they are removing trees and what replacements do they need to provide and why are we being so mingy with seedlings? Why are we not putting semi-mature trees in? There are companies, interstate, in particular, that actually are in the business of growing trees specifically for this purpose, so the wildlife does not have to wait years before it can return to the trees it was once using in that area where the trees were removed. Has the minister been advised as to whether there will be any century-old red gums that will need to be removed for this project?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The design process continues, and obviously the focus is on absolutely minimising the impact on trees, and there is a vast number of trees on site, so we are trying to minimise that number down. The member makes a fairly good point about seedlings versus semi-mature trees and, of course, that will be up to the designers.

Trees are desirable on golf courses. I heard about the member for Heysen hacking around some golf course. Every golf course I have ever been on—I was just thinking back to Kapunda Golf Course back when they had the old black scrapes. Even there there were trees. He makes a good point and, of course, I think the designers will take that into account.

This just simply lays down a fairly generous ratio in terms of government projects and the operation of the Native Vegetation Act, and I can understand members' contributions regarding it. I come from country South Australia, I grew up with farmers, so I understand the point. But essentially the Adelaide Parklands is not rural South Australia, it is an urban park and so these are the rules that apply on this occasion.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Just so I understand this, I am having a bit of trouble understanding how a park is designed determines whether you plant saplings, which will become semi-mature in five or 10 years, or you put semi-mature trees in straightaway to speed up the process. How does that affect the design? The only reason you would use saplings is being mingy and not spending the extra money for the trees that have been grown for the purpose of minimising the impact of tree removal for such developments.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It is not the only reason. We do not want to be cheap. We are putting significant public investment in the Parklands, and this is obviously going to showcase South Australia. So it is not a desire to be cheap. The reason why the flexibility is left in there is because there might be an availability issue. You may be able to get semi-mature trees or you might not, and there might be particular varieties, native or otherwise. All of those things might drive the design.

This provision gives a ratio and gives some flexibility in that ratio. Obviously, this is a government that has changed tree regulation fairly significantly. The honourable member himself has lobbied me about Unley city council, and I think that was informative in some of the changes we made. We are not attempting to be cheap. I think this clause gives a ratio and then gives flexibility to the designer within that ratio.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to trees, obviously the development of golf courses and the design of golf courses generally are not necessarily done in the same context as a Parklands precinct that has significant biodiversity requirements, for lack of a better term, that are captured or particular species that are endangered or otherwise that are identified as being part of the Parklands.

My question is: in regard to the design of the course, and in particular trees, are there requirements or was there work done by, say, the Department for Environment or others in regard to what trees should be used on the course? Are we effectively having native trees going in that you would expect to be in that environment? Or is free rein being given to the course developer to put in whatever they see fit in terms of course design? Or is it quite literally going to be like for like in terms of existing local species that have been in place for obviously a significant period of time?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Every so often I look at historic photos of the Adelaide Parklands. It is particularly interesting to look at the design of Victoria Square back around the turn of the century. But if you look on the golf course site, if you go back decades, it does look quite different and there has been quite a bit of planting there over the last few years. I think that planting was more a result of enthusiasm rather than any level of sophistication.

Of course, as part of the design team, we are going to incorporate some thought about how to appropriately replace trees as part of that process. Obviously, you would look at a whole range of things: suitability to climate, an ability to provide the native species and a whole range of other issues when you come to do that, as well as designing a top-class golf course.

Mr COWDREY: The minister referenced the fact that those things would be taken into consideration, but has there been any formal work in terms of due undertaking or a report of, 'This is what we expect to be going in. These are the sorts of trees or species that would naturally and normally be within that particular area'? We obviously had the discussion slightly earlier in terms of endangered species that exist within Park 1.

Has that work been done to this point? If not, will it be done, and will DEW have any input and say over the trees and the species that go into the design of the golf course? Or will it be dictated the other way around, where the golf course designer will dictate and pick what trees go in there without input coming from DEW or others who are better qualified to provide expertise in regard to the species and trees that you would naturally see in the area?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The design team is obviously talking to the relevant government agencies, including DEW, and also the golf course designer, so there is a sort of process there. As we said before, the broad principle—and the Premier reiterated it today—is that we all know that some trees will be removed as part of the redevelopment of this golf course. That is an unfortunate by-product of progress.

But what we are giving here in this clause is a replacement ratio and some broad flexibility within that. If you like, this is sort of legislative protection. Of course, there will then be a whole lot of design work because, as I was reminded before, trees are an incredibly important feature of a golf course, particularly a world-quality one. So every effort is going in to preserving trees and to avoid the replacement of them, and we have given a replacement ratio that I think is appropriate.

Mr COWDREY: Given in the minister's answer he has brought in the golf course design team, it is a question that I have been meaning to ask to this point: what process was undertaken by the government in selecting the golf course designer? Was there an open tender process? What was the process that was undergone to select the golf course designer?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I suppose it is not pertinent to the bill so much as the bill enabling that to go on. There is a design team and then there is Greg Norman Golf Course Design, and they have been contracted by the state government to deliver the public golf course in this case.

Mr Cowdrey: Through what process?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: We have contracted them.

Mr Cowdrey: But how were they selected?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I would have to take that on notice and come back to you. It is not in my portfolio area, and I do not think it is relevant to the bill.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Can the minister advise how many established trees will be removed? The opposition has been advised that a preliminary figure of about 600 established trees will need to be removed for this project. Are you able to indicate whether that is a figure that is reasonable to expect, or is that an exaggeration or an underestimate of how many established trees will be lost and replaced with saplings?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I would not agree with the way the honourable member characterised the end of his question because he invokes in the mind of the house some enormous tree being replaced by a sapling. Of course, there is a range of trees and plants on the golf course of varying different sizes and maturities. As I said before, the principle of the design process is to reduce the number of trees that we might need to remove, and we have given a ratio in this process.

As I said before, this has been a golf course for a very long time. Obviously, over that time there have been various works on it and various trees planted, and so it will be true of this process. We will get a world-quality golf course in the eyes of not just the nation but—I cannot remember the figure I gave—some enormous viewership, looking on Adelaide, looking on not the Grange golf course, as lovely as that is, but on the city.

Of course, we want to have the best possible view of that event and of our city. The preservation of trees is obviously an important part of that. Where we do have to remove them, we will be replacing them—and there is a ratio here. There is some flexibility given there, but, as the member for Unley himself admits, there is a range between seedlings, saplings and semi-mature trees, and the design team and the golf course designers will make the appropriate judgements about that in consultation with the relevant agencies.

Mr TEAGUE: I rise to address the clause. Insofar as we have, on the one hand, the expectation of the investment towards a world-class championship golf course with exquisite playing conditions and all the rest—famous courses around the world come to mind, and the Augusta in Georgia is sort of the pinnacle.

The Hon. N.D. Champion interjecting:

Mr TEAGUE: We can get parochial about these things. The point is really: what work is clause 13 doing, really, in the context that, as the minister says, it might be expected to be an aspiration to provide something that is going to provide an aerial view for a global audience, no doubt with a view to showcasing the precinct? To have this 'remove one and put in three' seems like a pretty baseline kind of stipulation to include in the bill. Is it not the case that the aspiration would be significantly better than to remove a tree and fulfil obligations, pursuant to a bill, to put in three trees or something? Rather, the questions that have been asked already about who the design team is and what their capacity is to choose the plants and trees and all the rest of it that is going to enhance the golf course are the more important points.

I guess it goes to: why is there this clause in this bill in particular? Why not, if it is just a matter of a blunt replacement of trees, lean on general criteria elsewhere? Surely the aspiration of the redevelopment is to do much better than what clause 13 is requiring?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I think clause 13 gives a positive duty to do something. A design team might go further than that, and that would be a good thing. Obviously, they are setting out to reduce the number of trees being removed, and part of our discussions about John E Brown Park and the driving range—some of our decisions around that—have been driven by the desire to not remove trees. If we did not have this clause in the act and we were relying on some general principle, the member might ask us to put something in, and that is why we put something in. We totally understand everybody asking questions about it, but it would seem to me to be a self-evident, positive action in the bill.

Clause passed.

Clause 14.

Mr COWDREY: This particular clause we have sort of touched on, to this point, in regard to areas designated as support zones to allow for the installation of a range of services or otherwise that may be required. My rudimentary knowledge of the golf course as it stands is that, in particular, the southern course, I believe, is irrigated in a much better way than the North Course—that the North Course effectively requires sprinkler heads to be rolled out from in-ground pots that are then carried out to where the particular spot is on the golf course. If you look at how it is maintained traditionally, I would say that it probably gets a little dry from time to time—the North Course in particular compared to the South Course.

At this juncture, I guess, given in particular that at subclause (2)(a) the very first thing called out is utilities, the question is actually in regard to water and irrigation and what work is actually going to be needed to make this happen, and how that is going to be paid for. Is that something that is going to sit outside of the SA Water reg process? Is that something that is going to be SA Water maintained because I imagine there is going to be some level of upgrade of the existing mains infrastructure required to service what will need to be world-class greens that will need to be watered considerably more than what is going on at this current point in time, let alone getting into the intricacies of who is going to be paying for the water and all those sorts of things down the track?

But at first instance, in terms of the requirements around water main infrastructure, are there any upgrades that will be necessary? I would hazard a guess there is definitely going to need to be some. Who is going to be responsible for those?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: We are assuming, as I think the design team are assuming, that those infrastructure costs are going to be part of the project costs. That said, in terms of the city network, with my SA Water hat on, I can tell you that there are parts of the CBD which have adequate sewer and water pressure, and then there are parts of the CBD where there is pressure on—

Mr Cowdrey: This is North Adelaide?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Not necessarily. SA Water is currently doing network design across the CBD, as they are in many other areas, because we want to make sure we have an understanding of, I often call it the invisible network beneath our feet, which we all take for granted. We all take water pressure, water security and sewer for granted. But we do need to do some analysis of the city. SA Water is doing that at the moment. As far as this bill is concerned and as far as these costs can be anticipated, we anticipate them coming out of the project costs.

Mr COWDREY: Will the expected upgrades to the network be undertaken by SA Water themselves?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: That would depend on the scale of the works. Down at Southwark, we have already had to spend a bit over $20 million in water and sewer upgrades, and you would not have anticipated that—I do not think anybody anticipated that when the West End site first presented itself as a housing opportunity, and same with Seaton and other projects.

Members opposite, I do not want to bore you with water and sewer infrastructure, but the analysis that is needed to be done by SA Water is very sophisticated. Often you find that there are pleasant surprises, but more often than not there is complicated engineering work. It would depend on the nature of the upgrade and the nature of the engineering work.

That said, we have already done Southwark, and I have been advised by David Ryan that the upgrades at Southwark support growth, would you believe, right the way back to Mitcham. So it is an integrated system, but it has often localised, if you like, capacity issues. There will be two processes: the design team's process about local infrastructure and use, and then obviously if there are significant upgrades they might well fall into SA Water's category because they will probably service much more than just the golf course.

Mr COWDREY: You have frequently referenced to this point the design team. Are you able to give us an idea of how many people are in that team within DPC, and are those people entirely dedicated to the design of the North Adelaide Golf Course? You mentioned that there was a contractual arrangement with the Greg Norman design team, but in terms of the design team that sits within DPC, how many people are within that team, how many FTE, and to whom do they report?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Obviously, I want to give the opposition a degree of certainty and confidence. Essentially, there is a team within DPC, and Greg Norman Golf Course Design has been contracted under all the relevant departmental rules to basically provide that service. Obviously, it is a complicated project. This clause talks about all of the things that might be needed, and I think it goes back to when the honourable member was saying, 'Well, why now?' You get an idea, and the honourable member has alluded to some of the challenges. The reason why we are presenting this bill is that this is a really significant complex project. We have a good design team—

Mr Cowdrey interjecting:

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Well, that is a question for another day, it is not a question for the bill. The important thing is we are giving that design team the legislative grunt, if you like, to get the job done.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Minister, will the water infrastructure be an extension of the purple pipe system that went in about 15 or 16 years ago? Are we using recycled water or are we using drinking water to feed the grass on this development?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: That would be something that the design team would have to assess. Obviously, availability, grade of water and what kind of outcome you are going to get from it would all be relevant factors.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Is the recycled system that was installed a decade and a half ago a responsibility of the state government to maintain? Is it still being used? Can it be extended? Have you done any work? It seems a very strange answer to say it depends on a design phase. If you have to put in water infrastructure, it is a decision as to whether you extend the existing recycled system or whether you bring freshwater in that has gone through the desalination plant or come from a reservoir. It is not really a design decision; it is really an environmental decision. Have you given any instructions that you would like to investigate, but with your design team, about whether the recycled system can be extended, and is the recycled system suitable for a golf course of this quality? Is it too salty? Have you made inquiries as to whether it is suitable for the project?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The honourable member in part answers his own question. What will inform the design team's choice is: is the water of sufficient quality to create a world-class golf course? Of course, that will then drive every decision back from that, and these will be things that have to be examined as part of the overall design and as part of the overall infrastructure to support it.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Will any of the money that is being collected with the levy on building more trunk sewer and water systems for new housing developments be used to fund the new water and sewerage services required for the golf course?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: No. The $1.5 billion investment in water and sewerage has been fully allocated. It is a little bit far away from your old stomping ground in Salisbury, but if you go to Craigmore Road you can see the massive pipes that have been installed. They are just about to send a small tunnel-boring machine under the rail line at Elizabeth North and then down Curtis Road in my electorate, and the electorate of the Deputy Speaker, all the way out to Riverlea. We were just talking about that in question time today.

That money is allocated. It is being spent. We have made investments adjacent to the city, at Southwark. Those investments might well assist, because they have a general benefit to the location, but we do not anticipate making an allocation out of the $1.5 billion worth of infrastructure the government has put in for this project.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Is there a special allocation for water infrastructure from SA Water, or is it coming from DPC, or is it coming from somewhere else?

The CHAIR: Member for Unley, you have asked your three questions.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: It is a supplementary question.

The CHAIR: No, it is not. Any other questions?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Well, the minister can answer that question.

The CHAIR: No, I am ruling he cannot.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Why are you hiding it, Tony? It is a cost-of-living question. Why are you not being transparent?

The CHAIR: Member for Unley, you will withdraw that remark, or you will be asked to leave. It is your choice.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I withdraw the remark.

The CHAIR: Right.

Clause passed.

Clause 15.

Mr COWDREY: Again, we will go back to roads. We have traversed War Memorial Drive. I think the answer that the minister gave was pretty clear. I did like his sneaky exit out the back door, but that is okay. In regard to roads, and in particular closures, is the government envisaging a point in time when War Memorial Drive will need to be closed for an extended period, or are we talking, as was sort of referenced earlier, that it will be ad hoc at times to unload or load, as opposed to whole road closures? Are you able to give us an understanding of what is envisaged?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: If you look at subclause (1), 'by notice in the Gazette, temporarily close', that would seem to be quite clear: temporarily closed.

Mr COWDREY: I did not say permanently closed, but temporarily.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: As we discussed before, there will be significant—

Mr Cowdrey interjecting:

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I cannot anticipate what the design team and the people constructing it will do occasionally. Move around the city on any day of the week and you will find road closures, which people find annoying. It happens quite frequently. It is happening on Curtis Road very shortly, because we are putting water and sewer pipes under it. If you construct things, there will be temporary closures and there will be partial closures. Obviously, in the construction of any project you try to minimise the temporary inconvenience to others, and I think that is set out in the clause.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to the interaction between roads, the support zones and the site itself, during the construction phase—and again, I am not au fait with the intricacies of the Building Code and requirements in terms of fencing and the likes—will there be a requirement for the whole of the site to be fenced?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It is the intention of the design team to do it in stages. I think three holes at a time was mentioned, but it might be a bit more. Obviously, that allows you to appropriately secure a site, as much for public safety as for any other issue. That is the way I think they intend to proceed, rather than fencing off everywhere while they construct it. It will be done in a staged way.

Mr COWDREY: As a follow-up to that question, when you take possession of the site, given the answer that you have just provided that it will be done in a staged way—number of holes, etc.—will either the North Course or South Course be kept open as you start works on presumably the other?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It is the government's intention to keep the golf course open for as long as we can while upgrading it in stages. Obviously, there is a benefit: it keeps everything moving. It keeps construction and the upgrade moving, it keeps the golf course working and it keeps workers in their jobs and that is obviously an important thing for a Labor government to do.

Clause passed.

Clause 16.

Mr COWDREY: Minister, we discussed this earlier today in the briefing and the word that was used in the briefing was 'if'. The operative word in the clause itself is 'may'. The minister, obviously, in the construction of this clause, gives himself the ability not to return any of the existing arrangements back to the existing parties, so are you able to make a commitment today that the government will not retain possession of the site after the redevelopment is finished?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The provision provides the mechanism by which a minister would make that decision. It does not oblige the minister to make that decision. As I pointed out before, the state government already has the Botanic Gardens, the West Terrace Cemetery and the very beautiful underground aquifer owned by the state government through SA Water.

Whilst in our mind Adelaide City Council has ownership over the Adelaide Parklands, in reality it is an asset for the people of South Australia and it is managed by various different entities, the council being one of them. It is a very important entity; no doubt, very important indeed. I talk to Adelaide City Council often, as I talk to all local governments. This gives us a mechanism for that process to occur and obviously we will just keep talking to Adelaide City Council in the way we have in the recent past and will do so in the future.

Mr COWDREY: The problem you have, minister, is that you have a great tell: you smile too much when you are alluding to particular issues. I guess we are getting to the crux of this as well. Is this the sticking point? Has this been the sticking point in negotiations? I can understand that Adelaide City Council may be very keen to get back an asset that they have probably invested a significant amount of money and time in over a significant period of time that derives a degree of revenue for them and I can also understand on the state government's side of the equation that, given the amount of investment that is proposed, they may potentially be very keen to hold onto the asset moving forward.

Again, I will ask the question, because all we are simply trying to do here is ascertain your intention and your intention is not made clear by the words that are included in the clause because there is a very strong word within the first three followed by a comma, which is the word 'may'. As you said, it provides you with a vehicle, but it does not ensure that you do that. So, again, I am asking you the intention of the government. Is it the government's intention to maintain the site after the redevelopment is complete, or will you be returning it to Adelaide City Council?

Mr COWDREY: Again, it is not a question of returning it to Adelaide City Council. This is an asset for the whole state. The Adelaide City Council has obviously made an investment over decades, but they themselves did a whole master plan in 2018 and then did not take the decision to invest in this site. That is just a matter of public record.

In John E Brown Park we are talking about dryness. I mean, go down to John E Brown Park. I bet if we ran the LiDAR over there that would show up as a pretty hot space, because bare earth radiates heat. If it was our intention just to continue to operate this, then this clause would not even be in the bill, would it—if that was our intention?

Mr Cowdrey interjecting:

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: No, no. What our intention is in clause 16 is to provide the mechanism by which we would reach an agreement with council about how this very important state asset, after it has had a very important investment in it, might—may, and 'may' is the operative word, make no doubt about it, but that is why the clause is there: so we have a mechanism to do that, should the minister, may the minister, wish to.

Mr COWDREY: So again we have, a couple of clauses earlier, a bargaining chip, one to be used as a very powerful tool in negotiations, as referenced by the minister himself, and then we get to this clause. I do not want to cast aspersions on the minister's intent, but I could see how the Adelaide City Council may interpret the word 'may' here as a threat—let's be real.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It is not a threat. It is an opportunity.

Mr COWDREY: The minister responds and says, 'It's not a threat. It's an opportunity.' That is similar to how the bullyboys in Ganglands and that sort of stuff interpret things.

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: An offer too good to refuse.

Mr COWDREY: An offer too good to refuse, as the member for Unley says. I do not think I can ask this in a way that is simple, that will elicit a response from the minister, because he clearly has no interest in responding to the question put to him directly. I simply end the contribution by saying that if the minister's intent as described is there then the word 'may' does not need to exist in this document. It can simply be removed. The minister could have brought it to this place without the word 'may' in two specific places, and exactly what he has just outlined could have been achieved, but he has chosen not to do that.

One can only think and deduce that the intent that has been provided by the minister is not the real intent that sits behind what has been introduced to this place today. I do not think that is controversial to say, but essentially we have the minister here, as he calls it, providing an opportunity to the Adelaide City Council; some would interpret that as a threat. We have a bargaining chip on the table, described by the minister himself as—what was it—a strong tool for negotiation. I think it is pretty clear now what this bill is all about. It is a strongarm tactic, simple as that.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I do not know quite how to respond to that. I mean, the honourable member wants to make me out to be like some sort of Tony Soprano figure, and I am Mahatma Gandhi. I do not know what you are talking about. I am trying to be very reasonable, as we always are reasonable in our negotiations with the Adelaide City Council, and we are entirely consistent. What this provision I think very generously provides in the future, once a massive investment is made, is the opportunity to reach a sensible arrangement with the council.

Clause passed.

Clause 17.

Mr COWDREY: In terms of the declared period—and again, later in the bill it steps through in more detail—as I understand it, in some of the provisions that we have gone past and I did not ask specific questions on, there can be more than one declared event. My understanding of the public commentary to this point in regard to the golf course is that essentially the use of the course has been described as 'it will be a public course for 361 days of the year'—

The Hon. N.D. Champion interjecting:

Mr COWDREY: —whatever the event timeframe is, over three or four days, and a public course for the remainder of that. What I am trying very hard to understand here is: the minister has obviously left it open for other events to come, so you clearly do not see that public availability will be for all 362 days, otherwise there would be no clause needed to add additional events. So the line that the government has been spinning around this being available to the public for 362 days a year is clearly just inaccurate. Why would they have left in this bill a mechanism for them to declare other events, whether that be PGA championships, state championships or otherwise?

The line in terms of public availability to the course—because remember, we are only talking about a single championship course now, not two courses, where an event like a charity day could take place on one course and then there could still be public availability on the other course if there was an event to be held in the current set-up. What is being proposed by the government limits public availability if an event is occurring. That is clear: there is only one course, there is only one way of skinning the cat.

My question to you is: does the government stand by its public statements to this point in regard to the course being available but for the LIV Golf period and, if so, why have they included a clause in this bill to allow for other events to be declared?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Obviously, this allows for LIV and that is the main event that we have been talking about. But if the state was lucky enough to get more events, that would be a good thing for the state, would it not? That would be a good thing for jobs, that would be a good thing for tourism and it would be a good thing for the state. We like events, as you know: we like car races, we like golf, we like footy. We like events. They are good things for the state: big economic generators and big employment generators. So it is self-evident that your reading of the clause is correct.

Mr COWDREY: So it is an admission by the minister that the course will not be available to the public for 362 days a year as the minister has previously said?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: No. It might well be, or there might be future events. I do not know; I cannot predict the future. If the state gets offered a great event, you would be a fool to say, 'No, no, no, we are going to say no.' We would not say no. We like events. Events are good: good for jobs, good for the city, good for the state. So self-evidently this gives the minister the ability not just for LIV but for other events. I am simply saying the member is accurate in his interpretation of the clause but perhaps not in his political rhetoric.

Mr COWDREY: So the minister has just admitted that he wants this course for other events. Do those other events include concerts? Are we opening up the course to host? Are we going to be taking things into the course? 'Other events'—the minister does not specify that it is just golf events that he wants on the course. He likes events, he wants events, he wants events in North Adelaide and he wants events on this new course. It is not going to be available to the public 362 days as has already been committed by the government. So, minister, can you make it clear what events you want at the golf course, and are you saying that there will not be music concerts and festivals that will take place on the new North Adelaide Golf Course?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It is a public golf course; it is not conducive to a music concert.

Mr Telfer interjecting:

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Just think about it logically for 15 seconds.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Just think about it logically for 15 seconds: we already have WOMAD in another section of the Parklands and we have already had other concerts in other areas of the Parklands. We are spoiled for choice in that department. Why the opposition would say, 'You've got some secret plan'—it is just ridiculous. It is a golf course. It is quite clear what it is there for.

Clause passed.

Clause 18.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: This clause provides for the general operation of the golf course. It states:

(a) the North Adelaide Golf Course must continue to operate as a public golf course; and

(b) the area of land comprising the North Adelaide Golf Course must not have permanent fencing around its perimeter for the purpose of excluding members of the public from the golf course land.

Does that extend to prohibiting permanent fencing components—for example, fence posts that remain while the fencing is removed? Will you rule out that you will use that type of temporary fencing? So, when LIV Golf or any other pay-to-enter event is occurring at that golf course, will every component of the fence be temporary or just parts of the fence? Will there be permanent parts of the fence with openings that will be closed when the event or other events are happening at the site?

I am really looking for you to confirm, minister, that there will not be signs of fencing when there are no events at the site. It is really quite specific. It says that it does not exclude members of the public from the golf course land. That is the only requirement that the non-fencing period requires, that they can still enter. It does not say that they need to—

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It says 'must not have permanent fencing around its perimeter for the purpose of excluding members of the public from the golf course land'. It is pretty clear.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: No, it is not clear at all. It can be incomplete fencing. It can be components of fencing that remain that are ugly when you are using the site for other purposes—walking the dog, looking out your lounge room window or whatever. I am asking whether the temporary fencing will be permanently removed after every event, or will there be permanent fixtures that temporary fencing will be attached to when it is required?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: No permanent fencing—that is what it means.

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni interjecting:

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Either you want the answer or you do not. It is like you are wilfully misunderstanding it.

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni interjecting:

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: And now you are jumping up.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: It does not say 'no permanent fencing'. It has a qualification that says that it stops people entering. It does say permanent fencing will not be there. It does not say that. It is only permanent fencing that stops people from entering. That is what it says. It does not mean there cannot be gates. It does not mean there cannot be posts that are left there when the fencing in between those posts is removed. That still allows people to enter. That complies with the legislation. I am asking you: is that the intention of the legislation, or is that an error? Is that an unintentional consequence of the rush to get this legislation into the parliament? It is very clear, minister. The only qualification is that it is not allowed to stop people entering. That is the only qualification.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: You keep saying the same thing like it is the truth. The honourable member just keeps bellowing the same thing over and over again. I do not know how much clearer the government can be: 'must not have permanent fencing around its perimeter for the purpose of excluding members of the public from the golf course land'. That is quite clear what it means in both spirit and intent.

Mr TEAGUE: Just to contribute to the debate—and I appreciate the member for Unley going there, and I understand that the minister's answer. But it is even more explicit than that in subclause (2), in that subclause (2) just rides over subclause (1) altogether. It provides:

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) prevents the erection of fencing or other barriers in relation to particular areas forming part of the North Adelaide Golf Course where the Minister is satisfied that the erection of the fencing or barrier is necessary or desirable for reasons of public safety, the security of any property or otherwise for a good purpose.

No bellowing, no repeating propositions. It is clear on the face of it that, if (1)(b) was, in the minister's view, clear enough that it was ruling out any form of barrier fence going up permanently, then subclause (2) just rides over that altogether if the minister at any stage forms a view that it is desirable for a good purpose to put a permanent fence around the whole golf course. That is a matter of legislative drafting.

The minister can give an indication that that is not going to happen, that it is not the government's intent or that a clear objective of policy and the purpose of the bill is to ensure that what you see now is what you are going to get into the future in terms of being able to freely access the golf course in the way that we can all see it now. That's not what the legislation says and, very specifically, it is not what subclause (2) provides for.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The member for Heysen puts a point reasonably. We have set out in the legislation that we do not want a permanent barrier, that we want the public to be able to traverse the golf course just as they do now, but you always need to leave a provision for public safety. For instance, the golf club itself might have to be fenced for security reasons. That is why it is in there and I am happy to indicate that to you, but the government's intent is quite clear: we want this to be a public golf course, we want public access. It is the Parklands and we want to invest in this site for the people of South Australia, not fence it off.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to subclause (1)(a), I just want to get some clarity on future use of the course. I am keen to understand the minister's definition of 'public golf course'. To me, 'public golf course' means available to the public, whether that be me able to go on an app, phone up the pro shop and say, 'Mate, I want to come on and have a hit.' That is what I understand a public golf course to be, where I am not required to pay membership and I have access to the course.

For instance, one of our reputable charities in South Australia might want to have a golf day at the North Adelaide Golf Course, so for a period of time the golf course will be closed while they undertake their charity game. What I am trying to understand is where that line is crossed. Say the state government decides that it wants to rent the thing out for a charity day every day of the year and we are minimising access on the golf course to three hours: does that, in the mind of the minister, meet the requisite of public access?

How many events are to be held at the course in addition to LIV, where we are potentially closing off the golf course for an extended period of time, the whole of the precinct? How many days a year, in terms of hosting events, does he think would overstep the threshold of it therefore not meeting the requirement that he has put in the act of operating as a public golf course, because to me 'public golf course' comes with a requisite of public access to the golfing course itself—not just public access as in people being able to walk through the course. I am keen to understand what the minister's definition of 'public golf course' is because there is not one in this bill and that he gives us some idea of where his thresholds sit in terms of both availability to the course itself in terms of access but also access to playing.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Broadly speaking, my definition is your definition, member for Colton. Clearly, at the moment, the club presumably does its own events on particular days. We would obviously work with the club around that, but I think the definition you gave in the first part of your question, that it is a public golf course and the public would have reasonable access to it, a reasonable chance to play on it, a reasonable chance to traverse it if they wanted to go for a walk or something, is a perfectly reasonable definition to have and one that I would agree with.

Mr COWDREY: The Premier today held a press conference that was given at the same time that we were given the bill, I think. To be completely frank, it is extraordinary that we are at the point where the Premier of South Australia is spending his time at press conferences talking about green fees. In the press conference earlier today—green fees are, of course, the priorities of government—he referenced that locals, those of us who are South Australians, everyone in this room—there are a few who were born elsewhere but we will not talk about that—would pay a lower green fee than those from interstate and that they would be slugged a higher price to access the course.

The point that was also made during that press conference was that he expected there to be a significant increase in people travelling to North Adelaide to play the course, which again I do not necessarily see as being a bad thing. Anything that we can do to promote tourism to South Australia, to have people staying at our hotels, doing all those things, I do not have any issues with. But, again, it comes to the very nature of the bill and the first specific general operation that you have highlighted, which is public access. Are we talking about South Australian public access or public access? Will there be a requirement in terms of local hours and availability for local golfers?

Again, the bit that we have to come back to is there is an existing usage of that course, but there are two courses currently and we are going to a single course and losing the par 3 course as well. The current usage of North Adelaide is most likely already above what is even capable on a single course.

In addition, we have already had the Premier highlighting the fact that they are foreshadowing increased visitation, increased patronage of the golf course. How is the government, how is whoever is operating this, whether it be the ACC, the North Adelaide Golf Club or the government themselves—because the minister will not tell us what he plans to do in terms of the operation of the golf course moving forward—going to ensure that South Australians have access to the golf course, that you still adequately are able to provide access for those interstate, but also ensure that the requirements you have set out in the bill yourself are actually met?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Whilst the member alerts the house, the Premier made it pretty clear today that he did anticipate a differential fee between local South Australians and one would presume that refers to residents, not your place of birth.

Mr Cowdrey interjecting:

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I know, but just for point of clarity you would have to be a—

Mr Cowdrey interjecting:

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: You want to inspire people hiring out an Airbnb. There would have to be some—I do not know, a driver's licence perhaps.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I have you got all excited now. The Premier has made it pretty clear that we are building this primarily for South Australians. When we say 'public golf course', everybody understands that we anticipate that primarily being an asset for South Australians. There will be enthusiasm elsewhere for this course and there will be benefits to that too, in terms of tourism and a whole range of other things. The member seems to think there will be less opportunity to play golf on this golf course after it has been redeveloped.

Mr Telfer: Of course there will be. There are three courses there at the moment.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Just wait and see what emerges from the design team.

Mr Telfer: Trust me.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I would not trust you on much, mate, I have to be honest with you. I would not trust you on barely anything.

Mr Telfer interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order, the member for Flinders!

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The driving range itself will be a significant opportunity for people to play golf.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Yes, but just bear with us. So there will be plenty of opportunity to play golf and we have designed this primarily for the South Australian public.

Mr COWDREY: Again, the question gets back to some of the fencing issues as highlighted further down in the provision. In particular, the design team—that you will not tell us how many people are in it, but I am sure we will get to that at a later stage. You have said that the driving range is effectively certainly going on the city side of War Memorial Drive, despite the fact that you do not have any concrete plans and nothing has been developed, but you are very sure that a driving range is going there. That has essentially been the evidence that you have provided to the committee to this point today.

My question is in regard to the driving range itself, because there are driving ranges and there are driving ranges. I do not think there would be many people in this place who are not aware of a brand of driving range, or something similar, called Topgolf. That is a significantly sized driving range and potentially you can have up to six levels of driving ranges on top of each other, with self-loading buckets of balls that pop up. Again, that is entirely envisaged in the bill that the minister has put forward to us today, that we may have some corporatised commercial operation running on the Parklands.

The minister has not really made it clear as to what he is envisaging for this project. There is the potential for permanent fences to go around such developments, if it is for safety and security of any property, or otherwise for a good purpose, of course determined by the minister because there is no definition of 'good purpose' in the bill itself either. The question really is, when you talk about driving range, what scale are you talking? Are we talking Topgolf, or are we talking the driving range at Grange Golf Course, which is a single level, on the ground, with people hitting off a tee?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I do not think it is actually relevant to the clause, but that is something the design team are working through.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Flinders.

Mr Brown interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Florey!

Mr TELFER: Thank you for your protection, sir. Just continuing on the question around clause 18. It is fascinating actually: as you start to unpack this bill, it seems like every little aspect (and this is the whole justification for having this as a piece of legislation or otherwise) of this bill that you put in to try to mitigate concerns—clause 18 is around what will we do if people are worried that fences are going to go up?

Earlier on we were discussing what we will do if people are worried about trees? What will we do if people are worried about where the project site is going to be? What are we going to do if we are worried about care and control of the project site? All of these aspects have really fine definitions, like paragraph (b) here: 'must not have permanent fencing'. But every single one of these then has a rider afterwards that actually says, despite what the first part of the clause says, the minister has got the say to overrule anyway.

All the different clauses that we have already discussed and unpacked have that rider. The minister has got the say afterwards. Exactly as has been pointed out, subclause (2) basically says that the minister can change subsection (1) and can do something different with subsection (1) if they are 'satisfied that the erection of the fencing or barrier is necessary or desirable'—there is that word again, minister, that we are seeing a fair bit in this clause. Desirable from whom? It is fascinating to try to understand—'for reasons of public safety', which you have spoken about, 'the security of any property', which you have spoken about, 'or otherwise for a good purpose.'

Minister, can you give me a definition of what you envision, as the minister who is putting this forward to this place, other than public safety or security of any property, what 'a good purpose' would be for the erection of fencing or barriers in relation to particular areas around the North Adelaide Golf Course?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The member characterises legislation in a particular way. What we are trying to do is set out the parameters and then allow the minister to make sensible decisions. You asked me what a good purpose is. I do not know—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: If you listen, you might learn something. I do not know, fencing something that is dangerous like a power transformer.

Mr Telfer: So public safety? That is public safety.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: But there will be a range of infrastructure on site and you might need to fence it. All it is doing is setting out the things that we are attempting to do and giving the public and giving the house big commitments, and then setting out, well, if the minister needs to make a practical decision they can. The honourable member seems to be accusing us of doing something, but we are bringing legislation to the house.

If we were setting out to do anything other than what we are telling you in the legislation, we would just do that, would we not? We are actually saying that we want public access to the public golf course and setting out very clearly what our ambition is, and then giving the minister some flexibility. Beneath that, in terms of public safety and good order, it is not wildly different from what happens in many bits of legislation, if the member turns his mind to it.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Will the minister rule out the fencing also being a vehicle for advertising, whether it be commercial advertising or advertising the event or products that might be sold at the event, or anything related to a commercial organisation?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The clause at the moment is about permanent fencing. We are not going to have permanent fencing, so you cannot have advertising if you do not have permanent fencing.

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: No, my question was about the fencing full stop. I did not say permanent.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: If you just wait, later on in the clauses there is another clause which relates to temporary fencing. And guess what? If you have temporary fencing, of course you would advertise the event. The member for Unley must go around kind of like Mr Magoo wandering around the place. I mean, you were part of a government that put advertising over every awning and over every bit of temporary fencing, and you know it, so stop acting like a fool.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: So full of advertising. My question was specific: will there be—

The CHAIR: Member for Unley, you have actually had three questions.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: —commercial advertising of third-party organisations? Will BP be able to advertise, for example, or will sponsors be able to advertise on that fencing?

The CHAIR: The member for Unley has decided to ignore my ruling; the minister will not. He will not answer.

Mr TELFER: I could ask that same question, but I do not want to waste one of my three questions.

The CHAIR: No, you cannot ask the same question because I ruled it out of order.

Mr TELFER: Well, it has not been answered, sir. Indeed, I want to ask specifically about the erection of fencing or other barriers, reflecting back to when we were debating clause 7, the capacity for the minister to obligate the Adelaide City Council to do certain tasks and certain works and the ramifications on the Adelaide City Council if they fail to do those works, as we have spoken about before. Are these the sorts of works, e.g. erection of fencing, that the minister will potentially obligate? Will there be the power for the minister to obligate the Adelaide City Council to do these sorts of construction works as part of the two sections in relation to each other: clause 7, which I spoke about, and clause 18, which we are asking questions about at the moment?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: No. The first section that we were talking about, that original section, relates to the handover of the golf course to the state government, from ACC to the state government: this section relates to the operation of the event.

Mr Telfer: The expectation of the handover.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I am just giving you the answer. Again, you can try to debate it. I am giving you the answer. One relates to one section of the bill; the other does not relate to that section of the bill. It is quite clear.

Mr TELFER: In regard to that obligation with the city council, you speak about the fact that the erection of fencing, from your words, will not be a part of that, but it does talk about any task to be undertaken and completed by the Adelaide City Council. As the process is followed through, we follow the bouncing ball as far as the negotiations, where we get to the point where there is a piece of legislation dropped in our lap for us to consider, as opposed to there being an agreement with the Adelaide City Council. Was the conversation had with the Adelaide City Council about what their obligations would be with the development of the North Adelaide Golf Course, and was the ultimatum given to them that, if they do not comply, you are going to hit them with a piece of legislation?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I do not see how that question relates to this clause.

Mr Telfer: It is about infrastructure.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Yes, but you are stretching—I mean, it is impossible to answer these sorts of tinfoil hat questions.

Mr Telfer: It is pretty easy: yes or no?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: You are zooming between clauses and making assertions about—

Mr Telfer: One piece of legislation.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It is impossible from my perspective, maybe because it is late at night, for me to decipher what you are trying to assert that the state government is saying. I have answered about the fencing. We do not want permanent fencing around the site. There will be event fencing, which will be temporary. It is pretty clear, and guess what? It happens all the time. It happens for WOMAD, no problem. As you point out, it happens for a car race that the opposition opposed and dismantled when in government. We can go through the list of events that occur in the Parklands. It is important to have a guard against permanent fencing as a guarantee for the public, and obviously we need temporary fencing for public safety and for the event itself.

Clause passed.

Clause 19.

Mr COWDREY: Again, we get to the use of the golf course for approved events, and again, the minister has been at pains to point out that the language that has been included in this bill has been very purposeful. He has had it drafted in a way to make sure that his intention is accurately captured. The question is simple, because the minister sort of put his nose up when we said there is nothing stopping other events being conducted on the golf course site. There is nothing in this bill that stops that.

The Hon. N.D. Champion: Except for common sense.

Mr COWDREY: Apart from the fact, minister, that you have provisions in the bill around the fact that it is not quarantined to just golf events. It could have been very easily solved by the minister if he simply said 'use of golf course for approved golf events'. Done. Simple. Black and white. We understand that the government only wants to use the golf course for golf events. All he needed to do was put the word 'golf' in front of 'events' and then it is pretty clear to everybody in this place. If the minister wants to move an amendment right now, I am happy to support it. If the minister wants to put 'golf events' in the title of clause 19 and if he wants to put 'golf event' in paragraph (b), I am happy to support it right now—it provides great clarity to everybody here.

But the fact that at the moment we have a bill where the minister has specifically precluded the noise and litter act from applying to the site in question does beg the question, given that he is happy for any works to be conducted, as he sees fit, to prepare or set up for 'an event'—not a 'golf event' but 'an event'—to be undertaken on the course. You can see that it is not difficult for people to go A + B = C.

If the minister wants to give an undertaking that he will go away from this place, or if he does not want to do it tonight and he wants to consider it in more detail—perhaps it is something that could have been done before this was jammed into the parliament tonight—we can consider it between the houses. I can confidently say that the opposition would be happy to support it, if he is going to go away and make that amendment. But with it not being there it only leaves the door open for people to draw conclusions, not just in this place but I am sure by the public more broadly as well.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Well, only if you are wearing a tinfoil hat and you are looking for conspiracy theories. Let me give you one very good reason why you would not make an amendment like that: it is because you would then preclude the golf club itself from doing any other event other than golf. What happens if a club—and this happens every weekend in the Parklands, in some form or another, in sporting clubs right across the Parklands in all sorts of events. Let me give you an example. Adelaide Uni has a nice facility just near MacKinnon Parade. They do vacation care for kids. That is an event, and the honourable member's provision would preclude it, would it not? So the very thing that you are trying to preclude would actually preclude the club itself from holding events.

Mr COWDREY: That is possibly the most preposterous answer to a question I have heard in this place in the seven-plus years that I have been here. To presuppose that a club deciding that they would undertake some form of child care would reach the threshold of needing to be an approved event on a piece of state infrastructure is just ridiculous. Tinfoil hat stuff?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The club might want to have tournaments, and the club might want to have a range of events. Let's not—

Members interjecting:

Mr COWDREY: Make it clear.

Mr Brown: It's not my legislation, mate; ask him the questions, not me.

Mr COWDREY: You ask the question. If you are unclear, ask him the question.

The CHAIR: Order!

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It might be that you want to ask another question, then we will report progress.

Mr TEAGUE: I am interested in asking another question. There have been a couple of references to tinfoil hats just lately—it might be the hour—but just to put this into a present-day context: there has been talk about AC/DC coming to Adelaide. I remember those days when AC/DC performing at Adelaide Oval raised the spectre of North Adelaide residents saying that they would be a noise nuisance, and they had to be really careful about the time of night and volume and all that stuff. The minister might remember that as a resident of North Adelaide himself, as I understand.

I am not suggesting, actually, that the minister might zero in on the redeveloped golf club as a suitable venue for an AC/DC concert, but it is not—

Mr Cowdrey: A Day on the Green.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, a Day on the Green. It is far from improbable. I remember just in recent years, in a perfectly suitable sort of way, there was an initiative taken to use the final holes, a beautiful location at the Mount Lofty Golf Club—it has more recently been named the Stirling Golf Club—on the 18^th and there is a grassy sort of bank to have a kind of night-time cinema there. It overlooks a nice area and people can be on the balcony at the club and so on. That on a relatively grander scale could well be something that the minister might deem to be an event contemplated for the purposes of this clause.

When you read that in conjunction with clause 24 that kind of says—and this is for the long term; this is after any vesting under clause 16, and so on—the minister has these levers ongoing, there is an event that merits holding it the redeveloped golf club, 'Trigger clause 24: no possibility of a nuisance occurring here, whether by noise or light or any other thing that might otherwise be a nuisance.'

So whether it is to chime in and back up the member for Colton or to rebut this notion of tinfoil hats, if it is in contemplation that there is this range of potential events that might take on the character of which I have given an example, then it might be good to be clear about that, given that the invitation that the member for Colton has given to specify that it is golf events only. If that is to be resisted, then it might be good to come out and say, 'Well, actually, all these other things are in contemplation.' So it would not surprise me if they were.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Well, they are not. The reason why we are building a world-class golf course is to have golf events. The member himself outlined all of the places where you might have other events: Adelaide Oval, and there is WOMAD in other areas of Parklands. We are so spoilt for choice that we do not need to contemplate these things. It is probably late in the night and hence I would ask for progress to be reported.

The CHAIR: That was the 100^th question tonight. It might be a good time to report progress.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.