Bills

North Adelaide Public Golf Course Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 17 June 2025.)

Clause 19 passed.

Remaining clauses (20 to 31) passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION (Taylor—Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Housing Infrastructure, Minister for Planning) (15:55): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you like to speak to that?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: No.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Any other speakers?

Mr ELLIS (Narungga) (15:55): I have resolved, after a good night having slept on this bill having seen it yesterday, that I intend to oppose its passage at this stage. It may be a bit tardy. It may have been a decision I should have reached yesterday. But having slept on it now, I have decided that I will oppose the bill at the third reading. The primary reason, in fact the only reason, is my inspiration for running for parliament in the first place was because I was sick and tired of seeing the city getting the lion's share of the investment from government, seeing redevelopments being done in the city, seeing improved facilities offered to city folk while we are left out in the cold.

As I see it, this golf course, which is located squarely in North Adelaide, will benefit the North Adelaide Golf Course and those people who can play regularly there, but it will leave us out in the cold with no improvements offered to us. So I have been seeking a pathway from government, as little as assistance or guidance but all the way up to an investment of funding, to try to make the Port Hughes golf course a completed project. I would like to think that that would be something that could have been included in this initiative. It would have been something that I would have pushed for if I had an opportunity to investigate this bill fully prior to its being presented to parliament, but it is certainly something that I think should have been considered and offered as a part of this redevelopment.

It is something that has been offered as part of other sporting initiatives that we have had around the state in recent years. As I have mentioned in my second reading speech, Gather Round is a tremendous example of how that benefit can be spread across the entirety of South Australia. We have Mount Barker with a new oval precinct, there is a new one in the Barossa, and these are communities that have benefited from the wonderful sporting events that have been attracted to our regions. So, I am going to oppose the bill on the grounds that it is a localised benefit for the City of Adelaide and there is no flow-on benefit for us in regional South Australia.

I undertake now in this place on the record that I will continue to work with the people at The Dunes Golf Course, of which I have to admit and disclose that I am a sponsor and member, but I will continue to work with them. The general manager, Rohan Bock, and the committee and all those people who do a wonderful job in keeping that course up and running for those of us who like to play there regularly, I intend to do as best I can to ensure that that course gets finished. Now is the time to do it.

Now is the time to do it: the property developer is conducting the next stage of the residential works in the not too distant future; we have Greg Norman and LIV Golf here conducting their work redeveloping the North Adelaide Golf Course, where the expertise and the experience and the corporate knowledge will be here to help; and now is the time to strike to make sure The Dunes gets finished.

So, on that basis that I would like to see more benefit for regional South Australia, primarily and particularly in my electorate, and primarily and particularly The Dunes golf course, I am going to oppose this bill at the third reading. I look forward to seeing how the vote plays out.

Mr COWDREY (Colton) (15:58): Look, the government has used its numbers today in the house to guillotine debate, to gag—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order, sir: the member is reflecting on a vote of the house, a vote which he did not oppose.

Mr Cowdrey interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You did not oppose it. There was no contest. You cannot say to the house that we forced this when you voted for it.

Mr Cowdrey interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: How can you? Did you vote against it?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

Mr COWDREY: The minister is keen on semantics today, and let that be the case.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Colton, just hold up, please. I do not uphold the point of order, only because—

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: It was not a point of order. He was not on his feet. He did not call a point of order. He interjected; you responded to an interjection.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Unley will leave the chamber for 15 minutes.

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: You are responding to an interjection.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Unley will leave the chamber for 30 minutes for responding, and if you talk on the way out I will name you.

The honourable member for Unley having withdrawn from the chamber:

Mr COWDREY: I will move on.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let me finish ruling.

Mr COWDREY: I will move on, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Okay, we will move on, then.

Mr COWDREY: Let's end this farce. We had the government come in here last sitting day and put a bill on the table, with no prior warning for the members of the crossbench—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Colton, the purpose of a third reading is to make comments on what is said in the committee stage. You must restrict your comments to that. Yes, you can read the book; that is what it says.

Mr COWDREY: I think you need to consult my contribution during the committee stage, sir, because I certainly touched on this during it.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I suggest you be careful how far you wander? Go ahead.

Mr COWDREY: I think it is very evident, unfortunately, that the government has let their numbers go to their head in this instance. We have seen them put a bill on the table with next to no consultation, a bill that provides near unfettered powers to a yet to be determined minister. The minister responsible for this particular bill could not tell us who that was going to be; every answer that was provided during the committee stage of this debate was, 'Just trust us.'

During the committee stage we also heard admissions by the minister, despite his best efforts in saying this was not a bargaining chip in negotiations with the Adelaide City Council—no, it was a 'strong tool' in negotiations. That was the description, or near thereof, by the minister, and it was 'not a threat; it was an opportunity for the council'.

It is very clear, and the leader of the Liberal Party has made it very clear for everyone in South Australia, that the Liberal Party supports LIV Golf. We support LIV Golf in the city. But we do not support a bill rushed into this house to give unfettered powers to a yet to be determined minister. Go back to the drawing board, draft a bill that is considered and gives at least some semblance of checks and balances, introduce it to this parliament and we will support it.

The government knows that the vast majority of this parliament supports LIV Golf. The government knows that the vast majority of this parliament supports LIV Golf in the city. But it did not choose a path that was considered, it did not choose a path that was sensible—it chose a path where it could flex its muscles and show everybody who is in charge. Well, guess what? At a point in time there do have to be some grown-ups in the room.

If the minister had walked into this chamber and said, 'We have been in negotiations with the Adelaide City Council. Those negotiations have hit an impasse; they have hit a wall. We have irreconcilable differences in terms of things that we simply can't agree to,' then sure, come in here, introduce a bill of similar nature with some checks and balances, and we will get on and support it. But that is not what the minister has said.

He has said that all of the negotiations to this point have been helpful, have been fruitful, have been congenial, have been working in the same direction together. Apart from some loose reference to the fact that he has had 17 meetings over I do not know what timeframe, he still to this stage of debate has not been able to articulate to this place why this needed to be done yesterday.

In fact, it did not because we are here today and the government moved an adjournment to debate last night when we could have continued to debate the bill. But they did not. This is arrogance at its finest, and this parliament—not just the Liberal Party but clearly at least one member of the crossbench—will not stand for it.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister for Energy and Mining) (16:04): I am not sure why the member for Colton is so emotional about this. I am not sure what has happened in the last few days and weeks that has got him so agitated. I do not know if it is the Labor Party preselecting a candidate in the seat of Colton.

Mr Telfer interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for member for Flinders—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Move points of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! If people want to stay in the chamber, I suggest they use the proper standing orders. If you have a point of order, stand up and move that. If you do not, I suggest you keep your views to yourself. The member for Flinders, the minister is commenting on comments made by the member for Colton. Given the member for Colton's comments, I assume, were reflecting on the debate in the second reading committee, the minister's comments are appropriate to respond.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: There are a lot of tired and emotional people in the chamber. It seems to me that the reflections on the debate have been hypocritical. The government passed a resolution just recently, which was supported unanimously by the house. There were no objecting voices at all, and then the first thing that comes out of the member for Colton's mouth is that they object to the limitation of debate. It just was not true. It is simply not true. I do not know how he can say that, knowing that all the comments are recorded, the votes are videoed, people can see exactly what happened. There was not a single dissenting voice—not one—yet the first words to come out of his mouth are that we are ramming this down people's throats.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Dissent—you are allowed to dissent. You are allowed to vote against it. There are no rules against voting against motions or procedures in the parliament. The idea that it is arrogant to use the parliament—this is a house of democracy. Everything we do here is in the open. It is recorded. We broadcast it. There are no secret meetings in parliament. They are all done in the open.

This is simply a childish tantrum. That is all it is, a childish tantrum. The childish tantrums continue, whether they target individual members of the government or whether they get up and blatantly say things that they know not to be true. It just shows you that members opposite are not fit to govern. They have not got their house in order. They are complaining about the government upgrading a golf course that already exists on public land. I bet you they are going to vote for the bill.

Mr Teague interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Good. Then vote against the guillotine. Why did you not?

Mr Teague interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Why did you not vote against it? Again, I do not know if they taught this at Bond University or not, but the truth is, when the government allocated time for this debate, if members opposite thought it was not long enough, they could have voted against it. Did they object? No, none of them.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You can laugh all you like, the records do not change. I have to say they agreed with the time allocated.

Mr Teague: Silence is not acceptance. I was subjected to 15 of these in one day. Just sitting here and seeing this belligerence is extraordinary.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Heysen, I made it very clear about interrupting the speaker.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is interesting saying things like 'belligerence' while yelling across the chamber at someone while they are making a contribution. Who is being belligerent? Who is it? Who is the bully? Who is the one who just yells out—if you don't agree with me, I will just scream at you, if you don't just do what I want, I will scream at you? It is probably why you were removed as Speaker by your own colleagues, because of the impartiality that was just not there. If you do not agree with him, he will just yell at you. If you do not do what he says, he will just yell at you. If you do not agree with his worldview, he will just yell at you. What a great way to govern! Typical, is it not? He has no argument against it. We will see how they vote. We will see if they have the courage to get up and vote against bringing LIV Golf into the city.

The house divided on the third reading:

Ayes 25

Noes 15

Majority 10

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Third reading thus carried; bill passed.