Housing Roadmap

Mr FULBROOK (Playford) (14:39): My question is to the Minister for Housing and Urban Development. Is the minister aware of any alternative plans for Dry Creek land currently earmarked for 15,000 homes?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION (Taylor—Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Housing Infrastructure, Minister for Planning) (14:40): I thank the member for Playford for his question. He would be aware that as part of the government's Housing Roadmap last year, we announced a government-led code amendment, a rezoning, for what is ultimately one of the biggest urban renewal projects in the country. Of course, that involves some 838 hectares of land split between ownership of the government, through Renewal SA, the City of Salisbury, and the private landowner who has both a portion of the land and the salt mining licence over that site.

The government-led code amendment has been initiated, and complex investigations are about to begin on infrastructure and a whole range of matters. We know that that work needs to be done and needs to be done methodically and carefully because of its importance to housing supply, particularly over the medium to long term.

We also know that the alternative government in this state, those opposite, took the opportunity to announce a policy for this site at 10.15 on a Sunday night on FIVEaa talkback radio. I am not knocking FIVEaa, an important station, but it is a somewhat strange time to launch a policy, and it was launched by the watchdog who apparently gets to set the policy of the opposition. What he said was:

You don't have to have it at North Adelaide…There's a greenfield site at Dry Creek that the government could take over tomorrow and build a public golf course very quickly…in three years you could have it done.

That seems to me a very distinct bit of public policy announced at 10.15 on a Sunday night. After that, you would expect the watchdog to be somewhat reticent when it is raised but, no, that is not his style. He didn't hide in his office this time—he doubled down on Facebook and various other ranges of social media. He made it very, very clear that he believed and that he committed to this policy of building a golf course on this site for LIV Golf in 2028.

The Leader of the Opposition, I think, has some questions to answer, and the first question is: how does he get water and power infrastructure to the site by 2028? How is he going to fill the site by 2028, particularly given that the portion that the golf course apparently is on is the government end of the land?

Mr Patterson interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Morphett!

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: How will they negotiate the removal of the mining licence by 2028? Will they compulsorily acquire the land? That is an important question. Also, where are they going to find the housing supply that is displaced by building a golf course by 2028? They are all the questions that come with this policy of the watchdog. Are they going to put the housing in the suburbs or are they going to oppose it?

Are they going to put it in the CBD? The Leader of the Opposition himself outlined his policy to put more homes in the CBD in his budget reply speech. Are there going to be even more homes in the CBD as a result of this policy? Where is the displaced housing going to come from? Most importantly, he has to establish: with the watchdog out there making these pronouncements and giving these commitments, what status do they have? Are they the status of policy? Are they wishful thinking? Do we all get a hat over there? Do you get a hat, Sam? Do you get a little hat with a dollar sign on it?

The SPEAKER: Nice segue to the member for Flinders.