Bills

North Adelaide Public Golf Course Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 18 June 2025.)

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (11:02): I rise to make some remarks in relation to this piece of legislation, which I have to say at the outset that I think the President of the United States would be quite proud of. We have seen, in this term of this government, that the boys' club well and truly runs the Labor Party, and this bill was a bit of an escalation on the level of that pattern.

I have to confess that I do not know a lot about golf, but there are a lot of sports I do not know a lot about. I have never had any particular skill with hitting balls with any form of stick, whether they are metal or willow or any other form, and as a consequence I must confess that watching or attending events that involve anybody chasing or hitting balls or the like is not something that I participate in. I do appreciate, however, that others do, and as a Liberal I believe that 'whatever floats your boat' should be the approach that we take to things in general.

Obviously, the LIV Golf event is very popular and very well supported, and it is certainly one that we are supportive of, but it is not one for which we believe all laws should be cast aside to facilitate unfettered control over our Parklands. There is a conflict, I think, within this legislation which fails to respect what the Parklands represent to the people of South Australia. They are part of the green belt for people who live not just in the seat of Adelaide but in close proximity, whether they are in the seats of Dunstan, Unley, West Torrens or Badcoe. A whole range of other people use them for recreation purposes from time to time, so people will go in there because they are the parks for the people.

The guiding principle, when it comes to the Parklands, should be to build with care. I appreciate that we have a cultural boulevard, we have universities, we have hospitals—there are a whole range of things that take place in the Parklands—and we have built form. This particular approach to the Parklands, I think, takes too much away from the Parklands without respecting what they are. I also think that this debate should not be cast, as it has been by some, as a dispute between the City of Adelaide and the rest of South Australia, who get frustrated at times with the Adelaide City Council saying no to lots of things.

I certainly share the concern that the Adelaide City Council can get a little bit precious at times and see themselves as the custodians, when in a legislative sense they are custodians on behalf of us all for the Parklands. But they do understand the Parklands well because they are responsible for maintaining them, and they have a range of committees and legislation which have placed care under their control.

I do not know what Colonel Light would think about this particular proposal, being the one who actually established the Parklands. At some stage there was a proposal for Adelaide to have a second ring of parklands. It is clearly something that would have been beneficial in these days when we have a lot more density within Greater Adelaide. People appreciate having those open spaces where they can exercise or walk their dogs or play with their kids or do whatever it is they want to do.

I think there have been some disparaging remarks made about the John E Brown Park, where the Premier, and it might have been the minister as well, has talked about fill being there. I have not had the opportunity to go and have a look at that myself, but I understand there are walking tracks, and certainly a lot of trees there. Apart from the fill that Labor wants us to believe is so offensive there is a lot of other space in that park which will be potentially disenfranchised from people who currently use that, and I think that is a great shame.

This bill is a real doozy. As I have said, I have not had a lot of experience with hitting balls—not successfully where they are meant to go, anyway—in my lifetime, but I have had a lot of experience looking at bills. This bill is quite remarkable. In my view, it gives unfettered powers to the minister of the day and without any recourse to anyone. The minister has cited on many occasions, 'Well, no, we wouldn't be intending to do that,' but that is not actually contained in the body of the legislation.

Any reading of this bill will demonstrate that this really does hand over not just the golf course as it is and the John E Brown Park but potentially a whole range of other parts of the Parklands just based on the minister's opinion. I do not think that is acceptable to the people of South Australia. If this was a piece of private property, sure, go for it. One of my Liberal colleagues in the House of Assembly remarked that it reads like a contract. There are a lot of things that we do not know about what the golf course is going to look like: how much it is going to cost and the design—there are so many open questions about it.

The modern golf course, as I understand it from people who do know about these things, is quite elaborate and they cost a lot of money in terms of maintenance and upkeep, and there are certainly potential security issues going forward which I think the government has not been particularly transparent about. The very fact that it is Mr Greg Norman who will be designing the golf course—as I understand it, it did not actually go out to tender for any other people who might know how to make one. I think this bill is incompatible with the Parklands' purpose and as a unique place for South Australians. This bill really goes far too far.

I want to talk about some of the clauses in the bill which I think are quite invidious. What my amendments seek to do is to pull back on the unfettered nature of this bill and the huge amount of overreach that is contained in it. It actually has more overreach in it than the Women's and Children's Hospital Bill—and we could appreciate that. We talked about this before in this place in relation to the Thebarton barracks and what a complete shame it was that that had to be demolished to make way for the Women's and Children's Hospital, but people voted Labor so that is what you get with the Labor Party. They will take more and more Parklands, treat it like a land bank and get Emperor Malinauskas in there to do the big sell job.

I will talk about some of these clauses in a little bit more detail and why some of them are so offensive. This act overrides—apart from the Aboriginal Heritage Act—every other single act on our statute books. I have not seen that since the Olympic Dam indenture bill, which had the same effect, and I think we could all understand why that was: it was a piece of legislation that was designed to assist Olympic Dam to reach that next level, and there were very good reasons for the state to do that. But this is about a golf course, and the timing, too, is really quite offensive.

I am sure other members will speak—maybe the Hon. Rob Simms will speak on behalf of the city council, as he has been an elected member there and understands how they have been treated—but I think the parliament has been treated with complete and utter contempt. We have been more than happy to work with the government on things of a nature where it could be demonstrated that haste was absolutely necessary: things of statewide and national significance like AUKUS—I do not think a golf course compares to AUKUS—and the Whyalla Steelworks, to rescue them. Again, they are of statewide national significance so, sure, we are prepared to drop everything and have a briefing and pass the bill through very, very quickly and do our best to give it due consideration. But this is a golf course.

I got a message from our manager in the other house, Mr Jack Batty, the member for Bragg, who said, 'There is some bill coming on'—this was on Tuesday morning, maybe at 10.30 or something. I think I got a call about the same time from the minister and probably cheekily said to him, 'What's your excuse this time?' I do not think a golf course is a reasonable excuse. LIV Golf finishes at Grange in 2026, and this is not due to start until 2028. For the life of me, I cannot understand why this has needed to be dealt with so quickly. Certainly, in the briefing with the minister that we had within two hours of first being told that there was a bill, he refused to rule out trying to get it through both houses. It was just bizarre: completely bizarre behaviour. This is a golf course—it is not AUKUS and it is not the Whyalla Steelworks—but we have to drop everything.

I think a lot of that has to do with the level of arrogance that we see from the boys' club that runs the government. They want to exercise their will over the parliament as well and make sure that everybody knows that they are running this town. That is just disgraceful. I think all South Australians should be very concerned that we have someone who is popular—he appeals to some—exercising his will over every other institution, because he can.

I am quite convinced that it was the government's full intention to ram this through last sitting week. I think they fully intended to do that, and we would have had minimal opportunity to provide any scrutiny of the bill at that time. To try to get a bill about a golf game through both houses of parliament within one week is extraordinary. We then had the Premier on the radio the next morning, Wednesday morning, saying, 'No, no, we never had that intention.' But the minister refused to rule that out, several times, in our briefing. I had also asked what the intention was and got no answer on that one.

We are all required to do our due diligence in this place too. This place is not just a plaything of the Labor Party, although I am sure they think that is the case. We are all elected to do our jobs and we would like to be able to do them. As I have said, for the steelworks or for AUKUS—yes, fair enough, there was rationale for those things, but not for a golf course.

I was talking about clause 4, which overrules every other act. I cannot see how that is necessary, so we have an amendment to address that one. Then we get to part 2 of the bill, which is the project site. At clause 5(1), as I have mentioned, it is not just the North Adelaide Golf Course and the John E Brown Park (Park 27A) and certain road reserve areas in the vicinity. Clause 5(1)(b) states that if, after the commencement of this section, the minister determines that it is necessary or desirable to include additional areas of land in the project site or to remove any areas of land from the project site, etc., then he can do that. In the clause beneath that, clause 5(2), the minister has to consult with the Adelaide City Council. Well, fair enough, but if they say no I am sure we know that they will be overridden in any case.

I go to clause 6, cancellation of leases and licences. We are not aware that there are many leases and licences but we have asked for a list. I have asked the government to actually provide that. We were promised one last week; we still have not received one as far as I am aware. But they are all cancelled, effectively, at the handover date.

Then we have preparations for the handover of the project site. Before designating a handover date, the minister must consult, but then Adelaide City Council has to hand it over and does not really have much discretion about that, and the onus is put on them.

Under 'Vesting and care, control etc of the project site', clause 8(6) states that any items of personal property remaining on the site after its vest are forfeited to the Crown, and there is no compensation and no effort made. Why is that? It is quite strange that this exists. Subclause (7) states that the Adelaide City Council still retains any liability, yet there is a clause further on in the bill which actually states that the state government has no liability for anything. It is all very one-way in that the state government can exercise its right over this site and nobody else has any capacity to be considered.

In Part 3—Carrying out the project, we think the consultation with the city council that the clause talks about can be improved, so there is an amendment to that effect. Clause 10 of the bill explicitly states that the Aboriginal Heritage Act applies, which we support, but we also think that other acts should not be wholly excluded, which is why with our amendments we have that as a disallowable instrument, so at least the Legislative Review Committee and the parliament can have some oversight of that.

Clause 11 relates to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act, so quite rightly the assessment place for any planning decision is the State Planning Commission. But clause 11(1) states that it is a deemed to satisfy proposal, which means that whatever is submitted must be approved by the State Planning Commission. I have spoken before about the role that SCAP plays, and I think it is a very useful process. We have seen, particularly through bodies that the commission consults with, such as the office of the government architect and ODASA, that a lot of proposals that have been submitted to SCAP can be improved.

The government thinks that there should just be a blanket approval given to whatever is submitted. It could be a whole range of things—it could be a Ferris wheel for all we know—and there will be nothing that anybody can do, including the Planning Commission, because it has to just rubberstamp it. It is not even a rubberstamped, it is just automatic. That, too, is quite extraordinary.

Clause 12 in relation to the project states that no other state laws apply. As I have said, we have an amendment to improve that particular clause. Clause 13 contains requirements relating to trees. This one has caused quite a lot of consternation. My understanding is that a huge number of trees will need to be removed from John E Brown Park for the driving range, but I will get to that in some of my questioning as well.

I think the minister has been on radio saying that one tree will be replaced with three new trees. Well, it also says there 'or seedlings'. Anybody who has grown seedlings, as I do in my own garden, knows how easy it is for some errant husband or garden bloke to accidentally whipper-snip your seedlings. They are very vulnerable and tiny and, while I appreciate that smaller plants have a better opportunity to form a strong root system, they do take time to grow. I think that is a bit of a joke, too, and we have some amendments, as I understand does the Hon. Mr Simms, so we will enjoy discussing those as we get to them.

The support zones are very much open slather. Support zones can be in place, again identified by the minister and placed in the Gazette. Once this bill goes through—I am assuming that it will go through; there is not much anyone can do about that—it will enable the minister to use all these different sites to apply for whatever purpose he likes, without any recourse. Again, we have the extinguishment of leases or licences by the minister in those zones.

Roads—this is going to be interesting. I also foreshadow, for the minister, that we have some concerns about permanent road closures. We have all heard, 'No, no, no; that's not going to happen', but the Hon. Mr Pangallo, who does know a lot about golf and who spoke to me about this quite recently, holds concerns that some of the roads—whether War Memorial Drive or Jeffcott Street—may indeed need to be permanently closed to accommodate this. It is interesting.

I did take a little drive around the golf course the other day, and it is fair to say that it is an area that fits in between the sort of jagged teeth around the hospital there; in some areas it is quite narrow and in others it is quite large. Mr Pangallo has made the point that some of these world-class professionals who play golf can hit a ball pretty hard and for a fairly long way, so whether this golf course land, as it is, is going to be able to accommodate the sort of golf course that allows for them to hit the ball as far as they would normally hit remains to be seen.

However, as part of that we do have very great concerns about road closures. The Calvary Hospital in North Adelaide, as we know, has palliative care and a range of other services there, radiology and pathology services. The parking is okay but it is not brilliant, and I think the services there may well be disadvantaged by this, particularly with the permanency of what we may have going forward. Clause 16 includes further comments in relation to the vesting of the project land:

The minister may, in order to implement leasing or such other arrangements…for any other purpose connected with the operation of this Act that the Minister thinks fit, by instrument in writing…

So here is your letter, this is what I am doing. The minister has decided to do all of these things to make sure that the project takes place.

Then we get to Part 4—Operation of golf course. The golf course is to continue to operate as a public golf course, and we would like that to continue. That is good, so thumbs up on that clause. It also provides, at subclause (2):

Nothing…prevents the erection of fencing or other barriers…where the Minister is satisfied…is necessary…for reasons of public safety…

Etc. We appreciate that. One of the things Mr Pangallo said to me is that, given the concerns a lot of people in our community have about LIV Golf itself and the Saudi regime, there is high potential for protests to be associated with this event and there may, therefore, be a higher requirement for these fences to be up.

We have also been told, in relation to the fences, that it is only going to be one week out of 52. We know, from experience with the car race in the eastern parklands, that there is a lot of infrastructure that is up well before and after the event, so I think we all have a right to be very sceptical about how long that piece of parklands is going to be alienated from the public for the purposes of setting up the event. That also reminds me that the LIV Golf contract is a contract, and so it is time limited. What will happen if the contract does not continue past 2032, or whatever the contract date is, and it never comes back?

The minister still has all of these powers. For that reason, some of my amendments will actually require him to come back to parliament. We say, 'Alright, we will agree to let you do these parts of it for now, but if you really want to continue to do this then you have to come back to the parliament.' I think that is fair and reasonable. Then we have the approved event support zones, which similarly provide unfettered control over those areas. All they need to do is be identified by the minister to enable any of those works, and there is no recourse to anyone.

If I go to Part 5—Miscellaneous, clause 26—Other actions to give effect to Act, this is very, very broad. I do not know why the government thinks it needed to cast this piece of legislation so broadly that just about anything is captured. As I said, one of my colleagues in the House of Assembly remarked that it does read like a contract, which if this was private land would be fair and reasonable, but this is Parklands. If it is required that the state government has to have so much control over what is public land then maybe that price is too high for this parliament.

I recognise that I probably do not have the numbers with me on this one, but I think that is a great shame. I would hope that all of my crossbench colleagues would consider that there are some compromises, which are through amendments that are before this bill. I think it is something that in the future the people of South Australia will be quite angry about. I think, on reflection, people will live to regret if they do not make a reasonable attempt to try to pull back some of the over-the-top clauses that are contained in this piece of legislation. As I said, it is more unfettered than the Women's and Children's Hospital legislation, and what is it for? It is for a golf course. I conclude my remarks on the bill and, if amendments are not made to this bill, we will not be supporting it.