Bills

Government House Precinct Land Dedication Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 1.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): When we last met we were considering clause 1 and there were a number of contributions on that clause. I gather that the minister has some answers.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In relation to a number of questions that were put in many different ways by a number of different members, I can advise the chamber that the advice I have is that the government was advised by their legal advisers in the Crown Solicitor's Office that the prerequisite for construction was the parliamentary Public Works Committee approval. The project went to the parliamentary Public Works Committee and was approved in July 2015, in accordance with the legal advice it received.

The land is under the ownership of the Crown and will continue to be. However, the care and control of management of the memorial walk is vested in the Corporation of the City of Adelaide. There is no transfer of title and, again as we have said, this bill seeks to move the boundary.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Still on clause 1, I have a question further to the response from the minister, for absolute clarification. Assented to on 13 October 1927 was an act to dedicate and reserve for all time certain lands as a Government House domain and as a site for a national soldiers memorial. It was assented to on behalf of His Majesty by Tom Bridges, governor.

My question, therefore, given the minister's answer is: I take it that the minister is saying that, because this legislation was for all time, that this still stands and that even though the responsibility of some of this land now goes to the Adelaide City Council, as I understand the minister indicated before (if it does not, who does it go to?), so why do we have this piece of legislation now if it is staying in the name of the Crown and if therefore we are honouring legislation from 13 October 1927, where for all time Government House domain remains as Government House domain?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. I have some advice that I think directly answers the question. Under clause 6 of the bill, it is very clear that Government House domain land continues to be land dedicated for the purposes of being used as a site for the residence of the Governor and for incidental purposes, and the land continues to be reserved at all times for those purposes and must not be used for any other purpose.

The land still stays as Government House domain land, but it is used for the incidental purposes of this walk. There is no transfer of the title, but the land in question will be under the care and control and management of the Corporation of the City of Adelaide but, as clause 6 makes very clear, it continues to be land dedicated for that purpose which the honourable member was referring to.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: By way of clarification of the minister's original answer, I understand it, on crown law advice the Public Works Committee could give the go-ahead, regardless of the need for this bill; is that correct?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am very happy to repeat exactly that the advice is that the government was advised by the Crown Solicitor's Office that the prerequisite for the construction was parliamentary Public Works Committee approval.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: Parliamentary approval does not mean that it is legal; it just means that it has been approved by a parliamentary subcommittee. It does not mean that it has sufficient legal authorisation to proceed.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am not going to repeat it again. If honourable members do not want pass this bill now, that is fine. We can keep going around and around in circles. I have put the advice, as was asked for earlier this morning. I think I have done what has been reasonably asked by honourable members this morning. If people do not want pass the bill, that is fine; we will come back and look at it in a couple of weeks' time.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: On that point, I am offended by that. I do not get offended easily, but I am offended by that because basically what the minister is saying is, 'Stuff you. If you don't want to pass the bill because you're going to actually interrogate and look for some specific principles to be answered properly, then we'll leave the bill for two or three weeks.' That is not what I am saying. It is confusing because, as my colleague the Hon. Mr McLachlan has indicated, indications like that for Public Works sign-off are nothing to do with the legal aspects of this at all. I would ask that the minister actually table for the Legislative Council that advice that was given by the Crown Solicitor's Office or crown law.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: This is the last time that I will respond to the exact same question we have had going for the last hour and a half, or however long we have debated this bill. I will speak very slowly.

The advice is that the government is advised by the Crown Solicitor's Office that the prerequisite for construction was parliamentary Public Works Committee approval. The project went to the parliamentary Public Works Committee and was approved in line with the legal advice received. So the prerequisite for construction was the parliamentary Public Works Committee. If you have further questions or you want to ask something in different ways, you will elicit the same response, so maybe just put all the questions on there, then ask to report progress again and we will come back in a few weeks.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: As someone who does not work in crown law, but has a piece of legislation to be considered right now that we are dealing with, based on your answer and based on the fact that the land is staying in the ownership of Government House and the Crown, why do we need this piece of legislation? Just a simple answer.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Against my better judgement I will answer this one further question. It is to realign the boundary so that the care, control and management of the memorial walk is vested in the City of Adelaide. If this bill is not passed nothing will happen to the wall. The wall will be finished, it will just stay on the land where it is and it will not be under the care, control and management of the Corporation of the City of Adelaide, as it should be for a public walk like this. As I said, if the honourable member wants to report progress again, we know where the numbers will lie once more. It is completely up to—

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): The minister is not being assisted by the Hon. Gail Gago. The Hon. Mr Wade has the call.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: If I correctly understand—

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Sorry, you're not the leader anymore. If I understand the minister correctly—

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): No, the Hon. Gail Gago is out of order. The Hon. Mr Wade has the call.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Minister, if I understand your advice correctly, schedule 1 in the bill, where it shows the commemorative walk, the land tenure boundary on the eastern boundary is the same after this bill as it was before this bill. All the schedule does is identify where the walk goes. Is that a correct understanding?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can advise the honourable member that he is wrong. That is not the case. That boundary moves in from that outer boundary in schedule 1 to the inner boundary there. That is what I have just been advised.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Sorry, I meant legal tenure. I thought you were trying to say to us that the tenure boundary, the land boundary has not changed.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: It is clause 6.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I did hear you read clause 6 so eloquently but I was trying to relate that to what is in the schedule. My understanding of what you were saying was that, if you like, the tenure boundary is on the eastern side and it has not changed; all we are doing is that the schedule now shows the walk within.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Yes, and who has care and control.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Yes, and I accept that. I would like to move on to the next issue which is section 757. The 1927 parent act which we are seeking to amend here does not have section 757 which is the north-eastern corner in schedule 1 within the subject land. Is that a case where the tenure has been changed?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised—

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): The Hon. Gail Gago is not assisting the minister. The minister has the call.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that the section that the honourable member helpfully came over to point out, section 757, previously has been crown land but not defined as Government House land—although it has always been occupied by Government House—and that anomaly is being remedied by this. The cut-out that is not shown in the original schedule is crown land but in the new schedule, he is right: although it has always been occupied by Government House, that does come into Government House land.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Would it therefore be the case that whereas this morning the members were exploring, if you like, whether the Government House domain was being reduced, in fact under this bill it will be increased?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is a technical point. It is all crown land but that is the practical effect, yes.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Correct me if I am wrong, but the minister just said that it is all crown land.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Yes, it is.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Under the Crown Land Management Act you can vest land in the care and control of the council without an act of parliament. You have got it.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is all crown land; however, there is an act of parliament that talks about Government House land. So while it is all vested in the Crown this moves it within the act, that very small bit, but it takes the care and control to the Adelaide City Council.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: I am not sure if it is actually crown land. I think it—

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order! The minister is out of order. I have given the call to the Hon. Mr McLachlan.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: Thank you for your protection, Mr Acting Chair. I am not entirely convinced it is crown land; I think it is reserve land under a particular act, but I am not going to press the minister on that.

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order!

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: The Hon. Gail Gago is insisting that I pursue this to its very end, and I would not like to disappoint the former leader of the government. If it is crown land, can the minister assure the chamber that, given there is some form of alienation of the land by the bill before the chamber, standing order 268 does not apply and it is a hybrid bill that requires a select committee?

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Which part of the land are you talking about?

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: I am talking about the land that is subject to the bill before the chamber. There is some form of alienation, as in change in its status. I am asking for an assurance to the chamber that this bill cannot be construed as a hybrid bill under standing order 268, and therefore we need a select committee.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have specific advice on that, but if that particular standing order was something that ought to have been considered I am very confident that parliamentary counsel would have considered that.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: It is not the most satisfactory answer, but—

The Hon. G.E. Gago: Have a committee; come on, let's have another committee.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: I am not going to take the advice of the former leader, the Hon. Gail Gago, to have a select committee. My reading is—

Members interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): There is too much conversation across the chamber. The Hon. Mr McLachlan has the call.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: The minister was very confident on his standing orders the other day, but I would have to say that—

Members interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): The Hon. Mr Lucas and the Hon. Mr Kandelaars are not helping, nor is the Hon. Mr Wade. The Hon. Mr McLachlan has the call.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: Thank you for your protection, Mr Acting Chair. My reading is that it is a sequential reservation from the 1927 act, and therefore my reading (although I do not profess to be an expert lawyer in this area) is that standing order 268 is not applicable. However, given that the minister cannot take us much further with this, the Liberal Party will proceed to facilitate the passing of this bill in the committee stage on the basis that the minister gives an undertaking that further questions from Liberal Party members will be facilitated subsequent to the passing of this bill. If the minister can give that undertaking, then I might say a few words summarising our position. I will leave it to the minister to give that undertaking.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I give an undertaking that I am happy for any questions you have to see if there are answers that can come back. I am happy to throw our departmental people to the lions again if you have questions you want to ask of them, as well.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: This will be the test of the minister's undertaking; I asked for it and I receive it in good faith. The Liberal Party will obviously pass this bill. I am not entirely convinced that there has been a full legal review, but we will take it on faith.

I reiterate our position that we support the creation of the ANZAC walk, and I thank the other honourable members who have supported the party's position into the committee stage. My personal view is that it is not a particularly aesthetic walk but, as I said in my second reading speech, I bow to the consultation process. Some of us in this chamber will continue to fight the good fight on keeping the Dardanelles cenotaph in the southern Parklands, and that will be an advocacy program seeking social action that will go on beyond this committee stage.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I want to put a couple of remarks on the record as well because I think there is a serious message here for the government in the future, and I hope that the Leader of Government Business in this house will take this back to his cabinet and, particularly, the lead minister in this case, the Hon. Martin Hamilton-Smith (Minister for Veterans' Affairs for the South Australian government). I think this has been very poorly handled by the minister and I think it is time that the minister and, also, the department and agencies realised that they should go through due process and due diligence and respect the parliament and actually work properly through the process, not try to retrospectively fix things.

I am not convinced that they have had proper legal advice. I think there is some confusion now from some of the answers—which I do not blame the Leader of Government Business for, but I blame others who have given him that advice or have not done due diligence in their work—as to why we really even need this piece of legislation now, and I support what the Hon. John Darley said. Notwithstanding that, even though governments get arrogant and lazy and think they are here forever, they have to actually work through process. As one of the 22 members here, I am asking them to respect this parliament and go through proper process in the future.

We support the walk but we do not support the way in which this shabby piece of legislation has been put together. It is one of the shabbiest pieces of legislation and processes that I have seen for a very long time, and I hope the government takes that comment and sharpens up a little bit, particularly one or two of the ministers.

The other point that I would put on the public record in finishing my remarks is that I will be joining with my colleague the Hon. Andrew McLachlan to fight on behalf of the community to ensure that in the south Parklands the Dardanelles cenotaph memorial remains, because the intent was that that is where it would be, and that is where it should stay. There has not been proper consultation on that, from what I am advised, so I say to the government: at your peril, shift that without proper consultation with the South Australian community and, particularly, the families who have a direct relationship to that memorial.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I rise to reflect on some of the debate today and, unlike the walk, it certainly has not been a straight line. I fear that we have had conflicting arguments presented to us in this chamber, particularly by members of the opposition, who do indeed have members on the Public Works Committee. I note and I thank the members of the Public Works Committee for their due diligence and support for this bill. I note that members of the opposition in the other place all overwhelmingly supported this bill. I have not heard anyone actually oppose this bill.

I have heard arguments that we need a hybrid bill referenced to a select committee and I have heard arguments that we do not need this bill at all. Whatever the arguments are, what I would say is I think the reason we are taking circles today is we are playing the man and not the ball. We are playing a political game with something that should have been something that is beyond politics. With those words, I look forward to the speedy passage of this bill.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I disagree with the Hon. Tammy Franks. The fact is that a number of people in this parliament—and the Greens, often—express concern about the parliament being ignored. That was the concern being raised by me, the Hon. Andrew McLachlan and the Hon. Robert Brokenshire. In relation to the oversight of the Public Works Committee, I remind the Hon. Tammy Franks that the Public Works Committee comments on capital projects. It does not amend bills.

The Legislative Review Committee, on behalf of this parliament, oversees regulations and has special responsibilities. I am sure the Public Works Committee does not see it as its province to amend legislation. Very few capital works projects before the Public Works Committee require statutory change. This was an exception. This parliament had every right to be respected. The next time the Greens want parliament not to be run roughshod over, I will reflect on the Hon. Tammy Franks' remarks.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 6), schedules and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Employment, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Science and Information Economy) (15:46): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.