Bills

North Adelaide Public Golf Course Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (11:32): I rise to speak in firm opposition to the North Adelaide Public Golf Course Bill 2025. The Adelaide Parklands are a special, unique and vitally important part of South Australia. They are a living and breathing history and are listed on the National Heritage List. To quote briefly from the National Heritage List website:

The Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout is widely regarded as a masterwork of urban design and signifies a turning point in the settlement of Australia. Adelaide was the first city…to be planned and developed, not as a penal settlement or military outpost, but as a place for free settlers.

Given this importance, it is deeply disappointing to see the Malinauskas government attempt yet another land grab, at the behest this time of a sporting tournament. Too often when a new development is in need and around the CBD, state governments have looked at the Parklands as supposed free land—and it is indeed free, but it is not their land. They feel they can snap it up and build upon it. It should not be a surprise that when LIV Golf came knocking at the state government's door wanting a new home for their event after Grange, the Premier was all too ready to point them in the direction of the North Adelaide Golf Course.

Possum Park (Park 1) in its entirety and a significant chunk of John E Brown Park (Park 27A) will be seized by the state under this bill should it pass. That will be to facilitate a multimillion-dollar redevelopment of the golf course. This no doubt puts numerous significant and mature trees directly in the line of bulldozers. Currently, this bill would require three new trees or seedlings for not less than three trees be planted for every tree removed during the project. Three seedlings is nowhere near enough to make up for the loss of significant mature trees. With some reports suggesting at least 600 trees being lost within Possum Park for this redevelopment, it is no wonder that so many are concerned about what that loss will mean for the Parklands—the people's Parklands.

Another concern for many in the community is the massive footprint of this project. This project is likely to include the expansion of buildings currently located in Possum Park, as well as new buildings, including, I believe, an indoor driving range. I fail to understand how an indoor driving range and a newly redeveloped multimillion-dollar golf course is supposed to be in keeping with Colonel Light's vision for the Parklands, or indeed the people of South Australia's expectations of the protection of our Parklands.

South Australians are rising up against this, and the amusing and very alliterative Possum Park Protection Platoon is on the case. They are planning the next stage in their battle to protect Park 1 of the Adelaide Parklands from the state government's chainsaws, which, as I say, are threatening hundreds of trees in what is a unique urban golf course forest currently.

Those hundreds of Parklands supporters came together on the steps of this state Parliament House on World Environment Day, 5 June. Why did they do so? Well, it is not just about a golf course. They have banded together to protect what is a very precious part of South Australia. The banners and posters at that particular rally had messages such as, 'Parks for people not FIFO millionaires'—I might add 'billionaires' actually—and 'Parks need life not LIV'. Another banner read, 'Pete, we need life not LIV'.

Further protesters on the day, including myself, raised some concerns other than simply the attack on the environment and the very public history of the Parklands that this embodies. We are told that LIV Golf is 'Golf, but louder'. I think that is a little bit of false advertising. Sure, there are DJs. Sure, it is a party. Sure, it is a piss-up. Do you know what LIV Golf is? It is golf, but bloodier. It sportswashes human rights abuses, and our Premier is inviting the 'great white shonk', Greg Norman, to amplify that sportswashing, all on the public dime and on public land.

They do not need our money. In fact, the LIV Golf series is offering the richest purse in pro golf history. Why? Because it is funded by the public investment fund of the Saudi government, a fund designed to sportswash their human rights abuses. Do not take my word for it. Take a look at the Human Rights Watch reports. They raise their alarm that the Saudi $2 billion plus sovereign wealth fund is designed to sportswash that country's egregious human rights abuses and note that it is controlled by Saudi prince, prime minister and crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman.

The kingdom, of course, has the funds and has glamorous events, including the LIV Golf tournament. They are involved not just in sports, of course, but, as the Premier will point to, Live Nation is connected with the LIV fund. But LIV Golf is one of the flagships, and here we are buying it hook, line and sinker and helping them wash the blood off their hands.

LIV Golf has been controversial, and rightly so, for its sportswashing, and I think it is important at this point in this debate to reflect on why. Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi journalist, was murdered on 2 October 2018 inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey. He was lured there to obtain paperwork for his upcoming wedding. His fiancée waited outside for over five hours and he never returned. He was killed by a team of Saudi agents—I believe some 15 of them—flown over on both commercial and private jets at the order of the very man who controls the public investment fund, the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

Khashoggi was a critic of the Saudi government, and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman saw his writings as a threat. A UN report concluded that Khashoggi was the victim of a premeditated extrajudicial killing for which the state of Saudi Arabia is responsible. At first they denied that he had never left the embassy. For five days his fiancée went to the media, and the government of Saudi Arabia claimed that he had left of his own volition.

We now know, particularly because the Turkish government actually bugged the embassy, that that was a lie by the Saudi Arabian government. Indeed, we know his last words were, 'I can't breathe', as they suffocated him and then, while he was alive, they dismembered his body. It is far more appropriate to call this the 'bone saw cup' than the LIV Golf tournament, and indeed many do and will continue to.

The motive of the Saudi Arabian government was to silence dissent. Greg Norman, the Chief Executive Officer of LIV Golf, who is indeed a millionaire doing the behest and the sportswashing work of billionaires, wrote this off as a 'mistake'. At a news conference, he was questioned about this issue specifically to do with his promotion of the LIV Golf tournament. Mr Norman, the 'great white shonk', to a question about whether he was concerned that LIV Golf was being financed by Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund, controlled by Mohammed bin Salman, stated:

From what I heard and what you guys reported, just take ownership of what it is. Take ownership no matter what it is. Look, we've all made mistakes, and you just want to learn from those mistakes and how you can correct them going forward.

That is a bit of a mistake. A mistake is an accident. A mistake is not premeditated: 15 people flown to another country, murder and dismemberment and disappearing—because his body has never been found—of a dissident. That is hardly a mistake. Not so many are as forgiving as Mr Norman. Perhaps money talks, even when you are a millionaire.

Freedom has a high price and far from this being a single mistake, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International will show you that even today, while the LIV Golf tournament continues, the human rights abuses continue. Currently, the social media company formerly known as Twitter and now known as X is facing civil US lawsuits because they have cooperated with the Saudi Arabian government to not just silence but imprison and persecute those who make comments on what was Twitter and is now X. Indeed, freedom of speech has no place in the Saudi Arabian regime if it is critical of their government.

When you reflect upon this and how the world had a public outcry about Mr Khashoggi and how the world quite rightly condemns the execution of citizens of Saudi Arabia for public comment, it is no surprise that people in Saudi Arabia and the Public Investment Fund, and indeed the leadership of that nation, are willing to pay as much money as it takes to sportswash their way out of those human rights abuses to somehow cleanse their image. South Australia has become complicit in this.

It would surprise many South Australians to know that not only is this being done in a way where the South Australian government has come to the party, this 'golf but louder', to celebrate LIV Golf when no-one else in Australia wanted it, no other golf course was putting their hand up. Indeed, in Sydney and Victoria it was denied. The Victorian government certainly did not want a bar of it. The Royal Sydney Golf Club voted it down. Nobody wanted this event because they understood that it came with a price. Not only did it come with the price of sacrificing South Australia's reputation but of course we now know that South Australia is pouring tens of millions of dollars into this event. We are not being paid off; indeed, we have bought in to the human rights abuses.

It is gravely concerning that the state government has doubled down in its support of this event. Sure, the Adelaide LIV Golf tournament was successful. Do you know what? I might not be a golf player. I have played golf. I might not design golf courses, I might not put on tournaments, but I tell you what, with $50 million I could probably get someone to do that pretty well without sacrificing our commitment to democracy and to human rights in this state. Indeed, anyone, I would think, could put on a pretty good party given the tens of millions of dollars that are being put up here for what are effectively millionaires' and billionaires' playthings.

There is no reason that we should be sacrificing our state's reputation as a place where women gained the right to stand for parliament and to serve in parliament, where we have a proud history of things like the secret ballot, where we can have debates and we know we will not end up dismembered in a body bag hidden somewhere for having a disagreement of opinion.

But what is really concerning to me about this bill is that hidden in it, as the Hon. Michelle Lensink has noted, are provisions that are intended to silence dissent. The Major Events Act will be employed for this. I believe back in the day—and the minister might correct me on this—the International Cricket Council were having a major event and they sought some protections from people running on the field and so on, and we had a few bills hurriedly passed through parliament. But for big events where people have not wanted there to be any disruptions, there are extreme provisions in the Major Events Act that stop what is called 'ambush marketing'.

My first question to the government is: will the government guarantee that none of the provisions that criminalise ambush marketing will be used to protect the reputation of LIV Golf? We celebrate diversity and dissent in this state and we have a proud democracy. I would hate to think that, as has happened in previous LIV Golf events down at Grange, anyone protesting and highlighting that this is indeed better framed as the 'bone saw cup' than the LIV Golf tournament might fall foul of the law or be subject to significant penalties under those ambush marketing provisions of that Major Events Act.

Further, I note that this event will be moved from Grange to the City of Adelaide, and I have to say, the people of Adelaide will not cop silencing of dissent and the sacrificing of our Parklands. They will continue to protest, and I know there is another one in just over a week's time about the range of land grabs currently being undertaken on our Parklands. But when they come with an extra serve of human rights abuses of them, I imagine many South Australians will simply not stomach that any longer.

While the Premier boasts an incredibly high popularity polling at the moment, and that would have no doubt come as somewhat of a wake-up call for the Liberal opposition, I suspect that this government is currently quite complacent. I say just look to history to see what can happen in the seat of Adelaide. This is an educated electorate. This is an engaged electorate. This is an electorate who is now watching what this government does. While now Premier Malinauskas came to power in the last election as a supposed husband, father and average footy player, perhaps he is turning out to be a disappointing Premier.

People's votes cannot be taken for granted. I note that there is a local community Independent in Keiran Snape putting his hand up for the seat of Adelaide. I was very happy to be down on the Parklands, indeed down at the North Adelaide Golf Course, on the weekend to help launch the campaign of Kieran Snape. There was a strong community there from right across the city. They are impassioned people, they are articulate people and they are determined people. They will not be taken for granted, and they will fight for their democracy. I note the words of Greg Mackie, cultural leader and former councillor of the City of Adelaide, in endorsing Kieran Snape on the weekend, who stated:

With four years' service on city council, and many more in the community, Kieran embodies the values that matter to greater Adelaide. Protecting and enhancing our priceless Parklands as a shared public asset demands an independent voice.

I could not agree more.

I thank those people who have so far not just turned out at those rallies but signed petitions and who have expressed their outrage at what is yet another bill being rammed through this parliament once the Malinauskas government has the numbers. I do not begrudge that in terms of the numbers are the numbers of the parliament, but I think the people of South Australia are watching bill after bill be rammed through at an alarmingly quick rate. I echo the words of the Hon. Michelle Lensink that there has not been enough time to have proper public scrutiny on this bill that overrides every single act on our statutes currently other than the Aboriginal Heritage Act. I note that the Hon. Michelle Lensink noted that the only time she has seen that before was with the Olympic Dam indenture bill and then act.

I note there was another bill that during the Rau-Weatherill era sought to change our innovation laws and very sneakily tried to override every single law of the state other than the Aboriginal Heritage Act. When the public became aware of that particular bill, which stripped away all of our rights as the public currently enjoys them should something be declared an innovation or in an innovation precinct, the public outcry online saw over 10,000 signatures in hours and tens of thousands in days. That bill was quietly removed from debate. That was because the public were able to have their voice noted and heard.

When sneaky things are put into bills, it is the role of this particular council, the upper house, to hold it to scrutiny. I do urge the government to actually be more respectful of this place in terms of the timing of these debates. We have had this sitting on our Notice Paper for technically a week but what was, in essence, one day. In terms of the briefing that I received, I do thank the Premier and the Minister Bourke's office for the briefing that I received yesterday morning, but I note it was yesterday morning. I have had little time to consult with the public more broadly.

There is no Law Society feedback on this bill. Indeed, the expertise in the room from those such as counsel have not been able to be included in this debate, so I flag with the government there will be a lot of questions not just at clause 1 but as we go clause by clause through this bill. I remain opposed. I am not convinced that we need to be sacrificing our state's reputation and our precious Parklands for what is golf but bloodier. I think $50 million, at the very least, could be spent on far better things than this Premier has chosen to spend it on through the passage of this bill today.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (11:54): I rise to speak on the North Adelaide Public Golf Course Bill on behalf of the Greens and to indicate that I will be opposing this bill. My objections to the bill are twofold. I believe that this is wrong on both principle and on process. As has been noted by previous speakers, this bill is about securing a long-term future for LIV Golf in Adelaide. Indeed, when the government announced this redevelopment plan back in February, it made clear that this was part of a deal to keep LIV here until at least 2030.

As a matter of principle, the Greens have been clear that we do not support LIV Golf. That position is informed by the history of this enterprise and its links with the Saudi government which has a deplorable human rights record. Indeed, the previous speaker touched on some of this, but I think it is important to revisit some of the history because it is linked, of course, to this proposal.

In 2021, Greg Norman announced a new golf series to rival the PGA. This venture, which has come to be known as LIV Golf, was backed by the Public Investment Fund, the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia. The PIF is amongst the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world with estimated assets of over $750 billion, and is controlled by Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman, the country's de facto ruler.

When LIV debuted back in 2022, its tournaments were the richest in golf history, I understand, with regular season events boasting purses of $25 million, and LIV's prize money was on top of the appearance fees and signing guarantees that were provided to individual players. Documents obtained by TheNew York Times have shown that the Saudi officials know their golf foray may have limited financial payoff. The Times has reported that McKinsey and Company, who are consultants privately advising, told the wealth fund that a golf course could be earning revenues of at least $1.4 billion a year by the end of the decade, or be losing hundreds of millions of dollars.

So why did the Saudi Public Investment Fund make this investment? Saudi Arabia, which has one of the worst human rights records of any nation in the world, is among the authoritarian states that have turned towards investing in sports to direct attention away from their tarnished reputation. This tactic, which the previous speaker acknowledged as well, is referred to as sportswashing. Sarath Ganji, the Director of the Autocracy and Global Sports Initiative explains that, and I quote:

Big governments, and big corporations included, use sports-related content and the media stories tied to sports, in order to alter the information that reached their target audiences. Saudi Arabia can use the media cycle of good sports stories in the United States to push out all those negative stories.

Saudi Arabia is consistently ranked among the worst of the worst in Freedom House's annual survey of political and civil rights and has many negative stories that it would want to drive out of the media. It is, indeed, one of the most prolific executioner's in the world, and 2024 saw a massive rise in the number of executions that were carried out.

The Berlin-based European Saudi Organisation for Human Rights tracked the executions of 345 people, up from 172 in 2023. It says that this equates to one execution every 25 hours. One execution every 25 hours, and the Malinauskas government is tarnishing our state's reputation by associating us with such blatant sportswashing.

Women and girls in Saudi Arabia remain subject to discrimination in law and in practice. The male guardianship system, for instance, was enshrined into law back in 2022, and this means that women must have a male legal guardian, and they cannot choose who this is.

Saudi Arabian authorities have arbitrarily detained Ethiopian migrants for up to 18 months in inhumane conditions, and tortured and ill-treated them before forcibly returning them to Ethiopia. They were held in overcrowded cells with inadequate access to food, water, sanitation and health care in two detention centres prior to their deportation, which has caused deaths.

Let's consider their record on LGBTI rights. LGBTIQ+ rights are not legally recognised or protected in Saudi Arabia, and these are even labelled as extremist ideas. The country's legal system prohibits LGBTI relationships, public displays of affection and gender expression, with severe societal stigma, discrimination and legal repercussions for LGBTI individuals, which includes imprisonment, fines or even the death penalty.

The Saudi and the UAE-led military coalition have committed serious human rights abuses in their military campaign against the Houthi armed group in Yemen. This has included unlawful air strikes that have killed and wounded thousands of civilians.

Protests and demonstrations are illegal in Saudi Arabia, and people who attempt to exercise their rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly are subject to arrest, prosecution and imprisonment. Indeed, many human rights activists who have been released from unfair imprisonment face further punishment including travel bans.

The Associated Press has written that the merger of the PGA Tour and LIV Golf has marked a turnaround for the authoritarian regime in Saudi Arabia, as the regime had been isolated for years over its human rights abuses. Although the wealth fund has insisted it was nothing more than an investor in LIV, a federal judge in the United States said she has concluded the fund was in fact 'the moving force behind the founding, funding, oversight and operation of LIV'.

Rather than simply wash away the human rights record of Saudi Arabia, the emergence of LIV Golf has instead put them under the microscope. Several groups have protested LIV's first US tournament in Oregon, including the families of 9/11 victims who wanted to highlight the Saudi government's alleged role in the terrorist attacks. US Senator Ron Wyden also criticised the event as Saudi sportswashing and stated that, 'No matter how much they cough up, they're not going to be able to wash away' their reputation.

Senator Wyden, who chairs the US Senate's finance committee, has since announced that he has opened up an investigation into the PGA Tour's planned merger with LIV Golf, stating that:

U.S. officials need to consider whether a deal will give the Saudi regime improper control or access to U.S. real estate.

Regarding the Saudi public investment fund's special tax treatment in the United States, Senator Wyden has said:

It's widely understood that the Saudis rip Americans off at the pump and funnel their oil profits into various efforts to launder the reputation of their violent authoritarian regime, but at a minimum, there's no good reason to help them along with a taxpayer subsidy.

LIV should not be getting special treatment in South Australia from the Malinauskas government—and they are being given special treatment by the government. The government is reaching a deal with Greg Norman designs and asking them to design this golf course, but LIV Golf will have the final say on whether this meets their demands and whether or not they indeed wish to commit to having LIV in Adelaide going forward.

I know the government will claim this is not about politics. They will say this is about sport and that sport should sit at arms-length. But we know, of course, that sport and politics are always linked. In recent years, there was a strong campaign against Qatar hosting the World Cup on the basis of its human rights record, and in the 1960s and 1970s South Africa was expelled from many international sporting federations, including the IOC, on the basis of their racist apartheid policies.

It is legitimate for parliament to discuss these links when considering this proposal, and the Greens urge the government to think again about this dirty association—this immoral association—with LIV Golf. This bill is also wrong on process. Back in February, when the government announced its plan to redevelop the golf course, the Greens asked some questions: what is the business case? What is the proposed plan for the site? What is the nature of any so-called backup legislation?

One of the most curious things about the announcement that came from the government at that time was that two crossbenchers stood with the Premier and said that they would support backup legislation. They gave a precommitment to support this legislation, sight unseen. We have asked, as members of the crossbench, to see that legislation. I have asked repeatedly in this chamber for the government to make it publicly available and to start public consultation, yet we did not see any legislation until last week.

We have also asked about the level of public access and we have asked how many trees will be lost. We asked all of these questions and they fell on deaf ears in the Malinauskas government. Lo and behold, you can imagine my surprise when last week an announcement was made and legislation passed through the other place at lightning speed, and now it has come before us today. Like other honourable members, I have been clamouring to get my head around the detail of this. I did not have a briefing from the government on the bill until yesterday morning. It is very difficult to deal with a bill of this complexity within such a short timeframe.

It is not just the members of parliament who the government is treating with contempt; it is treating the broader South Australian community with disdain. There has been woefully inadequate consultation on this bill. Rather than indicating that the bill was a fait accompli and passing it through the lower house last week, the government should have released it for public consultation months ago, when this idea was first put on the table.

Many people have asked me what this means for the Adelaide City Council. This bill takes away the council's oversight of parts of the Parklands in the designated area of the project site. While the bill does require some consultation with the city council while the project is being carried out, serious questions remain and, after all, discretion is given to the planning minister about the nature of this consultation. Will it be undertaken in good faith? Will it change the government's mind? What form will it take? Will this simply be a quick phone call to the Lord Mayor or maybe a post on Facebook, or something posted on the dead end that is YourSAy?

Early signs from the government are not encouraging. After all, the Premier chose to introduce this bill and ram it through the lower house while the Lord Mayor was overseas, and it is clear that this government is not interested in any dissent, especially from the City of Adelaide. It is very disappointing the way in which the Adelaide City Council has been treated.

As members will know, I have some history with the council, having been an elected member there myself. It is my observation that the council was attempting to negotiate with the government in good faith, and it seemed totally inappropriate to ride roughshod over the council and announce that they had the numbers in the parliament to get this done, rather than continuing to progress with those negotiations with the city council, which is in effect the custodian of the Parklands and has been paying for the upgrade of the North Adelaide Golf Course for many years.

The Adelaide Parklands Association rightly points out that no community consultation was undertaken before the bill was introduced into parliament, so how on earth can we trust the government to do any meaningful consultation after this bill is passed? More broadly, I am very concerned about the broad powers that are being given to the government here and the lack of guardrails for the minister.

The first warning sign in this bill comes at clause 4(1), which states, 'This Act has effect despite any other Act or law of the State.' As noted by the Hon. Michelle Lensink, such a clause is always a good indicator that a bill requires careful scrutiny. It is worth remembering that, when we considered the bill that allowed the government to take over our Parklands for the Women's and Children's Hospital, a map was included at schedule 1 of the legislation to ensure the parliament considered the actual footprint in prospect before voting on any proposal. This time, however, the Malinauskas government is asking us to give them land on a platter; the bill allows for a map to be gazetted later. What has the government got to hide? Why is it not including the map in the legislation that we are considering today?

Parliament has been asked to consider this legislation when we have not even seen the plans. The usual checks and balances that exist within our planning system are being jettisoned. For instance, consider clause 5 of the bill. This makes it clear that the project site is much broader than the existing North Adelaide Golf Course or John E Brown Park. The minister can take in any other areas of the Parklands he considers necessary or desirable to do so.

Clause 11(2) makes it clear that any development proposal for the purposes of the project will be deemed to satisfy the development under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act. In other words, any plan that is put forward by the government will get the green light, and the usual public consultation requirements simply will not apply. This, coming from a government that insists that it has a rules-based planning system. What a joke! When it came to standing up against the Walker Corporation taking over our plaza, the government said, 'Oh, we can't do anything, our hands are tied, we have a merit-based planning system,' yet when they want to fast-track a development, we know that they can step in, and that is precisely what they are doing in this instance.

As has been remarked today in correspondence received from Elbert Brooks of the North Adelaide Society, he warns that this bill makes the minister an omnipresent master of the Parklands, that the state government is taking over at its parliamentary and ministerial whim. It is a case of the government giving itself huge, sweeping powers over our public green space. The government really is being given a blank cheque here.

The golf course is being designed by private enterprise, Greg Norman Golf Course Design. As I indicated earlier, my understanding of the agreement with LIV Golf is that if LIV do not like the design they do not even have to honour the agreement to have the tournament here. What can we expect from this plan? Again, we have not seen it and we do not know what is in it, but if the history of Greg Norman Golf Course Design is anything to go by, accommodation could be a big component.

Indeed, luxury accommodation is a key feature of almost half of the golf courses designed by Greg Norman. Of the 104 golf courses designed by Norman across the globe—my office did some research on this—we found that 51 have some form of accommodation, nine have residential housing and 42 have hotels. Some of those hotels include a Trump International Golf Links and Hotel in Ireland—God forbid. There is also a Trump housing development as part of the Greg Norman designed golf course in Charlottesville in the US.

The government has baulked at the suggestion that hotels are even in contemplation here, and I raised this issue on ABC radio during the week. The minister indicated, and I quote from his remarks: 'These are just straw man amendments', he said, and that yes, of course he would rule this out. It is my hope that the government, then, will take some action on this.

I have been having some conversations with the government around this issue, and I have my own amendment, which will make it very clear that there would be no accommodation on the Parklands. I understand that the government may be developing an amendment as well to look at this question, and I hope they do that. It is very important that we shut down the potential for accommodation being part of this plan. We have had a long-term principle in South Australia that the Parklands are not for housing, they are not for hotels, not for penthouses or condos, and we need to make it very clear that privatisation of our public space should not stand.

The Malinauskas government, of course, seems to think that we should all just accept them at their word when it comes to this redevelopment; nothing to see here, it is just a redevelopment of a golf course, do not worry about it. Well, let us consider their record, let us consider the Labor Party's record. I do not look at what comes out of their mouths: I look at what they do with their feet, I look at how they vote.

When the Labor Party was in opposition they joined with the Greens in opposing a sports arena on the Parklands, and they were highly critical of the former Liberal government's plans for a development along the riverbank. Well, where has that commitment gone now they are in government? Now it seems they are enthused about a sporting facility of their own. In opposition they supported my private members' bill to finally add the Adelaide Parklands to the State Heritage Register. They supported it in opposition but, just a few months later when I reintroduced it into this chamber and brought it to a vote, the Labor Party opposed it. Why? We know why: it is because they had their sights set on the Parklands.

They were happy to say one thing in opposition and they did something very different once they found themselves back in government. That bill has passed the upper house, and it sits in the lower house waiting for the Labor Party to finally make it law.

They opposed my private members' bill to prevent the rezoning of the Parklands without approval of both houses of parliament; they swept in to demolish the Police Barracks and to seize the Parklands for the Women's and Children's Hospital; they are rolling out the red carpet for the Walker Corporation in their takeover of our public space on Festival Plaza—and all the while they were presenting themselves as warriors for the Parklands during the last state election campaign. This is Labor hypocrisy of the highest order. They are absolutely shameless. They have more front than John Martins.

This bill seeks to give this government yet another blank cheque over the Adelaide Parklands, and giving Labor more power over the Parklands is like giving Count Dracula the keys to the blood bank. They see the Parklands as a land bank, and they are going to continue to sink their teeth into them.

Let's also consider some of the infrastructure involved here. The bill states that the North Adelaide Golf Course must not have permanent fencing around the perimeter so that the public can still enjoy the public park. However, this does not apply where the minister determines that fencing or barriers are required for safety or security of property or otherwise for a good purpose. I understand, of course, that fencing may be required in certain situations relating to safety or protection of property; however, the phrase 'otherwise for a good purpose' is very broad. This could, of course, result in large parts of the golf course being permanently fenced off in the future, and so I will be moving amendments that remove this clause to ensure the minister cannot just set up permanent fencing on a whim.

I am also concerned about the lack of protections for the environment. During the declared period for the event, the provisions of the Environment Protection Act will not apply. This is concerning. Why does the government deem it necessary for that act to be overridden? We may inquire into that in the committee stage, and I am very keen to understand what scenarios the government is trying to address. I also have an amendment that will seek to insert the provisions of the Native Vegetation Act into this legislation to ensure that the government is not simply destroying some of our native flora and fauna.

As indicated earlier, I am not supportive of this bill. I do recognise, though, that it is very likely to pass the second reading stage on the basis of the precommitment that has been given by some of the crossbench. But the Greens will be moving a series of amendments, and I will talk you through those now.

My first amendments relate to clarifying the scope of the project. My amendment to clause 3 makes it clear that this project will not include any form of accommodation, including housing or hotels. My amendment to clause 9 further strengthens the consultation protocol in relation to the carrying out of the project by removing the minister's prerogative to consult only on the matters that they see fit, and so any protocol with the council would need to be agreed on mutually agreed terms, rather than the minister just consulting as they like.

My amendment at clause 13 imposes a greater obligation on the minister in relation to significant trees, ensuring that the minister must use their best endeavours to ensure that regulated trees are not removed in carrying out the project. Under my amendment, significant trees can only be removed if the minister determines that the carrying out of the project would be significantly impaired if trees were not removed.

Additionally, under my amendments, the minister would be required to ensure that for every regulated tree removed, no less than three new trees—saplings of at least one metre in height or mature trees—are planted. That is an important point, because simply chopping down trees and throwing a few seeds in the ground is not going to address the loss of trees. It takes a long time for trees to reach appropriate maturation, and so this amendment tries to address that.

My amendment at clause 18 would remove the provision that gives the minister the power to erect fencing or barriers when they are satisfied it is necessary or desirable. My amendment at clause 22 would make it clear the minister can only erect temporary fencing with the approval of the council. My amendment to clause 19 limits the duration of any special event, and this is an important point as well. The existing provision gives the minister broad powers to undertake works that they see fit, temporarily close roads, and circumvent a range of existing laws.

I do not think it is fair to the residents and ratepayers of the City of Adelaide in particular but, more broadly, people in the city who rely on those roads and who might be significantly inconvenienced, that this level of imposition on the public amenity could continue for months and months and months on end. My amendment makes it clear that the minister can only do that for a maximum of three months in any 12-month period, and I think that is reasonable.

I also note the amendments that the Hon. Michelle Lensink has filed on behalf of the opposition. She has spoken about those. I believe that those amendments are complementary to the Greens' amendments and they do, I think, curtail some of the significant powers that are being vested in the hands of the minister, so I indicate that I will be supporting those amendments. I, in particular, support the idea that the act should contain objects that explicitly set out directions for the redevelopment of the site. When we are talking about public land that belongs to all South Australians, we should have maximum transparency around what is involved.

The Greens will be opposing this Labor land grab, and I urge other members to do the same, but if this bill progresses to the committee stage, I urge members of the crossbench in particular to have an open mind to amendments and to listen to the arguments put forward in the hope that we might be able to strengthen some of the protections for our environment, and to support or create greater transparency.

Might I also say, just in closing, that I do think this will be a big issue heading into the next state election. I imagine Lucy Hood MP in the other place will not be very happy to see the Parklands back on the agenda in this way heading into the state election. We in the Greens will be working hard to remind voters of Labor's record, of the fact that they say one thing in opposition but when they are in government—when it really counts—they do not follow through, they do not deliver and they capitulate to developers. It is inappropriate, and the Greens will be calling it out. I will certainly be asking a lot of questions at committee stage about this bill, and I urge members to vote against this draconian legislation.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (12:20): I rise to speak on the North Adelaide Public Golf Course Bill 2025. This bill is presented by the government as an exciting opportunity to elevate a much-loved public asset into a premier destination for international events while delivering long-term benefits to our city and community. Many stakeholders and businesses from our hospitality and tourism sectors, which both contribute to and benefit from the success of events such as this, have expressed support for LIV Golf.

LIV Golf Adelaide has delivered substantial economic returns: nearly $65 million in 2023, over $71 million in 2024 and a record $81.46 million in 2025. Whether one likes golf or not, the most recent event attracted more than 100,000 attendees, 41 per cent of whom travelled interstate, and generated over 86,000 visitor nights. These figures contributed to some of the highest hotel occupancy rates ever recorded in Adelaide. Tourism and hotel industry peak bodies have reminded us that these are not just statistics. They reflect real and growing opportunities for local businesses, workers and the broader community. They demonstrate the potential for Adelaide to thrive as a destination for world-class events.

The case for investment is compelling. However, my consideration of this bill is not without qualification or reservation. While I acknowledge the potential economic, recreational and reputational benefits of this redevelopment, I remain concerned about the breadth of the powers conferred by the bill and the precedent it may set for future projects involving public land.

The government has made clear its intention to deliver a championship-standard golf course in time for LIV Golf 2028. The urgency of this timeline has been outlined. There is the need to allow for construction, turf establishment and event preparation. They are all legitimate reasons; however, at the same time it is essential that this momentum is matched by transparency and accountability, to ensure the project delivers on its promises for all South Australians.

The bill in its current form grants the minister extensive powers. These provisions raise legitimate concerns about ministerial overreach. It is the role of this chamber to scrutinise legislation in detail to ensure that what we support here in this place serves the best interests of South Australians, not only today but for generations to come. It is important to acknowledge that the Adelaide City Council has been the steward of the North Adelaide Golf Course for over a century. For over 100 years, the council has invested in the course, supported its staff and maintained the site, at considerable cost to ratepayers. They deserve to be recognised for their work.

I note from the government's briefing that the project remains in the early design phase and that the absence of a defined map in the legislation is intended to preserve flexibility. As many honourable members have already mentioned in their speeches, it would have been handy to have a map clearly define the whole area for the development. While this may be practical from a project management perspective, it reinforces the need for transparency and ongoing consultation as the project evolves.

I also note the government's stated commitment to maintaining the course as a public facility, retaining existing staff and ensuring that Adelaide City Council is not burdened with event-related costs, such as traffic management. These are welcome assurances and provisions. I trust that these provisions will be honoured in spirit as well as in writing and true answers provided by the minister in this place.

In anticipation of the committee stage, I signal and foreshadow the following matters for the minister's consideration and response: will the government commit to ongoing consultation with Adelaide City Council throughout the project life cycle, including during the construction phase? How would this consultation work in practice? Can the minister reaffirm the assurance that full-time staff will be retained regardless of who operates the site? Can the government provide assurances that additional costs, such as traffic management and road closures, will not be shifted to Adelaide City Council during event mode? Can the minister provide detail on how the commitment to planting more trees than are removed will be implemented and monitored? How would the principle of maintaining the golf course as a public facility be upheld in practice?

The government has indicated a willingness to work with the council on a future operating model and clause 16 of the bill provides a mechanism for leasing arrangements post construction. This is a constructive approach and I encourage the minister to formalise his collaboration as early as practicable. While this bill focuses on the redevelopment of the golf course, it also represents the opportunity to enhance and value public space for future generations. It reflects our capacity to deliver projects and strengthen community amenity, foster collaboration across levels of government, and create lasting social and economic benefits for South Australians.

I note, as other members have noted, that this bill is likely to pass. I want to work with the government to ensure that I am in a position to support the bill, but that I do so with a clear conscience having raised concerns that, I believe, warrant further scrutiny. This bill is about more than a golf course; it is about how we can govern shared spaces and it is about the balance of power between state and local government. I look forward to the committee stage, when these matters can be explored in detail and the proposed amendments considered on their merits. I commend the bill.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (12:27): Before I go to the redevelopment of the North Adelaide Golf Club, I just want to go briefly through the history of LIV Golf in South Australia. LIV Golf has provided a platform to showcase South Australia and deliver significant economic benefits to South Australia. Adelaide has hosted the Australian fixture at the Grange Golf Club since the first event in 2023, which attracted over 77,000 attendees, including 43,000 international visitors from 37 countries. Attendance in 2024 increased to more than 94,000 and then in 2025 to a record 102,000 attendees.

The state has secured the extension of the LIV Golf agreement for a period to 2031. The North Adelaide Golf Course will be the exclusive home of LIV Golf in Australia. The redevelopment of the North Adelaide Golf Course is necessary to provide the required facilities and amenities to accommodate year-round use for the public, world-best tournaments and tourism to South Australia.

Our National Heritage Listed Parklands have had a golf links since the late 19^th century. As part of the evolution of the precinct, the North Adelaide Golf Course was developed in the early 20^th century and it is the most centrally located golf course complex in any Australian capital city. The redevelopment will create one of the world's best public golf courses for year-round use for all South Australians, no matter who you are or your background. This will remain a public golf course in public hands.

The existing North Adelaide Golf Course is currently comprised of two 18-hole courses on approximately 75 hectares of Parklands, together with one par 3 course. The current golf course does not contain a dedicated driving range facility or the amenities and infrastructure for the development of the sport at the scale required. The legislation will ensure the redevelopment of the North Adelaide Golf Course can go ahead as soon as possible to host the LIV Golf tournament in 2028.

The legislation commits to a positive duty to consult with council on the development and to resolve the future ownership and operating structure of the North Adelaide Golf Course. The redevelopment of the North Adelaide Golf Course will be constructed on what is defined in the bill as the project site. The project site will include the area currently operating as the North Adelaide Golf Course, as well as the intention to include Park 27A, also known as John E Brown Park.

The use of Park 27A will see the transformation of an underutilised area of the Parklands to provide more useable space and reduce the impact on trees. The legislation has outlined requirements that for every tree removed, no less than three new trees or seedlings must be planted within the project site or support zones.

Under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016, the redevelopment of the North Adelaide Golf Course will be classified by the Planning and Design Code as deemed to satisfy. The approach will ensure that planning controls will still remain and building rules consent will be required, mandating the quality, safety and integrity of any facilities constructed. The application of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 is not affected by the legislation.

Legislation establishes safeguards and limitations on various components of the site and its surroundings. To avoid environmental impact, it defines the project site support zones, which will be utilised to facilitate construction but with clear limits about what can occur in these zones. This is a project that will facilitate the redevelopment of the North Adelaide Golf Course to be a world-class facility which will support world-class events. The golf course will remain as a public golf course for anyone and everyone to enjoy.

The issue of accommodation has been raised by the Hon. Mr Simms. I must say the first time I have heard about accommodation on this was from Mr Simms. I was actually gobsmacked when LIV Golf first came to Adelaide about how many people I knew that I did not even know played golf were so keen to get a ticket to go to watch the tournament. Personally, I am not a golfer—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: —I have not had time in my life to actually learn to play golf.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Mr President, will you please—

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Ms Girolamo!

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I have never had time to actually learn to play golf, and I have the same problem as the Hon. Ms Lensink: I have trouble having the head of the club hit the ball to make sure I get a decent drive. But the amount of enthusiasm in this state for people who live in this state was actually staggering.

At the moment, there is a golf course on this area of Parklands. After the redevelopment, there will be a golf course on this redeveloped land. What is going to go with it, I am not sure, but I must say if I do learn to play golf and I do join the 18-hole golf class, I would hope there is a cafe at hole 3 and I would hope there is another cafe at hole 9 so I can actually enjoy a nice lunch, because I must say that the Parklands are a beautiful place in this state and they are to be cherished, but there has to be things on it for people to enjoy the Parklands.

We have the Adelaide 500 and that is fenced off and it does cause some inconvenience, but it is a world-class event and when it is all unpacked it is a beautiful Parklands. I think the Hon. Mr Simms, with his objections, is a little bit excited about the recent polls, which says that the Greens may win two spots, so it is in Mr Simms' interest to actually create straw people to—

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: Surely not!

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Absolutely! So it does fail to actually inspire me, some of the debate. I wish Mr Simms the best of luck in the next election, but the reality is the people of South Australia want a LIV Golf course, a world-class golf course, in South Australia. I am looking forward to it. As long as all the required provisions, the development approvals and so on, are accommodated, I think we should all be cherishing the thought.

All my life South Australia has been known as a regional town. It has always been referred to as a regional town, but Labor governments have worked hard to ensure that we provide world-class events with world-class facilities to allow international tourists, national tourists and our own local people here to actually enjoy the great things that this state has to offer. I commend the bill, and I look forward to the committee stage so we can once again hear the Hon. Robert Simms and his accommodation theories.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (12:35): I rise also to speak on the North Adelaide Public Golf Course Bill 2025. At the outset, the first thing I would like to address is the issue of the Adelaide City Council. In so doing, I would like to thank the Lord Mayor and council for their work to date on this issue and the role that she has played in particular, and council will continue to play into the future, when it comes to this issue.

I say that genuinely because, as I have said publicly now many times, that was always my preferred option in terms of dealing with LIV Golf in the city. When I signalled my support for LIV Golf, I said just that. I know that a lot of work has gone into this at the local council level, and I do understand their disappointment that a bill is now being introduced into this place. So I say that very genuinely.

I did come out pretty strongly and say that I support LIV Golf progressing in South Australia, hopefully being here beyond 2031 as well. I am also a realist, and I can see the clock ticking and the need for certainty. I think it is all well and good to talk about what this place is doing, but we also need to take into account the fact that council has been working on this issue now for some time, and the issues confronting council are not council issues. They are not issues or hurdles or roadblocks or anything like that that the council processes have put in place. They are legislative issues. It is not a hold-up by council that has been responsible for us getting to this point. Rather, effectively it has required this timely process which makes it difficult to meet deadlines.

The Hon. Michelle Lensink says, 'Why the rush?' and I accept that question. I think the short answer is if, as some of us have done, you support this, then there is a clock ticking and we are running out of time. I do not accept that this bill would have been rammed through last week, because it is simply not accurate. I was privy to the discussions that took place last week certainly with me, and it was made crystal clear to me that this bill would be introduced, as it was—everybody found out about the bill being introduced—that it would sit on the Notice Paper, as bills normally do, and we would get to this week. So I do not accept there was any proposal or that the Premier or the minister responsible had the support last week to introduce this bill and ram it through this place. That is simply incorrect and inaccurate.

The reality is that we are heading into the winter break. If this project is to get off the ground, based on the timelines being set, the foundation does need to be laid. In order to do that, the government, I accept, cannot afford to have to go through some of those same processes that council would be going through if council was dealing with this issue, because that is where we were prior to this bill being introduced. I guess that is the very essence of the bill that is before us.

I have heard everything there is to hear about this bill, and why I came out and supported it, and I do not back away from the comments I made. I did say that the benefit this brings to SA is unprecedented, and we are the absolute envy of Australia at the moment, and we can build on that. But the bottom line is that I think you either support LIV Golf, you support the proposal of LIV Golf coming to the city, or you oppose it. That applies regardless of whether it is council undertaking that process or it is government undertaking that process.

The concerns around the trees—and I say this respectfully as well—are going to apply regardless of whether it is council undertaking the process or it is government undertaking the process. It is going to apply whether it is a council memorandum of understanding that is entered into or work that is being undertaken by the government. That has not changed. That has not changed at all, and that still has to happen. The question is: which process will it happen under?

As I understand it, delays have been, to a large extent, caused by the painstaking efforts that I understand have been from all those involved—including council—who have been engaged in those discussions about what you can and cannot do on our Parklands, given the legislative parameters that are in place and, in particular, around the issue of trees.

The design that we are all talking about—where is that design? We all want to see the design, but it is a bit of a circular problem. The bill makes it clear that we cannot go beyond the footprint in this bill. That is very clear in the bill. It does not even mean that you are necessarily going to use all of the footprint in the bill, but you cannot go outside that footprint. A good example of the sorts of issues that council would have been confronted with and we are confronted with, and the reason why we are putting the legislation before the design in this respect, and why we have not seen the final design, is that we do not know what we can and cannot do on that footprint because of those steps that we have to go through.

Park 27A is a perfect example of that. That has been identified as one of the areas that will form part of this proposal. At the moment you cannot use Park 27A as a golf course, so when it comes to that certainty that we have heard spoken of time and time again in this debate, it is a bit difficult to say, 'We will use Park 27A' when we know currently in law you cannot. That is addressed in the bill, as are a number of other issues that impact the design phase of this work that cannot be finalised because there are other implications.

That makes sense to me, and when I ask, 'Can I see the designs too? How are the designs progressing?' I understand that there are things there that mean that if anything was put in front of us and it is a design, it may not look anything like that because there are other issues that need to be overcome. I am just not as convinced as others are that this can be pulled off in the absence of legislation, and one of the main reasons for that is timing. It would be timing if it was local council and it will be timing if it is this parliament.

I absolutely understand and accept that there are people here, and watching, who are either deeply disappointed in—and I accept that—or supportive of this proposal. The voices have not been lost on me in speaking on this bill today. It is one of those areas where we try to balance things because, by the same token, the response—evidenced by the popularity of LIV Golf and the number of attendances that the Hon. Jing Lee referred to increasing from 94,000 to 102,000—also speaks to the broader community support for LIV Golf in South Australia. I guess that is the perspective that I have tried to balance in coming to this.

However, I have said to the Premier at the outset, 'There are going to be hurdles here and there are going to be concerns. How are they going to be addressed?' I also said publicly that when I was having those discussions at both levels, I raised certain issues—I will go through them when we get to them, such as public accessibility, public ownership, fencing, council consultation and the issue of fees that would have to be paid—which would have to be addressed.

Of course, as I said in the press conference when I spoke on this issue, I did engage in those discussions and said, unlike the apparent blank check that some would like to say I wrote, that these sorts of issues would need to be addressed before I would consider supporting a proposal. That is part and parcel of what we do in here. But on some issues we have very different political, ideological and philosophical positions. On issues like this, I know I always do not agree with some of my crossbench colleagues, and we see these sorts of discussions happening every time that occurs.

Obviously, one of the first things that I asked myself when I had my very first conversation about this was, 'What does the city offer? What are they getting here that they are not getting elsewhere?' I thank the Hon. Russell Wortley for his contribution just a few moments ago, because I think he actually highlighted a few of them. We do love showcasing our Parklands in myriad ways. There is a golf course in the city now; there will be a world-class golf course in the city in the future if this bill passes. It is an opportunity to showcase and experience everything that South Australia has to offer.

Whether you like LIV Golf and like the idea of LIV Golf in the city or not, it is on a growing trajectory. I said a few months ago and I will say again now that I do think the Premier took a risk when he initially entered into that contract for LIV Golf in Adelaide. I think the fact that he had Victoria lurking at LIV Golf, trying to snatch it from South Australia when those discussions were taking place about an extension, shows that that risk paid off. I stand by that today; I think it did. The fact that we have over 100,000 people attending the event, and that figure is increasing, shows that it did. The fact that we have generated over $87 million of economic activity shows that it did. It was a measured risk taken by the Premier, and it paid off. People were supportive.

We love using our Parklands as part of that showcasing of South Australia. We have events in our Parklands: we have WOMAD, we have car races, we have equestrian events, we have the Fringe, we have the Garden of Unearthly Delights. All of these things—many of them world-class and world-leading in terms of their attendance and turnouts and success—take place on our Parklands. They all have the same sorts of issues that we are confronted with when we talk about a golf course.

They all require fencing at some point to ensure that there is a parameter around the event. We do that every time we have an event in our Parklands, regardless of whether it is golf, it is WOMAD, it is the car race or it is the Fringe. That already takes place now. That would still continue to take place if it was council undertaking this process and not the government, so nothing there has changed.

I am not as convinced as are others in relation to some of the points that have been made. I have certainly taken the time to raise my concerns. I have certainly taken the time to speak to the individuals I have been speaking to for some time now, because I did not say, 'Yes, I support LIV Golf. Go your hardest and do whatever you want.' I said, 'Yes, I support LIV Golf, but I want to see what that's going to look like.'

Working through that process, you can see all the sorts of things that you will have to get to, but the two things that have been clear to me is that this is not just about, first, LIV Golf because, as others have said, LIV Golf is not a guarantee. We have LIV Golf until 2031, but certainty around LIV Golf puts us in a much stronger position if we want to extend LIV Golf beyond 2031. I think South Australians in the main would like to see South Australia hold on to LIV Golf beyond 2031, which is where the question of certainty comes in and certainty is impacted by delays in design.

This is why I say that these are all interconnected issues that have to be considered here. But, it is not just LIV Golf—you are right—and, if we do not get it beyond 2031, have we just built a golf course for a few years at which we will not continue to have an event? The obvious answer is no. There are other tournaments we can be attracting to that golf course, and it is a publicly owned golf course, so regardless of whether we have LIV Golf here beyond 2031, the public of South Australia will have a world-class golf course in the city.

That brings with it economic benefit to the state, as does every other golf course. There is already a golf course in the city. It is just being brought to a standard that means that we will be able to attract those sorts of events in the future, events that we cannot necessarily attract today. No-one is suggesting by any stretch—and I think this was canvassed at the time—that Grange was not a great course. The turnout itself shows that it is a great event and a great course, but it comes with its limitations. It comes with the limitations in terms of where it is in proximity to the city, to hotels, to restaurants, pubs, clubs and the rest of it.

All these issues are taken into account. Does it make sense to upgrade the golf course in the city? My answer was that, when you measure the pros and the cons, yes it does. In saying yes it does, then we have to look at all the things that need to be done. We know that council has been looking to upgrade that golf course for a number of years now. Funding has been an issue around that, so here we have a proposal by the government for a publicly funded, publicly owned, publicly accessible golf course. It is not that we are taking away the golf course, it is not that we are building a new golf course that does not exist. It is a golf course that is already in the city.

As for the process, I know it is very easy for anyone to stare at me. Later this afternoon I will be getting up to speak about process in this place, and we set those standards. I said at the outset, and I will say it again: I do not accept that there was any proposal to ram this bill through last week, because I was not privy to any discussion that involved that—certainly not my support for any discussion that involved that, nor was it suggested to me. The discussions I had were very clear about the timeline for this proposal. They could do whatever they liked in the lower house in terms of its introduction, but there is a process where a bill sits here and we go through debate.

I was not happy with the pace of the bills we dealt with last week that went through this place, but I am also a realist in terms of how we deal with these things based on where we sit on issues. In this instance, I have said that I support this bill being introduced and dealing with it this week. That is no different to any other bill that gets introduced that we deal with in those timeframes.

We do not always agree on issues in principle, we do not agree on them philosophically, and we do not agree on them ideologically. That is just fact. Whether we have this debate today or we have it in two months' time, the only thing that will happen if this debate happens in two months' time is that it will set back the certainty that anyone who is supportive of this proposal and who wants to see this go ahead is seeking to achieve. I know everyone is watching, and it is not just the people in the chamber today. There are people everywhere watching this debate, because that certainty is key in terms of this proposal.

I might just end by saying that I do not make those decisions lightly. I do not like upsetting sectors of our community any more than anyone else in here does but always, always, I think we take the time to measure the pros and cons of any proposal. I agree that the Parklands are home to so many world-class events that make them even more beautiful and more accessible by South Australians, by interstaters and by international visitors: events like WOMAD, the Fringe, the Garden of Unearthly Delights, the motorsport race.

It does not matter whether you are a fan of those events or not; others are, and they are enjoying the Parklands. It might be the only time they actually come to the Parklands, and they are coming because they enjoy that event. Outside of that they might not be that interested in visiting the Parklands, but it brings people in and that showcases South Australia, and that generates economic activity—and that is something I support.

I understand that not everyone sits on the same page when it comes to LIV Golf, but that does not mean others do not enjoy it and they do not support it and they do not want to see this go ahead. For me, this decision is based around providing the certainty that is needed—and the certainty is needed, from the design phase onwards—to meet the 28 deadline, the 31 deadline. It is also needed to show our commitment to this issue so that we can secure this event—and other events, other tournaments—beyond 2031.

They may not have liked it when it first came to Australia, but they sure as hell like it now. I think there would be a few states that would happily put up their hands to try to snare it from South Australia if they could. We have that benefit here, and we have seen what it is doing for our state. I have said I would back that, and I would like that certainty, that everyone watching this is seeking, in order for us to be able to move ahead in a timely fashion. That is what I am supporting, and it is on that basis that I have indicated to the government that I support this bill.

Mr President, I apologise, I will get to this when we deal with amendments. We have talked, and I will talk, about differential rates, because we have talked about public accessibility, public ownership, but also ensuring that we have something in the bill that points to that, which I am happy to talk to when we get to the amendment stage.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (12:58): I rise to address the government's North Adelaide Public Golf Course Bill 2025, and indicate that I will definitely be supporting this bill. That support goes beyond the event. As has already been said, it is about recognising that this is a very time-sensitive matter. South Australians are going to miss out if we do not get on with the job, and that means decreased economic prosperity for the state, particularly the city area, as well as the average Australian potentially missing out on having a world-class, publicly legislated golf course.

This bill will allow South Australians to get on with business, the business of creating another drawcard for our state. It aims to create a world-class golf course in South Australia to sit alongside other wealth generators that support family businesses and jobs and make our state a more attractive place to live, visit and invest in. The government's bill will do this by turning an existing golf course into a world-class golf course, and it will not cost the Adelaide City Council.

In supporting this bill, I am making an outcome-driven decision supported by the opening line of this act, which is particularly succinct and to the point. This legislation will, and I quote, 'facilitate the development of a new North Adelaide Golf Course, to provide for its ongoing use as a championship golf course…and for other purposes'.

Key elements of this bill include ensuring ongoing consultation between the responsible minister and the Adelaide City Council, including agreement on a consultation protocol, and a requirement for every tree removed as part of this project to be replaced with three trees situated or planted within the project site and support zones. The bill also ensures that the North Adelaide Golf Course remains a public facility during and after this upgrade.

South Australians will have protections to guard against any substantial increases to paying fees for locals, increases that might exclude some members of the public from using the course. The bill also forbids the erection of any permanent fencing that would exclude the public from the course. The course will be rebuilt to international standards for LIV Golfers, but it will also be for everyday hackers, for children and young people new to the sport and its many health and wellbeing benefits, and for everyone in between.

This bill essentially enables South Australians to use a world-class facility year-round, except for those few days when the professionals arrive in Adelaide and bring with them the spotlight of world sport. LIV has been a runaway hit for South Australia since arriving in 2023, with 77,000 people attending that first year, 94,000 in 2024 and 102,000 earlier this year. The 2024 event generated over 79,000 visitor nights. By anyone's definition, that is an enormous shot in the arm to the local economy, and we know that LIV Golf will be with us now until at least 2031.

The local event will remain at Grange Golf Course until 2027 before it is planned to be relocated to North Adelaide from 2028 onwards. The new site is an outstanding setting to further grow the event and showcase much of our state to the rest of the world. Figures show golf tourism is especially lucrative to the respective location in question, with golfers typically spending more money during their visits than non-golfers. Increasing these revenues year in, year out will ultimately boost the South Australian economy and allow the government to start repaying some of our ballooning debt.

Golf is undergoing a resurgence. We have seen the fifth consecutive year of membership growth across the nation, plus increases in playing numbers, including junior boys and junior girls. Golf is a healthy outdoor activity associated with wellbeing and fitness, not to mention the person-to-person social interaction. This popularity trend is a welcome development given all the data and reports that outline how damaging our obsession with screen time can be.

But what does the bill mean for Adelaide City Council? Given its geography, its composition and its existing service responsibilities, the Adelaide City Council lacks the ratepayer base to fund upgrades of this nature. This bill clears the path for the state government to provide those upgrades by effectively allowing it to invest on behalf of the council.

Some have queried the swiftness of this bill's creation and passage, and suggested brakes need to be applied, and contend the bill should have been returned to members for additional scrutiny before being introduced, and that Adelaide City Council should have been further consulted on it. However, given the council's track record, and the fact that the project has a deadline of 2028, this bill's passage needs to be swift and sensible. If we allow this bill to be bogged down in unnecessary changes, the timeline will be impossible to meet. We might still be talking what ifs in 2028 when the golfers should be teeing off at the redeveloped North Adelaide facility.

If we had allowed the Adelaide Oval redevelopment to be sidetracked, delayed, railroaded and ultimately scuttled, think of what would have been lost to the city and state. It is also worth noting that the Property Council supports this redevelopment, which will enhance the Parklands for golfers and non-golfers, and it will improve public spaces, including movement in and out of the city. The Parklands are not just for a small group of people. They are to be enjoyed by all, and this development will help that happen. With those words, I indicate my support for the bill.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (Minister for Emergency Services and Correctional Services, Minister for Autism, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (13:03): I am mindful that we have ticked over into break time, so I am just going to make this very quick. I would like to thank the honourable members who have spoken on this bill: the Hon. Michelle Lensink, the Hon. Tammy Franks, the Hon. Connie Bonaros, the Hon. Jing Lee, the Hon. Sarah Game, the Hon. Rob Simms and the Hon. Russell Wortley. As we are already aware, the committee stage will hopefully be picking up later today where we will be able to continue these discussions about the significance of having a public golf course invested in in our city.

The council divided on the second reading:

Ayes 15

Noes 2

Majority 13

AYES

NOES

Second reading thus carried; bill read a second time.

Sitting suspended from 13:08 to 14:15.