Bills

AUKUS (Land Acquisition) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 11 April 2024.)

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (15:34): I rise to indicate Liberal Party support for this piece of legislation. It is a small bill that potentially has fairly significant implications, particularly if it is not passed, and passed rapidly. I would also like to refer any readers of Hansard, if they would like a fulsome discussion in terms of the national security implications of the AUKUS agreement, to the excellent contributions in the House of Assembly, particularly from my colleague Mr Stephen Patterson, the member for Morphett. I do not propose to go into those discussions because, in a legislative sense, it is a piece of legislation that is a land swap deal, which is why it primarily falls within the planning portfolio.

In terms of the timing, Liberal shadow ministers were contacted in the last sitting week, on 9 April, by the Minister for Planning, the Hon. Nick Champion, to advise us that it was the government's wish that the parliament pass this piece of legislation in the House of Assembly on Wednesday 10 April.

I would like to flag that, in the House of Assembly debates, there was some discussion about the timing and the alternative methods. During our briefing I think there were other discussions that we had about whether a land revocation or going through local government were the other options, but we were advised that they would take some months. This is just a forewarning that, for those other options that were discussed in the briefing, I would appreciate the minister being able to put those details on the record during the committee stage.

The AUKUS project is critical for national security and has bipartisan support. I note that, in the minister's second reading speech, he said that the bill provides for the South Australian government to vest land currently owned by the City of Port Adelaide Enfield council to the Urban Renewal Authority (Renewal SA) to enable it to be subsequently transferred to Australian Naval Infrastructure (ANI) to enable the development of the AUKUS submarine construction yard at Osborne.

Relevant shadow ministers received a briefing on Wednesday morning, 10 April, and that was followed by a briefing for all Liberal members, on the same day, so that all our members had the opportunity to fully traverse all issues. At our joint party meeting, held that day, we agreed to support the bill, which would have surprised no-one.

In terms of the land use, the land around Osborne on the Lefevre Peninsula is a multi-use industrial site without, as I understand, residential properties. The bill enables the transfer of three parcels of land from the City of Port Adelaide Enfield council to the South Australian government (Renewal SA), which forms part of an agreement with the Australian government. The three parcels of land include two road reserves and what is known as Falie Reserve, a portion of open space. Falie Reserve will become the site on which a number of services will be located and/or relocated. We were advised in the briefing that Falie Reserve has little biodiversity value and that EPBC approval has already been granted.

There is a significant biodiversity site nearby, at Mutton Cove Conservation Reserve, which will continue to retain its status under environmental legislation. We were advised that the swift transfer of Falie Reserve is critical to enable a range works of to commence to meet the Australian government's fairly short time frames in preparation for the AUKUS program. Other options, such as revocation of the reserve's community land status would, as I have said, potentially take many months, when works need to commence in coming months. With those comments, I support the bill.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (15:39): I rise to support this bill. I will only speak briefly. I am certainly looking forward to seeing some action at the site, and I certainly hope that I will actually see one of these nuclear submarines before I meet my maker. We know that there are challenges with this project still to be confronted, particularly with attracting the number of personnel that are going to be needed to build these powerful submersibles.

I note that the Premier has announced today that he will be travelling to the United States and will view the facilities where these submarines are being built and also to spread the message there that South Australia is open for business and is committed to building these submarines. I would have thought that would have been an obvious thing after everything had been signed, but nonetheless it is good to see that our Premier is flying the flag over in the United States and will no doubt come back with some news about perhaps starting dates and other developments in the construction of these submarines, which, incidentally, of course, as we know will have nuclear reactors.

I guess somewhere down the track we may soon see legislation that will enable nuclear reactors and also nuclear waste that comes out of these reactors to be handled in South Australia. So I look forward to that. With that, I support the bill.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (15:41): I rise as one of two speakers for the Greens today to speak to the AUKUS (Land Acquisition) Bill 2024. We are told it is a bill for an act to facilitate the AUKUS submarine project by providing for the acquisition of certain land. That certain land, of course, is on the Lefevre Peninsula.

The Greens will be opposing this bill. We are horrified that yet again something to do with AUKUS has been rushed through without community consultation and without a public conversation. We do actually stand with the community, we believe. There has never been a public conversation in Australia about signing ourselves up to AUKUS.

There was long discussion about previous submarine programs and, indeed, long discussion saying that they would not be nuclear powered, then suddenly overnight under the Morrison government we wake up one morning to find that we have signed up to a deal with the UK and the US—the US, which is verging on a failed state at this point, with uncertain leadership into the future—and then to have that, after the election, repeated by the now Albanese government without public conversation, without public social licence and, within the Labor Party, without a platform that supported that prior to the last election.

Indeed, there are 368 billion reasons why we oppose this AUKUS deal. It is a dud deal. In fact, it is around $32 million every day for the next 30 years to acquire a decreasing number of—seven or eight—nuclear submarines. That has to be the most expensive job creation scheme in world history.

What we do know of that $368 billion is that South Australia has yet to see very little of it. Our state is supporting things like an AUKUS office, and the Premier flies interstate and overseas to spruik AUKUS and to keep in good with those in pillar one, the UK and the US, but what we actually have seen and what we have been guaranteed is something that the Greens believe should be the debate of our parliaments.

As I say, yet again here we are in a state parliament stripping away our current state laws, ramming and rushing a bill through the parliament to swap a small parcel of land all for the god of AUKUS. Indeed, the Albanese federal government's half trillion dollar nuclear submarine plan is not about defending our nation, it is about projecting force in the South China Sea and trying to make us complicit with the war-making ambitions of the US and the UK. It is a dangerous deal that makes us less safe. It particularly makes the people on Lefevre Peninsula less safe.

In this bill that we debate right now in this parliament the people of the Lefevre Peninsula have not been consulted, they have not even been asked. In fact, as we will get to when we explore the committee stage of this bill, there was a letter written to the mayor, after a phone call to the mayor, pretty much on the day that this bill lobbed into the parliament. That is not consultation, that is not a commitment to democracy and it is not the social licence being given that should be for such an obscene amount of money.

In fact, for that obscene amount of money, so large that it does not fit into the federal budget and is now cited as a proportion of GDP, we could actually fix any single issue in this nation that needs fixing with money. Yet, here we are, debating and making it even easier for them to fritter away all of that. Most of us will be long gone when the AUKUS deal—should it come to fruition—ever comes to fruition. I note the words of the Hon. Frank Pangallo, that he hopes to see it before he meets his maker. I would not hold my breath if I was anyone in this place expecting these promises, this dud deal done in the dead of night, first under the Morrison government and now perpetuated by the Albanese government, to actually come to fruition.

Many people, quietly, in the corridors, say, 'Don't worry, it's actually not going to come to fruition'—that is even worse. For those who have a commitment to this they should be prepared to put their case for it, explain and have a conversation with the Australian people about this AUKUS deal, but for those who just say, 'Don't worry about it, it will fritter away,' we are also frittering away a lot of money and that is a lot of lost opportunity that could go into investment, into education, into health, into a whole range of environmental good, and it is also frittering away the inheritance of future generations. In fact, history will not look kindly upon us all for this dopey deal. Indeed, after Morrison's midnight mania, Albo showed that the only discernible difference between himself and ScoMo is the football team they both support.

Labor wants to spend almost $32 million every day for the next 30 years acquiring nuclear submarines, and that can happen; however, if we want to lift people out of poverty in this nation, if we want to close the gender pay gap, if we want to really invest in higher education, education or health, apparently we have to wait and it cannot possibly be done.

What we should be doing is building a safe and peaceful future for our nation and our regions. What we should have is a defence force designed to defend Australia, not to threaten our neighbours. Yet, this toxic deal has bipartisan, old party support with barely a whimper raised. I have been told, particularly by journalists, that moves within the Australian Labor branch rank and file movement to move motions at a local branch level are quashed, staffers are brought in, numbers are stacked and dissent is silenced. I note that the federal member for Fremantle does appear to be listening, but he may not be the federal member for Fremantle much longer at this rate.

The absurdity of the AUKUS deal is not lost on me, but for those members of this parliament and this council I draw to your attention the debate just recently in the US: the National Defense Authorization Act debate. It is worth reading. It was an actual debate and it involved AUKUS, and in that debate the emperor's new clothes were revealed to be non-existent.

Indeed, we are not guaranteed the sale of these nuclear-powered submarines as part of the AUKUS deal. The NDAA instead clarified that any possible transfer of nuclear submarines from the US to Australia is 'contingent on Australia operating within US national interests'—not Australian national interest but the United States' national interest. I ask you: in whose interest is that? Certainly not the people of Australia, and it certainly should not be something that the parliaments of Australia are standing by and complacently waving through.

The National Defense Authorization Act states that nine months before a submarine can be transferred a future US president—whoever that may be, and we know it may well be Donald Trump in coming months—would only use these submarines 'consistent with United States foreign policy and national security interests'. It goes on to absolutely underscore this with, 'If this is not guaranteed, then no submarines will be transferred.' Perhaps this is what those people in the Labor Party who have concerns about this are quietly hoping for, that apparently we will invest all this money and we may never actually get what we have signed up for.

Forget 'all the way with LBJ'; we are all the way with Trump now. Perhaps we are Biden's boosters. After Trump and Biden, what comes next? What have we signed ourselves up to? This is not the deal of the century. This is a dud deal and it should not be complicitly waved through every single time it comes to the floor of a parliament in this country.

We saw standing orders suspended for this bill in the other place, and the Liberal opposition in lockstep with the Labor government just rolled over. They did not ask many questions. They asked a few questions and accepted all the answers that they were given. They certainly did not query whether or not the local council, whose land is being acquired here, had actually properly been consulted.

The Hon. R.A. Simms: They don't care about that. It is whatever the US wants.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (The Hon. R.B. Martin): Order!

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: We see it yet again. I want to also draw members' attention to a recent meeting on the Lefevre Peninsula at St Bede's in Semaphore. There was standing room only of local community concerned about the AUKUS deal, who have not been asked by the Labor governments—be they Malinauskas or Albanese—who have not been consulted about this land grab by their local council, who are not complicit in the silenced dissent and lack of community conversation around this issue.

There was standing room only in that local church hall on a Sunday afternoon. That is what is coming for Labor and Liberal if they do not start to take seriously the utterly appalling amount of money that we are signing ourselves up to for something that may never even happen and if it does happen it will make us less safe, not more.

As our senator who is the spokesperson for the Greens for defence, David Shoebridge, has said, the debate in the US has been an unmasking moment because it is now written in black and white that Australia can either have an independent foreign policy or US nuclear submarines, but it cannot have both. The act does not guarantee Australian nuclear submarines. There are so many get-out-of-jail-free cards written into this legislation for the United States to meet the demand for the United States and AUKUS submarines. The US needs a fivefold increase in its nuclear submarine building industrial base, and there is no credible plan to even get close to this.

Ultimately, it is a media moment, not a structural solution, because it kicks the real problems down the road for future administrations to deal with. The immediate danger for Australia is not that we will receive hugely expensive nuclear submarines but that we will surrender any pretence of independent foreign policy to Washington.

I observe that currently the US cannot build enough nuclear submarines to meet their own needs. Anyone who is paying attention to the US Congress, anyone who is paying attention to the debate in the United States on this, will know they are not even making enough currently for their own needs. How on earth do you think they are going to be making enough to then sell to us?

The Greens stand with former Prime Ministers, the Greens stand with the community and the Anti-AUKUS Coalition, movements of peace, of unions—unions which have pledged green bans. The Greens stand with rank and file Labor Party members and Labor Against War in opposing this bill today, because we do oppose the AUKUS deal. It is a dud deal, it is a dopey deal and it is a deal that does not have democracy of our nation or our national interest behind it.

With that, I have many questions of the minister. I note that in the second reading contribution no speech was made by the minister in this place. The speech in the other place of Minister Champion is certainly something that was rushed through on the day and raises quite a few questions, and I look forward to each and every one of those questions being answered in this place, at least having some semblance of pretence of democracy left. With that, the Greens oppose the bill.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:56): I rise the join my colleague in reiterating the Greens opposition to this bill, what is an attack on the principles of our democracy, an attack on the integrity of our foreign policy, but also a slap in the face of the people of our nation and the people of our state in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis.

We have spoken at length in this chamber about myriad crises the people of South Australia face at the moment. Imagine what could be done to tackle the cost-of-living crisis if we were spending the $368 billion that is going towards these war machines on actually helping people. Imagine the amount of housing you could build with $368 billion. Imagine the amount of money we could put into our public education system with $368 billion. Imagine what we could do to our health system with $368 billion. Imagine what we could do with our university system at a time when students are facing skyrocketing HECS debts. The sky is the limit in terms of what we could achieve with this level of investment, yet the limit of the Labor Party's ambition is building war machines, signing us up to a dirty deal with Washington.

It is absolutely outrageous, and I urge members of parliament who are voting for this bill and who are supporting this bill to go out into their communities and justify to the people of South Australia how this is money well spent, how this will help the South Australians who are sleeping on the street, sleeping in cars, sleeping in tents, because they cannot afford to find a place to live. Yet, meanwhile, over in Canberra we are seeing billions and billions of dollars of taxpayers' money being spent on this dud deal. It is an absolute outrage.

Budgets are about priorities. The Labor Party, in locking Australia into this dud deal, has demonstrated how out of touch it is with the people of our country. When I was at uni, we used to have an old chant, which was, 'Labor, Liberal are the same, only difference is the name.' I can tell you, when I look at the activities of the do-nothing Albanese government over in Canberra, never before has a truer statement been made. It is outrageous.

It is really disappointing to see Labor and the Liberals working in lockstep in this place to rush this bill through with such limited scrutiny, such little consideration of the implications for the management of public land, such little consideration about the nature of this deal and what it means for South Australia. This is a jobs mirage. We have heard these claims over and over and over again in South Australia. They do not eventuate. Instead, the South Australian government should be advocating for better job investment in our state that is not tied to making these war machines, that is not tied to locking Australia into an alliance with the United States.

Might I say, if there was surely a time to reconsider this approach, this is it. We are on the cusp of tying our foreign policy in Australia to Donald Trump. I have heard about going all the way with LBJ. Talk about going to hell in a handbasket with a basket case! That man is nuts. This is the person that Australians are meant to draw comfort from—Donald Trump, dictating Australia's foreign policy—us tying our national security to what goes on in Washington at a time when they have such a dangerous person vying for the presidency, such a dangerous person on the cusp of getting back into power over in Washington. This does not make our country safer. It actually creates more instability. It creates more danger for the people of Australia.

Indeed, children who are not yet born will spend all of their adult lives paying for this project. Rather than putting the money into public services—health, education, aged care, electricity—the Labor Party, with their mates in the Liberals, are locking Australia into this dud deal with the United States. It is really dangerous for Australia. It is something that is going to cause unrest in our region, and it is all about promoting the war industry and stoking the war-making ambitions of the United States. That is what this is about. It is an obscene waste of money—an absolutely obscene waste of money.

I think this parliament has an obligation to apply the blowtorch to this proposal, because, as my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks has said, this land swap or land grab, or whatever you want to call it, is the first step as part of this project. There is considerable community concern about this. Lots of people in the community are saying, 'Hang on, why can't we find the money for health? Why can't we find the money for education? Why can't we fix the ramping crisis? Why can't we give every South Australian a roof over their head, when we can find hundreds of millions of dollars to fund these war machines?' Many Australians are saying, 'Why on earth is the Australian government tying Australia's foreign policy to the United States in this way? Why on earth would we outsource our foreign policy to Trump Tower?' What a joke! The Greens will be opposing this.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (16:04): I rise briefly in support of the AUKUS (Land Acquisition) Bill, which aims to fast-track the acquisition of specific land parcels in Osborne to facilitate the AUKUS submarine project. The bill establishes a process to acquire designated land by the Urban Renewal Authority for the project, bypassing several usual procedures. The bill identifies specific parcels of land for acquisition and expediates the process by bypassing the standard Land Acquisition Act 1969 and the Local Government Act 1999 for acquiring this land.

Upon commencement of the act, the ownership of the land automatically transfers to the Urban Renewal Authority. The City of Port Adelaide Enfield, the previous owners, is entitled to compensation at market value and the bill outlines how this value will be determined by the independent valuer. The process minimises the need for approvals or permits typically required under other laws for land use or development.

This is a vital project not only for our national security but also for the South Australian economy and the jobs it will create. I support the bill's intent to prioritise speed and efficiency in acquiring land for the AUKUS project.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON (16:05): In speaking to this bill, I think it is good to look back at what has happened. In early 2023, the commonwealth and the state government entered into a corporation agreement to support the delivery of AUKUS or SSN-AUKUS, Australia's next generation of conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines, which will be constructed in South Australia at Osborne.

Essentially, I think this underlines a pretty important aspect that many speakers have already gone to which is national interest. With Osborne becoming the home of Australia's submarine construction industry, something I am pretty proud to be supporting, I think that that does play into the nature of future defence and national security implications, but I will put them to the side for a minute.

This legislation is being introduced to facilitate the delivery of the new submarine construction yard, which is obviously going to be put at Osborne, by securing a pretty important area of land that is currently owned by a council, that is the City of Port Adelaide Enfield, and it is for inclusion in the package of land transfers between, I am informed, the state and the commonwealth government. This land transfer, including land owned by the council, is an important step that ensures our state is ready to build submarines, making it again pretty important towards that national interest play.

The exchange of land will also unlock thousands of high-quality and high-paying jobs in industries such as shipbuilding and it will inject billions of dollars into infrastructure. As someone who has previously represented defence workers in our state, I can assure the members who have spoken here that those jobs are not illusory. They are real. I have seen them. They exist. I have watched them and indeed watched them disappear at some point when they have not been supported by governments, which has been truly disappointing not only for our state but also for the workers as they lose their jobs.

As well as playing our part in what is a really critical national undertaking, AUKUS will transform South Australia's economy for generations to come. As a result of AUKUS, it is estimated that over the forward estimates about $6 billion will be invested in the Australian industry and workforce and at least $2 billion invested into the South Australian infrastructure landscape alone—$6 billion and $2 billion.

Development of the submarine construction yard, which I am reliably informed is around about three times larger than the yard forecast for the previous Attack class program, will generate employment of up to 4,000 workers at its peak—4,000 high-paying jobs. This is in addition to the 4,000 to 5,000 direct jobs that are expected to be required to support the building of AUKUS submarines when the program reaches its peak.

The submarine program will also have flow-on benefits beyond defence and construction work. This includes the opportunity, for instance, to build and enhance our reputation both nationally and globally. Delivery of the SSN-AUKUS program is the biggest project that our state has ever seen, and South Australia must play a role in ensuring that that success becomes a reality. Given the complexity and scale of this project, we must move quickly to ensure the submarine construction yard is ready to begin construction of the new submarines on schedule.

This bill facilitates the transfer of four allotments currently owned by the council to Renewal SA. It will ensure that the council is compensated, as has already been outlined by other speakers, at the current market value of the land so that it can be vested with Renewal SA. Inclusion of this council land in the land transfers to the commonwealth will enable Australian Naval Infrastructure Pty Ltd (ANI) to better secure the perimeter of the new submarine construction yard and provide the opportunity for the development of a new access point to their facilities.

The need for this bill arises from the cooperation agreement between the state and commonwealth government and the commonwealth time frame for establishing a new submarine construction yard at Osborne, so it is very necessary to move quite quickly. This legislation is being introduced to ensure that the development of the new submarine construction yard can go ahead to meet the time frames.

Alternative pathways for securing the land will not meet the commonwealth's construction time frames, I am reliably informed, due to the statutory processes and time frames associated with the revocation of community land under the Local Government Act and the compulsory acquisition processes which could be put in place under the Land Acquisition Act. Neither of those will meet the time frames.

In order to meet the critical program dates targeted by ANI, the land must be available by no later than July 2024. This will ensure site preparation and early works for a grade-separated road and infrastructure services are relocated so that they can commence, subject to any approvals, as soon as practicable, I am informed. These early works are required to support the sustainment of the existing Osborne naval shipyard as the enabler to any future construction.

The bill will not affect the impact-assessed development application that was recently made pursuant to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016, which requires ANI to prepare and publicly consult on an environmental impact statement as part of the planning processes for the submarine construction yard. State and federal environmental, social and economic impact assessments will be undertaken with federal approval under the commonwealth's Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, which are required before the facility can begin construction.

The existing rights of infrastructure authorities within registered easements on the land are unaffected by the bill. However, other dedications and restrictions on the land, such as a community land classification under the Local Government Act, will be lifted to facilitate the transfer and future development of the land as a submarine construction yard. The sooner we get to this, the better.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (16:12): I would like to thank those who have contributed to this debate thus far: the Hon. Ms Lensink, the Hon. Mr Pangallo, the Hon. Ms Franks, the Hon. Mr Simms, the Hon. Ms Game and the Hon. Mr Hanson.

As has been outlined, the legislation is being introduced to facilitate the delivery of the new construction yard for submarines at Osborne. It is about securing an important area of land and is an inclusion in the package of land transfers between the state and commonwealth governments. It is an important part of ensuring that our state is ready to start building submarines, and the exchange of land will contribute towards unlocking thousands of quality high-paying jobs in industries such as shipbuilding. I commend the bill to the chamber.

The council divided on the second reading:

Ayes 17

Noes 2

Majority 15

AYES

NOES

Second reading thus carried; bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Established in the South Australian Ports (Disposal of Maritime Assets) Act 2000, detailed planning occurred in the Northern Lefevre Peninsula Master Plan of 2011 after a massive community consultation exercise. The environmental significance of that is that it forms part of a continuous green link from the Hills down to the Little Para River through Torrens Island, Falie Reserve, Biodiversity Park and Steel Mains to the coast at North Haven. With the land transfer, can the corridor now be developed in a manner sympathetic to retaining that original biodiversity utility?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the Mutton Cove Conservation Reserve, which, if I understand correctly, would be key to what the honourable member is referring to, is not affected by this land transfer.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: It is actually not just that area. I note that only last year the Port Adelaide Enfield council held community planning days in Falie Reserve, which is affected by this land transfer. How will the loss of that precious open space and the community investment be compensated for the hours of time and effort that was devoted to consultation and restoration?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the intention for Falie Reserve is that it will be vegetated, given that it is an overpass road that is being proposed for that. So I am advised that they will be working with ANI to achieve that outcome. More broadly to the open space question, the land affected by the bill is classified as community land under the Local Government Act 1999, and as has been outlined a portion of the land is described as Falie Reserve. Accordingly, there would be a loss of approximately eight hectares of community land in what is an industrial area of Osborne, but I am advised it is currently not heavily utilised.

The government will seek to offset this loss of community land by working with council and other government agencies to secure more accessible areas of public open space for community use using Renewal SA land at Victoria Road, Outer Harbor, directly opposite residential areas of North Haven—Biodiversity Park, it is called, I am advised, and it is approximately 26 hectares—and Cruickshank's Corner at Birkenhead adjacent to the Port River, which the council has previously expressed an interest in acquiring to establish community recreation facilities. That is approximately half a hectare.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: So the community will not be compensated for all the effort and time that they put into that space; is that what you are saying?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that compensation will be determined by an independent market valuation and that that can be in terms of cash or in kind to council. That is the most fulsome answer we currently have to the question that has been asked.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: That is adjacent to the question, not necessarily in response to the question. I want to turn to Mutton Cove Conservation Reserve and just give you a bit of background. There is a seawall. Its function was to limit the tidal ingress into the Mutton Cove Conservation Reserve. Community groups had been relaying their concerns about the integrity of that seawall to DEW before it was breached in 2016.

Since then, more and more of the seawall has been eroded so that at high tide the cove is effectively filled and the wind generates waves which are eroding the unconsolidated fill on the northern and western boundaries, threatening the integrity of Mersey Road. Rather than defending less than one kilometre of seawall, DEW now has to defend the remaining three sides, some 2.3 kilometres, comprised mostly of unconsolidated fill.

Because proper action was not undertaken, an investigation jointly funded by the ANI, the City of Port Adelaide Enfield and DEW, has never seen the light of day and remains buried within the department. With the proposed land transfer, will we see that investigation made public? Will the proposed land transfer see the state government assume liability for protecting the commonwealth land from the effects of storm surges and sea level rise? Further, I will have some more questions about access by the public to the Mutton Cove Conservation Reserve.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: First of all, I am advised that, in terms of the investigation or report that the honourable member referred to, that is under consideration by the Department for Environment and Water at present, and it will be their decision as to whether to make that public. In terms of the other matters that have been raised, on 15 February this year the South Australian Minister for Planning declared that the submarine construction yard project will undergo an impact assessed EIS process under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016. I am advised that those matters to which the honourable member referred can be considered as part of that EIS.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Mutton Cove Conservation Reserve is currently open to the public but, with the proposed transfer, will be surrounded on three landward sides by land owned by the commonwealth, with access tightly controlled. Workers are already restricted to discrete areas of the current defence facility. Will the commencement of operations restrict further public access to the conservation reserve? With regard to the parcel of land on the western side of Mutton Cove Conservation Reserve, which includes a car park for visitors to the reserve, how will visitors now be accommodated?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that ANI has undertaken to provide community access, and the government is working with ANI through the process to ascertain how and when that will occur. I am advised that access by Department for Environment and Water rangers will be available on a monthly basis.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: What happens to the car park access; how will that be facilitated?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: That is one of the matters that is being worked through at present.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Will the government guarantee that those friends and volunteers who have been supporting the Mutton Cove Conservation Reserve will be able to park their cars and have access to continue their conservation work?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: We are advised that ANI has indicated that they will provide public access.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Who will they provide public access to?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that we are still at the beginning of those conversations. It would be expected that groups such as Friends of Mutton Cove would be included in that, in terms of the conservation work that has been undertaken and would be beneficial to continue to undertake.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Will a permit system be implemented?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: As I indicated, we are at the beginning of the discussions, but ANI has provided an assurance that there will be public access.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Who will be responsible for the maintenance of the road? I note that the road is pretty degraded and damaged.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Could you clarify which road the honourable member is referring to?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The degraded and damaged road.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Can the member provide the name of the road to which she is referring?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Who will be responsible for all the roads within this parcel of land?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the overpass road which is proposed will be under the care and control of ANI and any roads within the subyard will also be under the care and control of ANI. Any roads outside of the subyard will remain under their current ownership.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: On what date was the chief executive of Port Adelaide Enfield council informed of the planned acquisition?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the chief executive was advised before the execution of the original deed, which was late last year. The understanding is that it was early November.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: On what date was the Mayor of Port Adelaide Enfield council informed of the acquisition?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that the chief executive was to brief the mayor. In terms of direct communication, there was a letter provided, obviously in writing, to the mayor on the same day that the bill was tabled in the House of Assembly.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The bill was tabled on 9 April; is that the case? Is the minister then saying that the letter to the mayor was dated the same date?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that it may have been the date of the 10^th that the letter was actually sent.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Why then was a letter provided on 16 April from Renewal SA, or is that a different letter again, the one from Chris Menz, chief executive, that is cc'd to Mark Withers, chief executive, Port Adelaide Enfield council, addressed to Mayor Claire Bowen, informing the mayor of the AUKUS (Land Acquisition) Bill? What is the discrepancy between those dates? Were there several pieces of correspondence and we have not been provided with them all, or is there just an error in communicating in the House of Assembly the actual date of communication with the mayor?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am happy to investigate whether or not there was an error of communication and take on notice the exact date the letter was provided.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: When you say 'take on notice', when will you bring back an answer?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that we should be able to get an answer very shortly, so within this section of our committee stage.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I look forward to that answer and that clarification. On what date was the Port Adelaide Enfield council informed of the acquisition? Were they given copies of the bill or briefed on the bill prior to its introduction to the parliament?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that council was advised through the letter that we were just clarifying the date of, and that they were not briefed prior to the introduction of the bill into the House of Assembly.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I did foreshadow in my second reading contribution that I would appreciate the minister outlining the alternative options for land acquisition. I think the government did explore community title revocation and the complications in terms of the time frames that would have gone through, which is why we ended up having this fairly unusual situation of having a piece of legislation required to go through parliament. It was something we were certainly briefed on at our meetings. I would appreciate if the minister could place those remarks on the record.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I thank the honourable member for her question. I am able to advise that in terms of the other options, the alternatives, one would have been to negotiate to purchase the land from council. I am advised that the land affected by this bill is classified as community land under the Local Government Act 1993, with a portion of the land described as Falie Reserve. Accordingly, the council cannot sell the land unless the community land classification is revoked in accordance with section 194 of the Local Government Act. That process could take months to several years to complete and therefore would not fit in with the time frames that are required for this project.

The other alternative, acquiring it under the Land Acquisition Act, is not being pursued because the process carries the risk of a legal challenge, which could result in a significant delay to the land transfer and delivery of the project. As was outlined in the second reading explanation and also by others who contributed, the time frames for this are quite tight. The compulsory acquisition processes set out under the Land Acquisition Act will take a minimum of nine months to complete, which would not meet the target settlement date of 30 June 2024 under the project deed.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Who signed off on the project deed?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that the Premier signed the deed on 10 November, and there were some amendments made in March.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Has the minister been able to find what date formal correspondence was made with the mayor and whether it was the same day the minister indicated in the other place?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the letter was dated 16 April 2024. It was hand delivered to the chief executive on 17 April.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: So, minister, to clarify, given the House of Assembly debate happened on 9 and 10 April, there was no formal conversation and communication in writing with the mayor prior to this with regard to this bill; is that what has now been established?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the CEO was advised in late 2023. That was through discussions. The honourable member has been referring specifically to letters. My advice is that those discussions happened in late 2023, and there have been multiple conversations since then, leading up to the tabling in parliament and since.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Tabling in parliament on which date?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that there were conversations on the weekend before the tabling in the House of Assembly, but it was well understood that the land would be acquired back from late last year.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Well understood by whom? Conversations between whom?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that the conversations were between the chief executive of the City of Port Adelaide Enfield and the chief executive of Renewal SA.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Did the minister call the mayor at some stage? In which case, on what date?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that the minister called the mayor on the morning that it was tabled in the House of Assembly.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: So we have a deed signed 10 November 2023, phone conversations and nothing in writing until April 2024. It is quite a period of time. In fact, had you started a formal process of community consultation, you could have had this job almost done without sacrificing democracy.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: If I may just provide clarification, there were also face-to-face meetings, I am advised.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: But nothing in writing and no community consultation. When did the community find out about this piece of legislation of land acquisition, which is 'unique' in the words of the minister in the other place, in regard to debate about whether or not this sort of legislation has ever been done before in this nation?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the interactions have been between the management of Renewal SA and council.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: When were councillors informed of the acquisition plan, and when were they first given copies of the bill?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that a good part of this was answered in a previous question. The mayor was provided with that on 17 April. In terms of when they might have shared that with the council laws would be a question for the mayor and/or the CEO.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: So the minister is now saying the mayor was provided with that information on 17 April? Is that the case, just to clarify, because these dates are shifting a lot?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the chief executive of Renewal SA provided that by hand on 17 April, as I mentioned a few minutes ago.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: So members of this parliament had the bill before the mayor, in fact a good week before the mayor. You did not even have the common decency to send the council the bill once it was tabled in parliament in that same day or week. How does the minister—

The Hon. C.M. Scriven interjecting:

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I am leading to a question. How does the minister expect the community to have confidence that they really will be compensated and properly consulted into the future and that they will continue to have proper access to the Mutton Cove Conservation Reserve?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the matter of compensation is outlined within this bill and it provides for a market valuation by a third-party independent valuer. That is where the guarantees come in.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: My question was: how can the community trust you? But, sure, give another adjacent answer rather than a direct answer. Given the number of road closures that will be required in the area, how will the Kardi Yarta Adventure Playground be impacted and what compensation will be given to the council for the loss of that community park?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that there is a separate process that is not affected by this legislation that is being run by the Department for Infrastructure and Transport.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: How will the community find out about that process, or will it perhaps be tabled in legislation and then sent to them a week after? How can the community trust you to properly consult them on anything to do with this when you have rushed the process through and shown no care or concern for proper democratic process and that this simply suspends existing legislation for the sake of making it easier for the minister to have a few phone conversations and get things done quickly rather than appropriately?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that, being that that is a separate project, we would need to take it on notice and get an update from the Department for Infrastructure and Transport.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Who was consulted with regard to the drafting of this bill?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that it was the Crown Solicitor's Office, the Office for AUKUS and parliamentary counsel.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: When was it approved by cabinet?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: That sort of information is cabinet-in-confidence. We do not normally talk about the internal deliberations within cabinet.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Usually people are happy to say that something has been approved by cabinet. Was it approved by cabinet, and was it approved this year? Goodness! Cabinet-in-confidence is about the discussion within cabinet, not the decisions of cabinet.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The answer to the two questions: yes and yes.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: When was this legislation approved by cabinet? What date? Surely that is not a state secret.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I do not have the exact date.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 12), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (16:51): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.