Bills

North Adelaide Public Golf Course Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: To save time, I might ask a lot of my questions during the clause 1 stage, if that is agreeable to you. My first question relates to the status of the plan for the redevelopment. Can the minister advise: what is the status of this plan, has it been shared with the government and has it been shared with LIV Golf?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I thank the member for his question. I am advised that the plans are currently under development.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Has the minister seen any project scope for the plans? What guidance has the government provided to Greg Norman Golf Course Design to inform the development of the plan?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: My understanding is that it is being developed at this point in time by Greg Norman Golf Course Design, and once those designs are available we will be able to work through them.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Has the government provided Greg Norman Golf Course Design with any guidelines to inform the development of this plan? Have such guidelines been developed in consultation with LIV Golf, the city council or any other players?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: As you may be able to appreciate, we are not golf course designers, that is why we are engaging the Greg Norman Design Group to come up with what a world championship golf course would look like.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: So the government has not provided any guidance to Greg Norman Golf Course Design in terms of what they are considering here—it is literally, 'Here's your budget, go for gold, do whatever you like, there's no parameters around that'?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: As a government we are working with what our expectations would be, as we have highlighted with this bill that is before us today, with trees being preserved as much as possible, but we are working through what a world championship golf course is required to be.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Has that information been provided to the brief that has been provided to Greg Norman designs? For instance, has the government said they want to retain trees? Have they talked about limiting impact on Parklands, and the like? I am trying to get to the bottom of exactly what guidance has been provided to Greg Norman designs. I find it hard to believe that the government would just say, 'Do whatever you want.'

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: You can appreciate—and I think this has been mentioned a few times in the other chamber as well—those design processes are being slowed down in some ways to make sure that there are opportunities to preserve as many trees as possible, and that has been one of our key focuses here as well, taking the time to get this right. The Greg Norman Golf Course Design team and the state government have been working together to come up with what that could look like.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: The Greg Norman design team has been advised of the government's desire to preserve trees and green space? What other brief has been provided to Greg Norman Golf Course Design? The minister advised a moment ago that this is still being worked through, but then she indicated that the government is working in collaboration with Greg Norman Golf Course Design. So what is in and what is out of the brief?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am advised there are a number of things that we would like to focus on, and a lot of it is captured in the bill that is before us today. Aboriginal heritage is obviously a primary concern, and I have been advised that it is something we want to focus on. Public amenity is another and, as we highlighted earlier, it is really about the environment, with the trees and making sure that vegetation can be preserved as much as possible.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I am a little bit confused here, because earlier on in my questioning, in response to my questions, the minister indicated that a brief had not been provided. Now it sounds like there has been a brief provided. Can the minister clarify whether the brief is simply what is within the legislation or is there other criteria that has been provided to Greg Norman design, and how did the government arrive at that criteria? What is in and what is out?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: As I have been advised, we have a contract with them and they are to provide a range of services, a number of which we have already outlined not only in this bill but today as well. That is what we will be working through to try to achieve.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Will the minister make that contract publicly available so that members of parliament can see what is part of this contract with Greg Norman design and LIV Golf, given we are being asked to vote on this legislation today and we have not actually seen the plans?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am advised it is confidential. If we were to share the contract there would be confidential parts within the contract, so it is unable to be shared.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Does that contract involve a business plan? Bearing in mind that I asked the minister in this place, and I moved a motion, for the production of documents calling on the government to make the business case available. I was advised at the time that there was no such business case. Is it now the case that there is a business case as part of the contract?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I thank the honourable member for his question. As I have said earlier, there is a lot to work through here and we continue to work through this. The bill before us today has made clear some of those provisions we are wanting to put in place, and we are working through what this new development could look like. At the end of the day, the importance of this is that we are building a golf course in place of a golf course. It is going to be an incredible facility that not only can be used at competition level but also as a public facility in South Australia, and it is one we are proud to be investing in.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I appreciate that there is a lot to work through, but at the same time we are being asked to make a decision on this today. Can the minister reveal whether or not there are any financial obligations being placed on the state government as part of this contractual arrangement? Whether there is any minimum return that is being expected to LIV Golf as part of this contractual arrangement? Precisely what brief has been provided to Greg Norman design? The minister has said that some of this information is commercial-in-confidence, but can she provide the parliament with an update on the core elements that inform this contractual arrangement, given we are being asked to support the legislation that enables this?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: As I have highlighted, there is quite an amount to work through but, at the end of the day, what we are talking about here is not just about a commercial golf course. This is about a public golf course as well. What we are enabling ourselves to do here is invest in an open space and do something that I think is being able to back in a really popular sport like golf. It is not just about the competition; this is also about how many South Australians will be able to benefit, and also how many interstate people will be able to benefit from this incredible investment as well. It is an investment in our open space. It is investment in sport and participation. It is also an investment in our Parklands.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Just so I am clear, there is a contractual arrangement with the various players. We will not get an opportunity to see it. There is, obviously, a brief that has been provided to inform the plan, yet we will not get an opportunity to see it. Given this information is not being shared with the parliament, why on earth are we being asked to vote on this today?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: As I have been advised, this bill is not about a contract with any organisation like LIV Golf, as you may be suggesting. It is really about enabling us to get on with investing in the North Adelaide Golf Course, which is a public golf course. Yes, it will be available for tournaments like LIV, but also available for many other public-facing opportunities, and also other competitions that may arise as well because of this investment.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Does the contract give LIV Golf the power to pull out of any arrangement with the state government if they are not happy with the design?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: As I just advised earlier, it is my understanding that this particular bill before us today is not about a contract with any particular organisation. This bill before us today is about an investment in the North Adelaide public golf course, and what we are here to discuss is how are we investing in this site and the parameters around that investment.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Can I ask the minister just in relation to the contract, which follows a similar line of questioning to the Hon. Mr Simms: if the bill is not passed in the form that the government has tabled it, what is the understanding of the status of that contract? Is the contract dependent on this parliament passing the bill in the form the government has put it to the parliament?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: As has been made very public, we are hoping to have this incredible event at the North Adelaide Golf Course by 2028, and this bill before us today enables us to achieve such an outcome, to be able to deliver on that commitment that we would have LIV Golf be able to participate at the North Adelaide Golf Course in 2028.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the honourable minister for her answer, but she did not actually answer my question, which was: to what extent is the contract dependent on the bill passing pretty much in the entirety of the form in which it has been tabled?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: As I just highlighted in my previous answer, I am advised that, to be able to have the certainty that this event can go ahead in 2028, we need the provisions within this bill to ensure that we can get the course ready in time. As we know, this is not just about the incredible opportunity that will come about with these investments for the public but also the economic opportunities that will come about because of investments, of bringing LIV Golf not only to South Australia but then will be able to be also brought to the city.

We know that this event, year in and year out that it has been held in South Australia, has continued to grow, and the economic record of this being provided is just over $81 million from the last event that was held here at the start of this year. We do not want to risk any of the opportunities that come with this event through not having the opportunity to progress with these required changes in North Adelaide. We want to get on and get it done so that we can make sure that we can bring this economic opportunity to South Australia and also the opportunities that come with us investing in open space like North Adelaide Golf Course.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the minister for that answer, but—and we have heard quite repeatedly about the need for the timeliness—can she list what aspects require the hasty delivery of this legislation, which will otherwise hold up the delivery of the golf course on time for 2028?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I can appreciate that these developments take time. I do not know how to build a golf course, but they take a substantial amount of time, and if we do not get onto this now we do put at risk the opportunity of holding this in 2028, because of the amount of work that is required to be achieved. The requirement of this bill before us today is to enable us to get on and do just that, to start to get everything in place to bring this up to a world championship level, so that we can continue to make not only the opportunity to bring many people to our state who may have not been here before but the economic opportunities that follow with that as well. That is why we need to get this bill before the parliament and through the parliament, so that we can get on with making sure that we can secure this event.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Just on this issue of the contract, does the contract contain one or more schedules that specify what is to be delivered, by whom and by when? Are there sections of the contract that the minister could release publicly that are not commercial-in-confidence?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am advised that there are confidentiality provisions within that contract that do prevent it from being released, but we are not really here to debate the contract; we are here to debate a bill that is enabling us to invest in the North Adelaide Golf Course, which is a public golf course, one that is there. Yes, it will help with this event, but it will help with us also investing in a public space that supports people's participation in golf.

We know that golf has become incredibly popular, and one of the key reasons for its popularity and its growth has been LIV Golf being here in South Australia. This is really about us being able to invest in sports participation, as well as enabling us to attract an event like LIV Golf to come here and enabling us to invest in a space that has not been invested in enough for some time.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: The minister has mentioned 2028 on multiple occasions. What discussions have occurred about LIV Golf for 2027? If Grange members vote against hosting in 2027, what is the government's contingency plan for LIV Golf in 2027?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am not really sure how that is relevant to this particular bill before us today.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (The Hon. I.K. Hunter): Order!

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: The bill before us today is enabling us to do something quite unique, and that is to be able to invest in a public golf course. That is a good thing for us to be doing. It is enabling us to not only invest in open space, invest in being able to attract an event like LIV Golf, but also increase participation through having a public golf course that is available to South Australians.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: Is there a chance that the golf course will be finished by 2027, because what is going to happen if Grange's members vote against hosting in 2027? What is the backup plan and are there any contingencies, or will there be the ability for this golf course to be finished by 2027 in order to host LIV Golf in 2027?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: As I said earlier, to be able to achieve a world championship golf course, as we are suggesting, this is required, hence we are trying to get this bill through parliament. This is because it will take some time to be able to get the golf course to the standard that is required. I have been advised that it is not anticipated it will be ready in 2027 and this is where we need this to be able to give the time to be able to get this golf course ready and get it through the parliament and that is why we are doing this today.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: What provisions or contingency planning is in place if no venue is secured for 2027, and what conversations have been had with Grange Golf Club in regard to their position on hosting in 2027?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I thank the member for her question. Maybe I missed the section in the bill that refers to where every tournament of LIV Golf will be held. I am happy for her to organise a meeting—

The Hon. H.M. Girolamo interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (The Hon. I.K. Hunter): Order! This is not question time, it is the committee stage.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: —with the South Australian Tourism Commission where we can discuss further about where our LIV Golf events will be. As we highlighted previously, and I think as many people have highlighted, LIV Golf is a particularly popular event and one that has grown year in, year out. It is one that we know is well attended and it has been great to see not only our dedicated golfers go but young people as well. We are seeing participation in golf become a trend in the community, where we are seeing more people take it up than before.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: Will LIV Golf concerts, including DJ sets, go ahead at the North Adelaide Golf Course in future years? Given the proximity to Calvary Hospital, how will the government manage noise and community impacts if concerts are held at North Adelaide?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I have been advised that we are not envisaging those concerts to be held on the North Adelaide Golf Course and that is something we look forward to working through.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I have some questions about the so-called backup legislation, which is now 'the' legislation. In the media there was some discussion around backup legislation. When was the bill that we are dealing with today first made available to some members of the crossbench and when was it made available to the minister?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: As the member would be very well aware, we do not discuss what we talk about in cabinet within the parliament. For any other questions in regard to members of the crossbench, you are welcome to ask those questions of them.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Why did the government not release the bill for public consultation, as is the usual practice?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I think I have answered this in a number of different ways, but I will repeat those words. I guess there is a need, with the amount of work that is required, to get this underway as quickly as possible. We have found that we have to be able to get on with it and getting this bill into the parliament and through the parliament is enabling us to do just that.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Just to return to this issue of the secret contract, the bill before us provides for the minister to take over the Parklands for a championship course. Is the minister telling the chamber that there is no contract or heads of agreement with LIV Golf, or there is an arrangement and she just will not share with us what the heads of agreement are?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: When I was referencing the contract earlier—just in case there was confusion—it was in regard to the Greg Norman Golf Course Design; that is what I was referencing before.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: So there is no contract with LIV Golf; is that what the minister is saying?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am advised that the South Australian Tourism Commission would likely have a contract with LIV Golf.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Can the minister confirm whether or not LIV Golf has a contract with the South Australian Tourism Commission, and is that contingent on the legislation being delivered in its current form and them being satisfied with any redevelopment plan?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am advised that the South Australian Tourism Commission does have a contract with LIV Golf.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Can the minister advise what the nature of that contract is—to the point that the Hon. Michelle Lensink touched on earlier? Is it the case that an element of the contract relates to the legislation that is before us today and this legislation being passed in its current form? Does the contract also deal with LIV Golf's satisfaction with any golf course redevelopment plan?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I have been advised that the contract does require LIV Golf to be held in North Adelaide in 2028.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I asked a question in the second reading about ambush marketing, and I will explain it further. Ambush marketing is a provision under the Major Events Act and this legislation anticipates that the Major Events Act will be activated for these events. Ambush marketing entails that a person must not participate in ambush marketing in relation to a major event to which that section of the Major Events Act is declared to apply, with a maximum penalty in the case of a body corporate of some $250,000, or, in the case of a natural person, some $50,000. So these are quite significant penalties.

The reason I raise it is because while I think the legislation is anticipating somebody trying to pretend to be the event and making money out of the event in that way, my concern is for reasonable political discourse. As I outlined in my second reading speech and alluded to, there may be people who have protest signs, for example, or perhaps T-shirts that might say 'LIV Golf' and instead of 'LIV Golf: Golf But Louder', it might say 'LIV Golf: Golf But Bloodier', using the logo. Will that be subject to these ambush marketing provisions, or will the government guarantee people the freedom of political communication?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I have been advised that this bill is not proposing to change any of the requirements of the Major Events Act.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I am not asking for the government to change the Major Events Act here and now. What I am saying is: given the controversy around the human rights abuses associated with the Public Investment Fund, will the government guarantee, in relation to those parts of the Major Events Act, that—not ticket scalping, for example, and not other provisions that allow them to shut down roads and the like but those ambush marketing provisions that could, in fact, penalise what would otherwise be lawful political communication appropriating the LIV Golf branding and language—the government will not clamp down on democracy like they do currently under the Saudi Arabian regime?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: As per my previous answer, I have been advised that we are not proposing to alter any part of the Major Events Act in regard to this event.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Did the proposal for Greg Norman designs to undertake this work go through the standard government procurement process?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I have been advised that we utilised established government procurement processes to achieve the outcome.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Just to circle back to the confidential contract, can the minister advise precisely what is confidential in terms of the brief required for the design being sought by Greg Norman designs? Also, why is the timing confidential? Surely she can advise us on those things.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am advised that the entire contract has confidentiality provisions attached to it, but as I have said earlier, the aim here is to be able to provide a golf course at championship level by 2028.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: So the minister is seriously advising that the contract in its entirety is subject to confidentiality arrangements?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am advised that is correct.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: Will payments to Greg Norman's company be required to be disclosed in the annual report?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: Considering the confidentiality of those provisions, I would have to take that on notice.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: How many other companies were invited to tender for the design or redevelopment work of North Adelaide Golf Course?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am advised there is a direct contact with the Greg Norman Golf Course Design team and that others have also been engaged to support that process.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: Who else has been engaged at this stage?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am advised that there are different services that we can call upon to be able to provide support to the development of this significant investment. One would be through architectural heritage, Aboriginal heritage and urban planning and engagement. They will help with that engagement process.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Can the minister confirm whether the area of Beaumont Road is going to be included within the prescribed area and, if so, whether key stakeholders have been advised of this?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I understand that within the bill the minister has the opportunity to prescribe the project and where it will be located, so it is not up to myself to be able to rule in or rule out where that would be.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: So there has been no suggestion made to key stakeholder groups that Beaumont Road might be in contemplation?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: That is something I am happy to take further on notice for the member.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: One of the provisions in the bill, and I believe it is at clause 13, relates to nuisance complaints. Activities that are carried out as part of a designated event are not subject to the usual nuisance requirements. What does that mean for residents who might live opposite should they wish to make noise complaints?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: In regard to this bill, it is about making sure that this event can be successful and can be achieved and be able to provide those opportunities for our state to be able to hold events, but also to be able to invest in this site, which is a dedicated public golf course. The provisions that are within this bill enable us to achieve an outcome that will enable us to hold not only LIV Golf with the requirements of the fund that goes with LIV Golf but also regarding what those investments look like for a public golf course.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: But why is the government seeking to override the provisions of the Environment Protection Act during the declared period of events? What precisely does it contemplate for the Parklands?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I have been advised that this simply mirrors other legislation in regard to major events and it has similar wording to those.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: What is the estimated annual cost to maintain the golf course once redeveloped?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: As I am sure the honourable member can appreciate, once we have the designs available to us, we will also be able to have more of an understanding of what those future maintenance costs would be.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: I certainly do appreciate that, but I would also appreciate, given the significant amount of taxpayer funds that are being invested, knowing if there is a business case or something where you have done some sort of forecasting on the amounts that would be both expended on an annual basis but also the expected income that is likely to come through as well from memberships and other forms of income.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: As we have highlighted a number of times, I think the modelling we can base this on at the moment is the fact that this has been an event that has continued to grow, in regard to the economic income from this event. We know that it has been an incredible opportunity for our state to be able to benefit from an event like LIV Golf and also other events that we have been able to bring to South Australia like Gather Round.

We know that these are not just about people being able to go along to sport; they are about getting people into our hotel rooms and our restaurants and also seeing how busy our airport becomes over that period as well. This provides an economic opportunity for our state, which is why we find this is an important public space to be investing in.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: So, to confirm, there is no business case or modelling on what is likely to be occurring once the North Adelaide Golf Course is up and running. Given this, how confident are you about how much taxpayers will be required to contribute on an ongoing basis for operations of the golf course, and has this been factored into the forward estimates?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: As previously stated, I am advised that once we have a clearer understanding of what the design will look like we will also have an understanding of what those ongoing maintenance costs will be. But just to highlight again, in 2025 the event delivered over $81 million to the South Australian economy, I am advised, which was up 14 per cent from the previous year. That is a significant economic boost for our state.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: I appreciate that, and I believe the Premier has also said that for 51 weeks of the year it is going to be operating as a normal golf course. So what planning has been done on that front to fully understand what the cost or potential burden on taxpayers will be in regard to the costs of running the golf course?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: The government makes significant investments in our public spaces. If I was to look at those investments over the years in our Parklands from this government, we have seen investments in the Marshmallow Park Playspace and into the wetlands in Victoria Park. Governments have continued to make investments in our Parklands because we know, as you have rightly pointed out, these are public spaces. This again is enabling us to invest in a public space—one that we can have more utilisation of.

This brings me to the John E Brown Park, which I have taken the time to go and look at before coming into this chamber to debate this bill. I have to say, I was very shocked at what I saw. It is not an overstatement to say that it is underutilised; it is incredibly underutilised. There are tyres, there are irrigation systems piled up in a heap, there is dirt piled and it is not a nice site.

I live in the city and I love the city and its Parklands, but when you walk past a Parkland like John E Brown you know that this could be far better than what it is at the moment. I think this is an incredible investment to be making so that we can bring it up to a standard that is reflective of other parklands in our community, particularly in the Adelaide region.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: In regard to the ongoing cost of running the North Adelaide Golf Course, has any amount or allocation been included in the forward estimates for the operations of the North Adelaide Golf Course? Yes or no?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: As I have previously stated, the designs of this golf course are ongoing and underway. Once we have an understanding of what those designs look like, we will be able to have an understanding of what the ongoing maintenance looks like. As I have advised the chamber already, the investment opportunities that come with this event—which is a once-off event for the year, but other opportunities will then come about because we are bringing this up to a world championship level golf course—will bring other opportunities for our state at an economic level but also at a sports participation as well. More people can be active and out in a public space that can be more utilised.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I have some general questions. The Hon. Heidi Girolamo asked about Calvary North Adelaide Hospital. Have they been formally consulted in any way and can the minister, the government, guarantee that there will be no loss of car parking in that part of North Adelaide?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I have been advised that it comes down to that design phase as well. Once we have an understanding of what the golf course can look like, it provides an opportunity to do consultation at that point.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: In a similar vein, I ask about road closures. Which roads does the government anticipate will need to be closed temporarily during tournaments or whatever they are called—championships?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am advised that, like most construction programs, they will have a better understanding once the design is available to them as to what would be required.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: My question is about permanent road closures. Can the minister rule out the need for any permanent road closures in North Adelaide or the Parklands, such as Memorial Drive, as a result of the new golf course?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am advised that there is no desire to close any of the major roads.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: But can the minister, just for the record, rule it out or not?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am advised that we would not be closing any of the major roads.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I have listened with interest to the discussion around the business case and the design, of course, and I spoke in my second reading about the fact that we are dealing with the legislation in advance of the design, for the reasons that have already been outlined. For clarity though, I think it is important—and I am asking the minister this question—when the government is in a position to share the design plans, can we anticipate it will also be in the position, as it has stated previously, to share the business case or at least those elements of the business case that are not subject to the confidentiality restrictions that she has spoken of, as the government has previously indicated?

I refer specifically to the order of production of documents that was moved in this place and the advice provided to members during that debate, noting that the government did indicate that it would do so at that point in time.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I appreciate the member's question, and I am sure other members can appreciate that it is not just up to one individual in a chamber to determine what the government's decisions will be, and that is why it would be a matter for us to work through what would be available.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: On that score, when that plan is concluded, will the minister commit to conducting public consultation around that, or will the only consultation be with LIV Golf?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: As I have said before, this event in itself speaks for how successful it is. We have an event that has generated over $81 million in economic benefit for our state in just one year. That is an incredible success; it is a 14 per cent increase on the previous year. That in itself demonstrates the success of this event.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I am not sure if the minister missed my question. What I was asking about was consultation on any draft plan. Once the plan is developed by Greg Normal design, will that be put out for public consultation so that members of the community can have their say on how public money is being spent?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am sure, as a government, we look forward to sharing those designs with the public when they are available. As we have said before, there is a lot of excitement around this event, and when they are able to be made available to the public I am sure we will be very excited to share them.

Clause passed.

Clause 2 passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Lensink–1]—

Page 3, lines 10 to 12 [clause 3, definitions of approved event and approved event support zone]—Delete the definitions of approved event and approved event support zone

This brings forward provisions in the bill to this point, essentially for the purpose of taking part 4 out. One of the amendments that is further down in the pack removes part 4, which starts at clause 17, so these two set that up, if you like. The purpose behind it is that we would like the government to come back to parliament rather than doing this blanket 'everything happens now and nobody shall ever have any say on this forever more'. Essentially, this requires the government to come back to the parliament to do further work down the track rather than doing it all at the same time.

I will speak to amendment No. 2 at the same time, because it is consequential on amendment No. 1. The new 3A(1)(c) is new, and just reinforces what we very firmly believe: that the heritage and amenity values of the Parklands must be borne in mind by the new North Adelaide Golf Course. Therefore, that would be something critical to the design that none of us have any idea about.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I indicate my support for the amendments. Might I say I think the exchange we have had during the clause 1 discussion demonstrates why these amendments are so valuable because there is a secret contract here, there is a secret plan. None of this information is being shared, and so I think setting out very clearly what the expectations are within the legislation, as the honourable member does through her amendment, is very important.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: It will not surprise honourable members that we will be opposing this amendment, and amendments that have been put forward by the opposition. We understand that to be able to hold an event, as I guess we have outlined today, you do need to have the ability to get on and get this achieved, and a world-class championship golf course needs to be able to stage championship tournaments and events. These provisions are required to facilitate the success of that event.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 7

Noes 10

Majority 3

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Amendment thus negatived.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Simms–1]—

Page 3, line 20 [clause 3, definition of project]—After 'course and' insert ', subject to subsection (2),'

This amendment involves after the words 'course and' inserting 'subject to subsection (2)', and the subsequent amendment that I will move deals with that. It might be useful if I talk to both of them now, just to save time. The second, more substantial, amendment relates to preventing any development of accommodation on the Parklands. I understand the government will be moving their own amendment in that regard. I do welcome the government taking this issue up. I understand that their amendment, however, will constrain that restriction just to the project site, whereas my amendment will make it clear that there can be no hotels or accommodation on the Parklands more broadly.

What I am worried about is, given the broad nature of what has been proposed here by the government, that there is the potential for some sort of hotel or accommodation complex to sit opposite any development, so the issue is much broader than simply the proposed project site. I urge members to support my amendment, but if that is not successful I will support the government's amendment on the basis that at least that narrows the scope of the project somewhat.

I think there is a cause for alarm here when one looks at the history of Greg Norman designs and the fact that almost half of those have had an accommodation component. Also, we have no publicly available business case and we do not know what is within the contract or whether indeed there may be a need to change the scope of the project if the financial circumstances change. I think it is important for us to put as clear guidelines around this as possible. I should indicate also that I have been consulting with the Adelaide City Council in relation to this and the other amendments that I am moving.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I thank the member for the amendment that he has put forward. As we have indicated, we will not be supporting this particular amendment. We have taken on feedback and will be putting our own amendment forward in this space, because the bill before us today is about this particular site and that is what our amendment is doing, narrowing it down to this particular site in regard to hotels. It is, as our amendment is highlighting, not at all our intention to be doing that, I have been advised. I think that builds on our commitment as a government to really be investing in our Parklands.

I know that as a government we have committed to returning a lot of the Parklands, which is something we have been very proud to do. In 2011, under the former Labor government, I have been advised, the SA Water depot site at Thebarton saw around 5.5 hectares of land being returned to the Parklands. The O-Bahn tunnel, I believe, saw over 1,500 square metres of Parklands being returned.

I also know that recently we were able to invest and put money back into the Helen Mayo Park. We have declared and restored this particular site, which is a great outcome in comparison to the $662 million basketball stadium planned by the former government. I have also been advised that once the new aquatic centre is open, the existing Adelaide Aquatic Centre, which has been demolished, will result in 1,000 square metres returning to the Parklands.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I do not know if now is the time to make a joke, but I was waiting for the part of this amendment that actually talks about modular housing perhaps being allowed in the Parklands. But perhaps it is not the time, Mr Chair. I, in principle, when I saw this amendment, was completely open to it. It was one of the discussions that I had when I saw the amendments with the mover, but also with the government.

I accept the intent in principle, and certainly the discussions actually go beyond just the accommodation. I think there was some talk about Red Ochre at some point as well, whether existing businesses would be impacted by this and whether there would be any move to have other sorts of permanent businesses on the Parklands, and certainly none of that was in the equation. Accommodation was not in the equation, and that was ruled out with me.

I think the purpose of the amendment, though, is to really bring it back to the scope of the bill. So it is not that I do not support what the Hon. Rob Simms is doing, I do support that, but I also support the government's intention to bring it back to the scope of the bill because that is what we are actually debating, as I think the honourable member would acknowledge. On that basis, I support in principle what the Hon. Robert Simms is doing via the government amendment.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I am just going to put the Liberal Party's position on the record. Certainly, when the Hon. Rob Simms raised this as a potential issue it was that of course we ought to be scared about what may or may not happen as a consequence of this open-ended legislation, so I congratulate the Hon. Mr Simms on bringing this amendment forward. I do agree with the contribution of the Hon. Connie Bonaros in that I believe that it does need to be contained to the scope of this bill and it would probably be hypocritical of someone from my party to say that hotels should never be built in the Parklands, given—

The Hon. R.A. Simms: It wouldn't stop you if you were on the Labor side.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: No, they are far worse than we are, you know that, everyone knows that, they do too—the hotel that sits within Adelaide Oval. So, for that reason, we will be supporting the government's amendment, but I do congratulate the Hon. Rob Simms on highlighting this potential issue because if he had not then this still would be very open-ended.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I thank the Hon. Michelle Lensink for that. It is just a question of clarification. It is my assumption that, in order to achieve what they are wanting to achieve through their amendment, the government will support my amendment around 'subject to subsection (2)' and then they will have their own subsection (2). So I will still move amendment No. 1 [Simms-1] and that would be supported, I assume, and then the point of difference becomes amendment No. 2 [Simms-1]; is that correct?

The CHAIR: Our advice is that really we should be supporting this first amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Simms–1]—

Page 3, after line 23—After its present contents (now to be designated as subclause (1)) insert:

(2) The definition of the project in subsection (1) does not extend to the development of any accommodation (whether in the form of a hotel or other temporary accommodation facilities or in the form of housing for ongoing occupation) and nothing in this Act—

(a) authorises or permits the development of any such accommodation in the Adelaide Parklands; or

(b) has the effect of causing such development to be taken to be classified by the Planning and Design Code as deemed-to-satisfy development for the purposes of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016; or

(c) in any way alters any prohibitions, restrictions or requirements applying under the other laws of the State in connection with such a development.

The CHAIR: The minister will move her amendment. I will put yours first, the Hon. Mr Simms. I suspect we will be voting no to that and yes to the minister's amendment, if that is the will of the chamber, of course. I am not directing things here. Minister, you need to move your amendment.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I move:

Amendment No 1 [EmergCorr–1]—

Page 3, after line 23—After its present contents (now to be designated as subclause (1)) insert:

(2) The definition of the project in subsection (1) does not extend to the development of any accommodation (whether in the form of a hotel or other temporary accommodation facilities or in the form of housing for ongoing occupation) and nothing in this Act—

(a) authorises or permits the development of any such accommodation on the project site; or

(b) has the effect of causing such development to be taken to be classified by the Planning and Design Code as deemed-to-satisfy development for the purposes of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016.

This refocuses this to this particular site. As I have highlighted already, this is going to be a world-class golf course right here in South Australia, and a public golf course at that. The accommodation is not contemplated as part of this bill and the government has no intention of building accommodation on the North Adelaide Golf Course; therefore, the government will move an amendment, which is amendment No. 1 in my name, to define that the project and the project site does not extend to the development of accommodation.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I was just going to indicate that I do not oppose the Simms amendment, but the government amendment is much better.

The Hon. R.A. Simms' amendment negatived; the Hon. E.S. Bourke's amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

The CHAIR: There is an amendment in the name of the Hon. Ms Lensink to insert new clause 3A.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: That is consequential, so I will not be moving it.

Clause 4 passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Lensink–1]—

Page 4, lines 12 to 20 [clause 5(1)(b) and (2)]—Delete clause 5(1)(b) and (2)

The clauses that this amendment seeks to remove are really just this open-ended nature of the government to be able to grab any other land because it is not just the North Adelaide Golf Course and the John E Brown Park and road reserve area, which would be fair and reasonable. Paragraph (b) that I am seeking to delete enables the government basically to decide at any point that it needs to requisition any piece of land that it sees fit. What we would prefer is that the government come back to the parliament if it wants to change the footprint of the project. We would urge everybody to support this amendment No. 3 in my name.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I thank the member for putting an amendment forward, but, as has been indicated, we will not be supporting this amendment or other amendments being put forward by the opposition. The project is in its early phases and while this assessment and surveys are underway, it is deemed necessary and desirable to include additional areas of land or to remove any areas of land from areas already stated, which comprises the existing golf course.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I am just hoping that the minister can elaborate on that a little further, or indeed the mover, because there is a level of consultation that would also be required in relation to that. Again, given the design phase and the business case and everything that is being discussed today, there are steps here that may mean a bit is in and a bit is out, or whatever the case may be, but there are other obligations in terms of consultation that have to be undertaken if that is the case. Can the minister just clarify how that would work?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: As is stated in the provisions:

The Minister must not include additional areas of land in the project site under subsection (1)(b) unless the Minister has undertaken consultation [and that could include] (in such manner as the Minister thinks fit) with the Adelaide City Council and any other entity the Minister thinks fit.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: By extension—and I am going to use the Aboriginal Heritage Act as an example—perhaps there may be something that we do not know about a particular area that becomes apparent and it is therefore not ideal. That process will enable the government to consult with the relevant entities that they need to consult with and revisit the planning phase, or whatever the correct terminology is, to ensure that we do not capture anything that we do not want to be capturing.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: Yes. As it says here, consultation is undertaken as the minister sees fit with the Adelaide City Council and other entities, so that really does broaden the opportunities for that consultation process.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I will be supporting this amendment. I think if we are relying on the government to consult, that is a pretty dangerous approach, if one considers the way in which they have consulted with the parliament and indeed the key players on this matter.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Lensink–1]—

Page 4, after line 26—After subclause (1) insert:

(1a) A person whose lease or licence is cancelled under any provision of this Act is entitled to be paid reasonable compensation by the Minister for any loss or damage incurred as a result of the cancellation.

(1b) The regulations may make provision in relation to the manner in which claims for compensation under subsection (1a) must be made or determined.

I will put a question to the minister which I did ask in my second reading speech, but I do not expect her to trawl through all of our second reading speeches to pick these up. My understanding is that there might be one leaseholder who is impacted by this. The minister, as is his wont, said he would take that on notice and get back to us, and of course he has not, but I would be interested to know if there are any other leases there. What amendment No. 4 does is provide a fairly limited compensation scheme for anybody who is cancelled, because I think it is unreasonable for the government just to cancel licences without any consideration for those who may be impacted.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am advised that clause 9 requires a minister to consult with the Adelaide City Council on any matters council would like to be consulted on, which would include any lease or licences that could be cancelled. The minister can then determine an appropriate consultation protocol to assess those licences and leases.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Amendment No. 5 is consequential, so I will not be moving that one.

Clause passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

Amendment No 6 [Lensink–1]—

Page 4, line 32 [clause 7(1)]—Delete 'consultation (in such manner as the Minister thinks fit)' and substitute 'reasonable consultation'

I indicate that I will be dividing on this because I think it tightens up the wording a bit to ensure that there is a level of reasonable consultation with the council on this matter, rather than just consultation. We have heard constantly from the government that of course they are reasonable, and of course they are going to consult and all those sorts of things, but we know how they tend to operate when the keys are handed over holus-bolus. This just provides a level of protection for the council in terms of consultation.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I support the honourable member's amendment. I do think the consultation in general has been lacking in this regard. It seems to be a return to the announce-and-defend policy of the Rann Labor government. I think giving some more guidance around what this consultation might look like makes sense.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: As we have suggested, we are opposing this particular amendment. The minister, as I am advised, is required to consult with the council in relation to handover and requires flexibility to determine the manner in order to ensure no delay can arise from the handover consultation and process.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Noting that the mover has indicated that she will be dividing on this amendment potentially, I indicate that I will not be supporting the amendment. I do, though, think it is important to note the positive obligation that exists in here to consult with local council on this issue and on all these issues. Indeed, it is a requirement not only for positive obligation but also for council, in effect, to nominate the sorts of issues that it wishes to be consulted on.

The point I am going to make is that I appreciate the intent of the amendment in terms of reasonableness, but I also accept that the council is actually going to be in a position to provide those arguments. They will have to provide that, and they will have to do that in the manner that is worked out between the relevant minister and the council. Again, I point to the fact that there are positive obligations in this bill to actually consult with council.

I guess the concern is the timeframes when we start introducing notions around what reasonable is and otherwise, and how long that may take, so for the purposes of that I will not be supporting this particular one but point again to the fact that there are positive obligations that exist in here to ensure that there are levels of consultation with local council on the issues they deem necessary, and the issues in relation to handover.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 7

Noes 10

Majority 3

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Amendment thus negatived.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

Amendment No 7 [Lensink–1]—

Page 5, lines 6 and 7 [clause 7(3)(c)]—Delete '(on such terms as may be specified by the Minister) of any personal property the Minister thinks necessary or desirable' and substitute:

of any personal property the Minister thinks is necessary

This is in relation to the confiscation of personal property. This is one of many clauses in this bill that do seem to provide a level of discretion solely with the minister, so we are just trying to make it a little bit more reasonable.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I will be supporting the amendment. As I indicated earlier, I want to put some guardrails around the minister and the way in which they exercise their discretion.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: As I have highlighted, we will not be supporting this particular amendment. I am advised that the minister is required to consult with the council in relation to the handover and requires flexibility to determine the terms of the handover of any personal property to ensure the project can progress as required and in a timely manner, or to ensure the ongoing care, control and management of the project site or flexibility of the project site, either during the project delivery or after the project completion. I understand that this particular clause, clause 9 and clause 16 all require consultation with the council.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

Amendment No 8 [Lensink–1]—

Page 5, lines 10 to 13 [clause 7(4)]—Delete subclause (4)

This is to delete subclause (4), which puts an obligation on the council if it fails to comply with the direction of the minister. We would prefer that the minister would work more collaboratively with the council rather than them just be subject to unilateral direction.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I am advised that my amendment No. 9 [Lensink-1] is consequential, so I will not be moving it.

Clause passed.

Clause 8.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Amendments Nos 10, 11 and 12 are all consequential to my amendment No. 3, so I will not be moving them. I move:

Amendment No 13 [Lensink–1]—

Page 5, lines 38 to 40 [clause 8(6)]—Delete subclause (6)

This is to delete subclause (6) of clause 8, which relates to vesting and care. This relates to 'items of personal property remaining on the project site are vested with the minister and forfeited to the Crown', which I think is unreasonable. I encourage members to support this amendment.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: We will be opposing this amendment, noting that amendments Nos 6, 7, 8 and 9 were also opposed for similar reasons. While fixtures—things that are fixed to the land—ordinarily pass with the land, this subclause deals primarily with those things that are not fixtures, so that they are either removed from the land or passed to the minister with the land.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 9.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

Amendment No 14 [Lensink–1]—

Page 6, line 5 [clause 9(1)(a)]—Delete 'an opportunity' and substitute 'a reasonable opportunity'

This again is in relation to the open-ended nature of powers for the minister. We are seeking to delete the level of discretion that is provided to the minister alone.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: We oppose this amendment. I am advised that the minister must consult with the council and must ensure council is given an opportunity to outline matters for consultation.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Simms–1]—

Page 6, line 9 [clause 9(1)(b)]—Delete '(containing such requirements as the Minister thinks fit)'

This amendment deletes the phrase '(containing such requirements as the Minister thinks fit)'. That provision sets out a requirement for the government and the council to develop a consultation protocol, but it gives the minister the opportunity to have the final say on what requirements are part of any such agreement. My amendment simply takes that out on the basis that that should be agreed between the council and the minister. It should not just be the case that the minister determines the nature of the consultation.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: As I indicated previously, we oppose this amendment. As mentioned in my previous statements, I am advised the minister must consult with council and must ensure council is given an opportunity to outline matters for consultation, but the requirements of that consultation will be at the minister's discretion.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Lensink, you will not move your amendment as it is the same as the Hon. Mr Simms'?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes.

Clause passed.

Clause 10 passed.

Clause 11.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

Amendment No 16 [Lensink–1]—

Page 6, lines 20 to 31 [clause 11(1) and (2)]—Delete subclauses (1) and (2) and substitute:

(1) The Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 applies in relation to development proposed to be undertaken, for the purposes of the project, on the project site or the support zones subject to subsection (3).

This is an important one from my point of view, so we will again be dividing on it. It relates to the application of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act. It is taken to be classified as deemed to satisfy for the purposes of the Planning and Design Code. We are seeking to delete subclauses (1) and (2) and substitute it with (1), which is in my amendment. I do not think that SCAP should be a rubberstamp for any application; I think SCAP should have the opportunity to consider—and this is probably going to be quite a unique application, a unique decision for that body.

There are other bodies and organisations that SCAP could consult with and come back with some fairly useful recommendations, which might have to be considered by the proponents. It is important that what is good for the goose is good for the gander: if everybody else in the private sector has to go through the SCAP process, the government should abide by its own rules, and therefore I urge members to support this amendment.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I indicate that I will be supporting this amendment. It is a very important issue that the honourable member has identified, and I thank her for that. One of the things that really concerns me about this bill is the fact that the usual checks and balances do not apply. The fact that anything that is presented could be deemed suitable is totally inappropriate. It makes a mockery of the arguments that this government has made on multiple occasions now that we have a rules-based planning system.

It is very concerning, when one considers the advice that was provided by the minister during the clause 1 discussion, where there is a secret contract, we do not know what is in the contract, we do not know what brief has been provided to LIV Golf, we do not know what brief has been provided to Greg Norman designs. The way this reads is that whatever they put forward will get the green light. A lot of people should be outraged by the lack of safeguards that the government has put into this bill.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: As I indicated earlier, we are opposing this amendment. I am advised they are deemed to satisfy development in the streamlined planning pathway under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 and the associated (General) Regulations 2017, and are required on this project to ensure it can progress in the required timeframes.

In terms of the process and the timeframes, the DTS application is lodged with the relevant authority. The authority has five days to determine that it is a properly made application, and then a further five days to assess the proposal. Once a decision has been issued, including any conditions imposed by the relevant authority, the application must obtain building consent, which varies depending on the building classifications, and then development approval, another five business days.

I am further advised regarding assessment requirements that (General) Regulations Schedule 8 set out the mandatory information to be lodged as part of the application. This includes plans drawn to scale, reports and technical information that must be provided.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 7

Noes 10

Majority 3

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

New clause 11A.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Simms–2]—

Page 6, after line 35—Insert:

11A—Application of Native Vegetation Act 1991 etc

The Native Vegetation Act 1991 (or an Act that replaces that Act) applies in relation to any clearance of native vegetation (within the meaning of the Native Vegetation Act 1991) occurring in the course of the carrying out of the project on the project site or the support zones.

This is to ensure that there is some respect for native vegetation in the way in which this project is carried out.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: We will be opposing this amendment. I am advised that the Native Vegetation Act 1991 does not currently apply to the Adelaide Parklands. In fact, the NVA does not apply to the vast majority of metropolitan Adelaide. This is a result of s4 of the NVA and the regulation 4A of schedule 1A of the Native Vegetation Regulations 2017. In this way, the proposed amendment seeks to expand the application of the NVA over and above the status quo.

If the NVA were to apply to the project, I am advised that, subject to certain limitation exemptions, the state would be unable to clear native vegetation, which would include some of the vegetation, without the consent of the Native Vegetation Council under the NVA. Not only is this impractical, it also is inconsistent with the project timelines and the streamline project assessment process provided in this bill.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: We also will not be supporting this amendment. I am not sure what native vegetation actually exists within the Parklands. I would have thought that most of it has been cleared over the years, with the exception of maybe some of the reeds in the river.

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: There is some grasslands on the East Parklands.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: That is right. The former environment minister reminds us about grasslands with the butterflies. Anyway, I will not distract myself. The Native Vegetation Act does not really apply in the metropolitan area, so I do not think it should be applicable here.

New clause negatived.

Clause 12.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: My next amendment is consequential. I will not be proceeding with that.

Clause passed.

Clause 13.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Simms, you have an amendment, which competes with the Hon. Ms Lensink's amendment, but yours is filed first, so would you like to move yours?

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Yes, I will actually, because, with no disrespect to the honourable member, I think mine provides a bit more protection for some of the trees, so I will deal with mine first. I move:

Amendment No 4 [Simms–1]—

Page 7, lines 7 to 10—Delete clause 13 and substitute:

13—Requirements relating to trees

(1) The Minister must use the Minister's best endeavours to ensure that regulated trees are not removed in carrying out the project.

(2) No significant tree may be removed in carrying out the project unless the Minister has determined, by instrument in writing, that the carrying out of the project would be significantly impaired if the tree were not removed.

(3) The Minister must—

(a) ensure that for every regulated tree that is removed in the course of undertaking the project, not less than 3 new trees (being saplings not less than 1 metre in height or mature trees) are planted within the project site and support zones; and

(b) ensure that for every other tree (not being a regulated tree) that is removed in the course of undertaking the project, not less than 3 new trees (which may be seedlings) are planted within the project site and support zones.

(4) In this section regulated tree and significant tree have the same meaning as in the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016.

This really beefs up the obligations on the government in terms of protecting trees. It would insert a new clause, which would require the minister to use the minister's best endeavours to ensure that regulated trees are not removed in carrying out the project. It would require that no significant tree be removed in carrying out the project, unless the minister has determined by instrument in writing that the carrying out of the project would be significantly impaired if the tree was not removed. Whilst a lot of other elements of the bill we are dealing with actually give the minister a huge amount of discretion, this makes it clear that the minister must take some particular action with respect to protecting trees.

The minister would, under this amendment, ensure that for every regulated tree that is removed in the course of undertaking the project, not less than three new trees, being saplings not less than one metre in height, or mature trees, are planted within the project site and support zones. They would also be required to ensure that for every other tree (not being a regulated tree) that is removed in the course of undertaking the project, not less than three new trees are planted within the project site and support zones.

This is a key issue that was raised with me by the Adelaide City Council and, indeed, I note that organisations like the Conservation Council have flagged this before. When we are talking about tree removal, it is not enough to simply say we are going to put some seeds down. You need to have trees that are a certain level of maturity in terms of being able to protect those ecosystems, so that is the purpose behind this amendment. I am not sure what the nature of the secret deal between the government and LIV Golf is, whether or not this is an amendment they can consider, but I would encourage them to support this protection of our significant and regulated trees, and I indicate that I will be calling a division.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Lensink, do you want to move your amendment?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: As well? Or could I just speak to this one? Are we dealing with them separately?

The CHAIR: Do you want to move your amendment?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I am happy to wait and see what happens with Mr Simms' amendment.

The CHAIR: The first question is that clause 13 stand as printed, so if you are supporting the government you vote yes, which will mean that both of your amendments will not be able to be inserted.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I am happy to support Mr Simms' amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 14.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I am advised that amendment No. 19 [Lensink-1] is consequential to a previous amendment, so I will not be moving it.

Clause passed.

Clause 15 passed.

Clause 16.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 5 [Simms–1]—

Page 9, lines 6 and 7 [clause 16(1)]—Delete 'or for any other purpose connected with the operation of this Act that the Minister thinks fit'

This amendment basically narrows down some of the discretion of the minister. As I have indicated previously, I am concerned that the minister is being given quite wideranging powers under this legislation. This deletes the phrase 'or any other purpose connected with the operation of this Act that the Minister thinks fit'.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The Liberal Party supports this amendment.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: We oppose this amendment. I am advised that the proposed deletion would have the effect of limiting the government's flexibility to make provisions in relation to the land or interests, including the ability for the government to deal with parties other than the council, as may be required to ensure the successful operation of the golf course.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 17.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Lensink, you are going to indicate that you are going to oppose clauses 17 to 25?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Mr Chairman, this is consequential, so I will not be moving it.

Clause passed.

Clause 18.

The CHAIR: At clause 18, there are amendments in the name of the Hon. Ms Bonaros and the Hon. Mr Simms. The Hon. Ms Bonaros, your amendment was filed first.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 10, after line 7—After subclause (1) insert:

(1a) The Minister must ensure that a differential price structure applies in respect of access to the public golf course such that persons who are able to produce evidence (of a kind determined by the Minister) establishing that they are resident in the State will be entitled to pay a lesser fee for that access than persons who are not able to produce such evidence.

The amendment really goes to the heart of a public golf course being owned by the people of South Australia and the accessibility to that. Of course, there has been lots of discussion about the possibility of getting to the end of this process and local South Australians not being able to afford to play golf at the golf course. That is certainly not the intent and I think the amendment reaffirms the discussions that have taken place about ensuring that there is a differential price structure that applies so that locals have access to that.

I have to say that I agree to the extent that the Premier has said—and I have had these discussions with him and others—that when you build a world-class golf club obviously the prices can be inflated in terms of playing there. I have asked the question about what it costs to play at some of these world-class golf courses. I think playing a round of golf at North Adelaide Golf Club now is in the order of $35 or $40-odd. You would expect that, when we are talking about differential pricing structures, that price may increase slightly from that but not considerably from that. By comparison, if you are playing at a world-class golf course you are looking at fees that could be in excess of $400, for instance, and we have golf courses here that, if you are not a member, they are the sorts of fees that would apply.

I have been very clear with the government that, on the basis this is a public golf course that we want to ensure accessibility to, we would want to keep those prices at around what they are now for locals in South Australia playing golf. That is what this amendment seeks to do to the extent that we are able to do so in legislation and I suppose that is the other important point: it would be very difficult in legislation to provide some sort of methodology that would actually apply and it would be very peculiar and probably not stack up anyway even if we did try it. So, to the extent that we are able to do so, that is what this amendment seeks to address.

I agree though that, in principle, people love to visit golf courses where they can play a world-class golf course and if it is others who are visiting here from interstate or overseas then we could be able to charge them more to play at that golf course, given they are having accessibility to a South Australian owned asset that is providing that sort of prestige and whatnot.

The idea really is to ensure a differential price structure for South Australians compared to those interstate and overseas visitors who may be wanting to come to South Australia to take advantage of that same golf course. Even then, based on the discussions that I have had with people in the golfing know, it would be anticipated that, if you are coming to South Australia for the weekend and you are enjoying the South Australian experience as a whole, it is still going to be something that is affordable, even for those visitors who come over here from interstate and overseas, and at the same time it continues to contribute to the rest of the economic viability of the state by those people staying in hotels, eating at restaurants, visiting bars and the rest of it and the list goes on and on.

Really, though, the intent is to ensure that there is that price differentiation so that locals are not footing the bill but also that they have accessibility to a South Australian owned asset and that we can still market it in such a way that is attractive and alluring to those people who wish to visit from interstate and overseas without removing the ability to visit by locals in South Australia. I hope that makes sense to everybody. It is on that basis that I move this amendment.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Just a question, and maybe this is something for the government: how will this work in practice? It is one thing for us to legislate to say that there will be a differential rate, but will people, when they travel to the golf course, be required to turn up with some sort of identification document to demonstrate that they are a resident of South Australia? How precisely will that be policed?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: To the extent that I can—and perhaps I will be corrected by the government—I think there are a couple of things here. You have private golf courses already at the moment and they would work on an identification basis. So if you are a member, you present your membership, which clearly states where you are from and whatnot, and you get either a member fee or a non-member fee to play.

I would envisage the same sort of thing would apply here, except we are not basing it on membership, we are basing it on residence. So you present your driver's licence. You are a South Australian resident, so these are the fees that apply. If you are from Hong Kong or New South Wales, then there is a different fee that would apply. That is my very broad understanding, but I think we need to get into that a little bit further as we nut this out.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Is that something that is within the contract between either LIV Golf or Greg Norman designs?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am advised that this particular amendment would have no impact on the LIV Golf contract. This is about access to a public golf course. I guess, as it mentions in the mover's amendment, you would need to produce evidence of a kind determined by the minister. So it gives the ability for the minister to determine what that evidence would be.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Just more broadly, I guess the other point is that it is going to apply to all those other times when it is not being used for LIV Golf or any other event that is being held at the course. So it is outside of that, in the normal golf playing times, that this would apply.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Just for the record, yes, we are supportive of this amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 6 [Simms–1]—

Page 10, lines 8 to 11 [clause 18(2)]—Delete subclause (2)

This amendment is a deletion of subclause (2); that is the subclause that notes:

Nothing [here] prevents the erection of fencing or other barriers in relation to particular areas forming part of the North Adelaide Golf Course where the Minister is satisfied that the erection of the fencing or barrier is necessary or desirable for reasons of public safety, the security of any property or otherwise for a good purpose.

I am concerned, once again, that the minister is being given way too much power here and that this could result in fencing being erected at whim.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I do have a couple of questions for the minister in relation to this. One of the discussions that I had, certainly with the government, prior to this bill was the issue of fencing. I am a bit perplexed as to how this is different to other events that we have. There is no suggestion that there is going to be any permanent fencing and there cannot be permanent fencing when you have a public asset that is owned by the South Australian people, and we have just gone through this process of how people are going to use this.

How is that different to your WOMADs or your car events or everything else that does require a level of fencing? There is always an installation phase when we have to set things up, and then the event phase, and then a post-event phase when we are taking things down. It does not make sense to me that we would not have or do not require—and it is on that basis that I had these discussions with government—fencing during that process.

I just want to go back, though. I am hoping the minister can answer that question, but I also want to put to the minister once again—and it does go to this to some extent, for the Hon. Rob Simms' benefit—I asked a question earlier about the planning and design and also the business case. One of the points I made I am hoping the minister might be able to elaborate on a little further. Given we do not have them now, given that we have already had one production of documents order and that we are now having this debate, can the minister confirm that when we do have that planning and design release it will be accompanied by, to the extent that they are not commercial-in-confidence, those documents around the business case, because I think all these things are relevant?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I might just speak to the amendment first and then address the honourable member's last comments after that. We are opposing the deletion that has been put forward here. I am advised the amendment would have the effect of limiting the government's ability to provide provisions like netting or other safety devices where a safety in design or other risk assessments may be determined or required.

In regard to the release of documents, I understand there has been a lot of interest in this in the chamber, and I appreciate that. That is why I am advised that the government would be pleased to release key elements of this business case work which is currently being developed to provide the public with this important information. There may be elements that are not appropriate to be released publicly, given it may release information that provides the state with a competitive advantage.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: In terms of informing consideration of this amendment, I think the key point here is that clause 18(1)(b) makes clear that 'the area of land comprising the North Adelaide Golf Course must not have permanent fencing around its perimeter'. But then the issue with subclause (2) is it gives the minister the power to erect fencing in circumstances where the minister believes it is 'necessary or desirable for reasons of public safety, the security of any property or otherwise for a good purpose'.

My concern is that that section negates the previous prohibition on permanent fencing, and that is the point of difference. Temporary fencing is one thing. Indeed, we do sometimes see temporary fencing around events that occur in the Parklands, but giving the minister the power to erect permanent fencing for something they might consider to be of a good public purpose does alarm me. I would encourage people to consider the record of the Malinauskas government when it comes to the Parklands in considering how they may well approach such sweeping powers.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am pleased to advise I have received advice that there will be no permanent fencing. As I mentioned earlier, there may be times when safety devices are required, such as that netting that I mentioned earlier.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: For the record, we will not be supporting this amendment due to concerns that for safety this may be required.

Amendment negatived; clause as amended passed.

Clause 19.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 7 [Simms–1]—

Page 10, after line 25—After its present contents (now to be designated as subclause (1)) insert:

(2) The Minister cannot specify a declared period for an event under subsection (1)(b) that would result in declared periods for events exceeding a total of 3 months in any 12 month period.

This is a really important amendment. It makes clear that the minister cannot specify a declared period for an event under subsection (1)(b) that would result in declared periods for events exceeding a total of three months in any 12-month period.

One of the issues in relation to declared periods within the legislation is that it allows the minister to circumvent a range of other laws. Indeed, it circumvents environmental laws and it circumvents council laws. It can give the government power to initiate road closures and the like. My concern is that that is a potentially huge inconvenience for residents and, indeed, people who may use the city. What I am seeking to do is put a limit on the period of time when those powers can be activated. What I am suggesting is that it be for no more than three months within any 12-month period.

Again, I do not know what the nature of this secret contract is. It may be that part of the secret arrangement that has been reached with LIV Golf is that it needs to operate for a certain period of time—I do not know; that information has been concealed from the public—but I do think it is very reasonable to put some limits on this so that we do not see these powers being used for inordinate amounts of time during the year.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: We oppose this amendment. As I am advised, this proposed amendment could have the effect of limiting the opportunity to stage other national and international championship golf tournaments, not only the annual LIV Golf event. This would also include the time for smaller declared events and the time before any event required for preparation, and the time after any event required prior to resumption, all of which unduly limits the golf course.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: We will be supporting this amendment. It is interesting to hear in the course of debate that the government has views that there may well be other things taking place. It would be nice if they were transparent about these things beforehand. We have constantly heard that we can expect that the North Adelaide Golf Course will continue to be open to the public for 51 weeks of 52 in every year. I think it is unreasonable not to provide some level of information publicly about what might take place. I think this amendment holds the government to account.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I discussed this particular provision at length with the government to get my head around it in terms of the timeframe. One of the key issues that was raised was that it is just not about LIV Golf. I note what the Hon. Michelle Lensink has just said, but we have discussed throughout this debate the potential for other golfing events as well. There may very well be other golfing events, so there is that element of it, but the other one is how long it takes to set this up and, if there is a hard and fast rule that it is three months and it takes longer to set up, to have and then to take down whatever is around that, then that is going to be an issue.

There may also be an issue where you potentially have something smaller. I do not know. These are theories but you might have something at the end of LIV Golf that carries it over slightly into something else, into another golf tournament, and then you would again go over that three-month period. It is problematic from that perspective. If I am to understand what the mover is trying to do, it is to ensure that we are prioritising this for outside of those tournaments for public use, as we have discussed.

I am concerned that that hard and fast rule around three months actually might prohibit us from being able to do things because what if it goes over? What if we need longer to set up and take down after it? I do not know how long it takes to set up and take down but it may not be three months from beginning to end, and then we would have some other issues, unintended issues on our hands to deal with.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 7

Noes 10

Majority 3

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 20 and 21 passed.

Clause 22.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 8 [Simms–1]—

Page 12, after line 17—Insert:

(2a) However, the Minister may only take action under subsection (1) or (2) with the written concurrence of the Adelaide City Council.

This proposes that after clause 22 on page 12 we insert a new subclause (2a). It currently reads that where the minister is satisfied that it is reasonably necessary or desirable for, or incidental to, for the purposes or functions under this act, to fence off or cordon off part of the land, they may do so. My new insertion makes clear that the minister may only take this action under subsection (1) or (2) with the written concurrence of the Adelaide City Council. I do not think that is much to ask in terms of just adding another layer of consultation. I await the government's response with bated breath.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I advise the member that we will not be supporting this amendment. As I am advised, this amendment would have the effect of providing council with a veto power on the matter, affecting an event and the event's proceedings. This amendment would have an impact on the government's capacity to run events.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I think, reluctantly, we would not support this particular amendment as well.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 23 and 24 passed.

Clause 25.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 9 [Simms–1]—

Page 13, after line 5—Insert:

Note—

This section does not however apply in relation to the development of any form of accommodation—see section 3(2)

This amendment is just inserting a note: 'This section does not however apply in relation to the development of any form of accommodation'. We have had some discussion around this. It seems fairly uncontroversial. Now that the government is saying that accommodation will not be part of the development site, I am hoping they will support that inclusion of a note.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: We will not support this amendment, is my understanding, as we have dealt with this in amendment No. 2.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Before we move on, could the government elaborate on that? What harm does this amendment do? What is the concern with that inclusion?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I have been advised that this has been dealt with earlier in the bill in regard to the accommodation, and it does not seem like the appropriate spot to be putting this as it has been dealt with previously in the bill.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

New clause 25A.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 10 [Simms–1]—

Page 13, after line 5—Insert:

25A—On-going requirements relating to trees

(1) The Minister must use the Minister's best endeavours to ensure that regulated trees are not removed in carrying out development or works under section 25.

(2) No significant tree may be removed in carrying out development or works under section 25 unless the Minister has determined, by instrument in writing, that the conduct of approved events at the North Adelaide Golf Course would be significantly impaired if the tree were not removed.

(3) The Minister must—

(a) ensure that for every regulated tree that is removed in carrying out development or works under section 25 not less than 3 new trees (being saplings not less than 1 metre in height or mature trees) are planted within the project site and any approved event support zones; and

(b) ensure that for every other tree (not being a regulated tree) that is removed in carrying out development or works under section 25, not less than 3 new trees (which may be seedlings) are planted within the project site and any approved event support zones.

(4) In this section regulated tree and significant tree have the same meaning as in the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016.

This relates to some ongoing requirements regarding trees. I spoke at length previously around the need to beef up some of the protection of our significant trees and regulated trees, so this imposes similar obligations on the minister.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: We are opposing this amendment. I am advised that it is not practical to have an ongoing requirement of this magnitude relating to trees in the operation of the golf course. The landscaping and tree planting will be established on completion of the project in accordance with clause 13, which design will have given consideration to the operational requirements for the operation of the golf course, including the LIV Golf Adelaide tournament.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: We are supportive of this amendment because people of Adelaide love their trees, particularly mature trees. I think there are huge concerns in relation to the chainsaws that will be in operation once this bill goes through. This goes some way to providing some protection and acknowledgement that the green space in that part of the Parklands is incredibly important.

The committee divided on the new clause:

Ayes 7

Noes 10

Majority 3

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

New clause thus negatived.

Clause 26.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

Amendment No 21 [Lensink–1]—

Page 13, lines 7 to 25—Delete clause 26 and substitute:

26—Other actions etc necessary to give effect to Act

The Minister responsible for the administration of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 will, at the request of the Minister under this Act, make any alterations to the Planning and Design Code under that Act, or any other instruments under that Act, that are, in the opinion of the Minister, necessary to give effect to this Act or as a result of the project (and any requirements of that Act relating to the making of such alterations do not apply).

Once again, this is about the open-ended nature of this piece of legislation. There are a couple of phrases I will quote from this particular clause. Subclause (1) provides that, at the request of the minister, any entity must 'make any alterations to an instrument' etc. At subclause (2) the language is fairly consistent. It provides:

An entity responsible for the grant of any consent, approval, authorisation [etc.] must, at the request of the minister, grant any statutory authorisation that is, in the opinion of the minister, necessary or desirable to give effect to this act

It is just the sort of open slather we have seen that is consistent with this bill. My amendment trims the wings, if you like, and there needs to be another level of oversight to be applied. I might add, too, that this amendment mirrors provisions that were placed into the Women's and Children's Hospital legislation that passed through, so if it is good enough for a children's hospital, I cannot see why it is not good enough for a golf course.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I agree, and I will be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: The government opposes this amendment. I am advised the provisions in clause 26 are required to extend more broadly than only the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 to ensure other instruments reflect the status of the project site under this bill. There is a requirement for other statutory permissions to be granted in a streamlined fashion and without delay.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Remaining clauses (27 to 31) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (Minister for Emergency Services and Correctional Services, Minister for Autism, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (17:50): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The council divided on the third reading:

Ayes 10

Noes 7

Majority 3

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Third reading thus carried; bill passed.