Bills

Northern Parklands Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I have a question for the minister in relation to levies that would be imposed on property acquisitions, or levies that would be proposed that would need to be collected by local government or councils. Why is that in there?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: The levy has been in place so that the Northern Parklands Trust can be self-sustainable. This practice is there so that the funding from the levy can go back into the Parklands, I have been advised.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Why does local government have to act as a tax collector for the government? Does the minister see that it would add additional costs to those local government agencies that will be required to collect that levy?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am advised this is a model that has been used in the Landscape South Australia Act. It would also enable the councils to receive payment back and not to be out of pocket, that is my understanding.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Does the minister see that that levy would be showing on rate notices that go to ratepayers, who would not have a clue where that money is going, and it would seem that their rates are higher than what they would expect? Why doesn't the government collect the levy itself? Why is it imposing more costs on local government to do this?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: At the outset, the local community itself is going to very much physically see the benefit of this new Northern Parklands. Not only do we have this incredible asset that we see in the city that surrounds our CBD, having parklands here, but the northern suburbs will also have an incredible asset in the Northern Parklands.

My understanding, and the advice I have received here, is that neither the City of Playford nor the Town of Gawler have raised any concerns with this concept. As I have said, it is a model that has been used through the Landscape South Australia Act, and to support those programs.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Has the Local Government Association raised concerns about it?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I understand that the LGA SA is a member of the minister liaison group that has had a number of meetings to discuss this incredible project and the benefits it will bring to the community. My understanding is that, while there were no concerns raised throughout those discussions, there have been concerns raised more recently.

We have been in contact with the local councils that will be benefitting from this incredible investment and project, where their community will have access to parklands that will really define their community and build on its character, enabling them to have something that we see here in our CBD. We will be taking it to the northern suburbs for them to also enjoy this wonderful open space. For people to now know what it is going to be and where it is going is an incredible commitment by this government, showing that we are investing in open green space.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: What are these amazing projects that the minister alludes to?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: The Northern Parklands project.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Sorry, I did not hear that, minister.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: The significance of building the Northern Parklands.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: What does the government intend building on these Parklands?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I was referring to the establishment of the Northern Parklands. The master plan itself is there to be developed at this point in time. You might be trying to find ways to put a negative spin on this, but for me and the government this is about establishing open green space, an area for the community to know that it will be there and it is available to them, and also to have benefits to not only the residents but people who are wanting to do more recreation and get out and about and enjoy their community.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I assure the minister I am not seeking to put a negative spin on the proposal but rather just trying to understand what precisely is in contemplation. Is it not the case that, as part of these new powers, the government would have the authority to bill ratepayers for the development of some of the green space in order to facilitate a commercial development? Can the minister detail precisely what kind of developments might be in contemplation?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: Putting my old portfolio hat on, the West Beach Trust is a really great example of what this has been based off, where the caravan park is a part of that trust, which generates an income that is able to be put back into that incredible facility that is there to not only support recreational use but open space for the community. It is having that balance of open space but the ability to be self-sustainable.

This is an incredible asset that will be available in the community. I understand at an environmental level, with respect to planting, about 13,500 new trees is what I have been advised within the first three years of the Parklands being established, and the final Parklands will have up to 1,000 hectares of land under its control. There will be lots of opportunities that are available where the community can have an opportunity to be a part of the master plan process too.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Will the minister rule out hotels, resorts or private accommodation?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: As I said earlier, we have looked at the West Beach Trust and that is what we are basing it off with the caravan park and how successful that has been in being able to generate the support that is required to keep that as a sustainable open space for the people to enjoy.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Will the minister rule out the other forms of development that I mentioned—so hotels, resorts, private accommodation—and narrow the focus simply to leisure and the example that she provided?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: At this stage, I am advised we are going with the West Beach Trust model and that is what has worked.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Yes, but is it not the case that the legislation provides much broader powers than simply the erection of caravan parks?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: As I said earlier, this has been based on the West Beach Trust model, which we know has been successful. I am sure the honourable member himself may very well acknowledge that as well. Any development, I have been advised, on the Parklands would require approval through the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act. The priority for this side is to have an open space that has an ability to be able to support itself and be self-sustainable but provide a sporting, recreational and defining character for the northern suburbs.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I have a supplementary on that. Can the minister just confirm: does the West Beach Trust collect levies through their local council?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I understand, as I mentioned earlier, that the model is based on the Landscape South Australia Act and that the West Beach park model is self-sustainable.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Sorry, just a supplementary: do they collect levies through their local council currently in that sustainable model?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am advised that, again, this has been based on the modelling of the Landscape South Australia Act, but the current West Beach Trust does not have the modelling to enable that to happen.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: So just to be clear, that is a no?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: This is based on the Landscape South Australia Act.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Sorry, just to be clear: does the West Beach Trust currently collect levies through their local council?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: That is not achievable through the current legislation.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Is any compensation going to be paid for any compulsory acquisitions for these Northern Parklands?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am advised that, if any land was required, it would be worked through the Land Acquisition Act.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Does that mean, or does it not mean, that compensation is going to be paid?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: My understanding is that compensation is made through the Land Acquisition Act.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 and 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: It is my understanding, and please correct me if I am wrong, that amendments Nos 2 and 3 are consequential to amendment No. 1. So I will move amendment No. 1 and speak to it, but obviously if that fails I will not be moving amendments Nos 2 and 3 [Centofanti-1]. I move:

Amendment No 1 [Centofanti–1]—

Page 5, after line 33 [clause 4(3), after paragraph (a)]—Insert:

(ab) before a variation to add land to the Northern Parklands is made, the eligible land proposed to be added must be identified in the Greater Adelaide Regional Plan applying under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016; and

These amendments ensure that any proposal to add new land to the Northern Parklands or to other statutory parklands in the future can only proceed if that land is identified in the relevant regional plan prepared under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016. Specifically, amendment No. 1 inserts new paragraph (3)(ab) in clause 4 so that land added to the Northern Parklands must already appear in the Greater Adelaide Regional Plan.

Amendment No. 2 makes a technical cross-reference correction to clause 4(4), and amendment No. 3 inserts an equivalent requirement in clause 6 for all other trust parklands, including using the phrase 'relevant regional plan'. Together, these changes prevent arbitrary or politically driven expansions and align future parkland boundaries with South Australia's long-term planning framework. They anchor the Northern Parklands within strategic metropolitan planning and provide transparency to local communities and councils.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I thank the honourable member for bringing these amendments to the chamber. I am advised that these amendments were filed very recently, but whilst we appreciate the opposition's attempts to put these amendments in, we will not be able to support them at this time. As we have already made mention, this is based on the successful Linear Parks Act, which we have found has worked well, and the amendments that are being put forward would require the GARP to be amended in the first order and would be an administrative burden.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I indicate I will support the amendments. I consider those to be a safeguard that is worthy of consideration.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I do note that I believe these have been filed today, and it has put an undue amount of stress on the crossbench to try to work our way through them, which I understand some of my colleagues are doing out in the corridor, as well as myself now here. I understand the concerns about consultation, but is that not addressed by the ability of the parliament to intervene should things go awry?

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: My understanding, in terms of these amendments, is this is about them going into regional plans. It just ensures that there is another level of planning consultation, particularly with councils and local communities.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 7

Noes 10

Majority 3

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

Clause 5.

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

Amendment No 1 [Simms–1]—

Page 6, after line 19—After subclause (2) insert:

(3) A commercial development comprising a hotel, resort or other form of accommodation cannot be established or operated on or over the Northern Parklands, or a part of the Northern Parklands.

I do not think the amendment requires a great deal of explanation because, as I indicated in my second reading remarks, I do have some concern around the legislation in effect requiring local ratepayers to contribute towards the upkeep of space for private resorts and hotels, which I think is a little bit further than what the government envisaged when they spoke about the caravan park example. This just refines the focus a little more.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I appreciate the work that the honourable member has put into this, but the government will not be supporting his amendments. As I have highlighted in previous comments, I am advised that taking away this ability would remove the financial sustainability of the Northern Parklands. As I mentioned earlier, when we have seen things like the West Beach Trust, where they have been able to have places like the holiday park, it really has been able to generate that support, so it is self-sustainable.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I, too, want to acknowledge the work that the Hon. Robert Simms has done on these amendments. I indicate the opposition will not be supporting the Hon. Robert Simms' amendments Nos 1 to 4, but we will be supporting his amendments Nos 5 through 12 in his first set.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: My amendment No. 3, largely, is not consequential but it is very similar, so I will not be moving it.

Clause passed.

Clause 7.

The CHAIR: There is an amendment No. 2 [Simms-1].

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: This is a very similar amendment to the other amendment I advanced, and therefore I will not progress it, given the numbers

Clause passed.

Clauses 8 to 13 passed.

Clause 14.

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

Amendment No 3 [Simms–1]—

Page 9, line 36 [clause 14(1)(a)(ii)]—Delete 'and resort'

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I thank the honourable member for his amendment. As stated previously, this is about keeping the ability for the park to be self-sustainable, as we have seen with the West Beach Trust.

Amendment negatived.

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

Amendment No 4 [Simms–1]—

Page 10, lines 10 and 11 [clause 14(2)(a)]—Delete 'accommodation, refreshment, sport or entertainment and any other' and substitute 'refreshment, sport or entertainment and any other similar'

Again, what this amendment is seeking to do is to narrow the focus of what the government is proposing. I know the minister has insisted that this is more about car parks—sorry, not car parks but caravan parks. It is often about car parks with this government, but in this instance it is about caravan parks. What I am seeking to do is to ensure that this power is not going to be used in a broader way.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I thank the member for the amendment he has put forward, but again we will not be supporting it, for reasons similar to those stated before. I would also like to confirm that the LGA has brought to my attention the actual name of the reference group that was mentioned earlier: it is the ministerial liaison group.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: As previously indicated, we will not be supporting the Hon. Rob Simms' amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 15.

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

Amendment No 5 [Simms–1]—

Page 11, lines 34 to 36 [clause 15(4)(a)]—Delete 'where it has not required such a contribution in relation to the financial year immediately preceding the relevant financial year'

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I indicate that the opposition will be supporting this amendment by the Hon. Rob Simms.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: Apologies, would the honourable member repeat the amendment you just mentioned?

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: The amendment is clause 15, page 11, lines 34 to 36:

Delete 'where it has not required such a contribution in relation to the financial year immediately preceding the relevant financial year'

The ACTING CHAIR (The Hon. T.A. Franks): We are on amendment No. 5 [Simms-1].

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am advised this amendment would mean the prescribed levy proposal would include any levy, even if the levy is the same as the previous year. This would mean a levy would need to go through full public consultation and parliamentary oversight processes every year, even if the levy is not increased or only increased by CPI. This would be an unreasonable administrative burden on the imposition of the levy.

Amendment negatived.

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

Amendment No 6 [Simms–1]—

Page 11, lines 37 to 39 [clause 15(4)(b)]—Delete paragraph (b)

The ACTING CHAIR (The Hon. T.A. Franks): It is probably consequential but that does not mean that the mover cannot continue to pursue their arguments. Any further contributions? If people indicate how they are going to vote, that might help the calling of the vote.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: As I have previously stated, the opposition will be supporting the Hon. Rob Simms' amendments Nos 5 to 12.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: As I have previously stated, we will not be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I also will not be supporting the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

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

Amendment No 7 [Simms–1]—

Page 12, lines 8 to 11 [clause 15(5)(b)]—Delete paragraph (b) and substitute:

(b) in a case where the proposal relates to the payment (or proposed payment) of contributions by constituent councils under Part 4—obtain the consent of each constituent council to the proposed contributions; and

This is in recognition of the fact that this in effect does give the government some quite significant powers. I have heard, certainly, concerns expressed to me by the LGA on behalf of their members that this could put a significant cost burden on councils. All I am proposing in this instance is that when the government is seeking to do this, they would obtain the consent of councils in relation to the contributions. I think that is appropriate given this model potentially creates a template for acquiring parts of green space.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I understand that, as we are going to be making amendments to have both houses of parliament have oversight of this, this amendment is not supported by the government.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 7

Noes 10

Majority 3

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Amendment thus negatived.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Centofanti–1]—

Page 12, after line 14 [clause 15, after subclause (5)]—Insert:

(5a) In addition, before including in its annual business plan a prescribed levy proposal that relates to the payment (or proposed payment) of contributions by constituent councils under Part 4, the Trust must take into account—

(a) the likely impact of the prescribed levy proposal on—

(i) ratepayers in the Northern Parklands region; and

(ii) the long-term financial performance and position of the constituent councils for that region; and

(iii) issues concerning equity within the community in that region; and

(b) the extent to which the Northern Parklands are provided for the enjoyment and benefit of users that do not live within the boundaries of the constituent councils for the Northern Parklands region, and the corresponding extent to which it is reasonable for ratepayers in that region to be responsible for paying a levy in respect of the Northern Parklands; and

(c) the proportion of the Northern Parklands that are (or will be) available for unrestricted community use and are not (or will not be) operating under a lease or other arrangement restricting open community access; and

(d) the proportion of the Northern Parklands that was previously under the care, control or management of a constituent council for the Northern Parklands region and the level of service to the community provided by the constituent councils in respect of such land (such as the extent and standard of facilities and amenities provided at the land).

Amendment No. 4 inserts a new subclause, 15(5a), requiring the Northern Parklands Trust to take into account explicit fairness and equity considerations before including a prescribed levy proposal in its annual business plan. Amendment No. 5 is consequential is my understanding, so, Mr Chairman, are you happy for me to explain amendment No. 5 now?

The CHAIR: Yes.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Amendment No. 5 then adds subclause 15(8a), obliging the minister to consider those same factors before approving such a plan. Under these amendments both the trust and the minister must examine the likely financial impact on ratepayers and on the long-term fiscal sustainability of Playford and Gawler councils, broader equity issues within the community, the degree to which the Parklands are used by non-residents and whether it is fair for local ratepayers to bear those costs, how much of the Parklands were previously managed by councils and the level of service those councils provided. These provisions introduce an explicit fairness framework into the levy-setting process, ensuring any charge is reasonable, transparent and financially sustainable.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am advised there will be parliamentary oversight of the annual business plan, as well as the minister having to have oversight of that plan as well. As we stated earlier, the purpose of this modelling that we have put together as a government is to have long-term financial sustainability. As we have heard already today, these amendments have only been presented today and we have not had time to consider them and will not be supporting them.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I support the amendments.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 7

Noes 10

Majority 3

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Amendment thus negatived.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I will not move amendment No. 5 [Centofanti-1] as it is consequential.

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

Amendment No 1 [EmergCorr–1]—

Page 12, line 24 [clause 15(10)]—Delete 'The House of Assembly' and substitute:

Either House of Parliament

Amendment No 2 [EmergCorr–1]—

Page 12, lines 29 to 32 [clause 15(11)]—Delete subclause (11) and substitute:

(11) If, at the expiration of 6 sitting days, neither House of Parliament has made a resolution under subsection (10), it will be conclusively presumed that there is no objection to the prescribed levy proposal and that there are no suggested amendments to it (and in this case the prescribed levy proposal may proceed).

My understanding is that this came up in the other house in the committee stage about having further oversight, and we will now be having oversight provided by both houses of parliament.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I indicate that the opposition is supportive of the government's amendment.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I am supportive of it, too. I think this is an important accountability measure, so I do welcome the government taking on board that feedback.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I welcome and support the government's amendment. This is why it went to the heart of my question about having that important parliamentary oversight. These debates are incredibly controversial. Rather than minutiae, they should in fact be in the delegated legislation of the parliament, and a public debate in that way is most fitting.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I rise to indicate that I too will be supporting the amendments.

Amendments carried.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: This amendment relates to the principle that I raised earlier in relation to consent of constituent councils, therefore I will not be proceeding with it given the numbers in the chamber. I will not proceed with amendments Nos 8 or 9.

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

Amendment No 3 [EmergCorr–1]—

Page 12, line 36 [clause 15(12)(b)]—Delete 'House of Assembly' and substitute:

House of Parliament that suggested the amendment

Amendment No 4 [EmergCorr–1]—

Page 12, line 37 [clause 15(12)(b)]—Delete 'the House of Assembly' and substitute:

that House of Parliament

Amendment No 5 [EmergCorr–1]—

Page 12, line 42 [clause 15(13)]—Delete 'the House of Assembly' and substitute:

either House of Parliament

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 16.

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

Amendment No 1 [Simms–2]—

Page 13, lines 19 to 21 [clause 16(1)]—

Delete 'the Northern Parklands Trust's annual business plan specifies an amount to be contributed by the constituent councils for that financial year for the purposes of this section.' and substitute:

—

(a) the Northern Parklands Trust's annual business plan specifies an amount to be contributed by the constituent councils for that financial year for the purposes of this section; and

(b) the constituent councils have consented to the making of a contribution of the amount specified in the annual business plan.

The CHAIR: This is actually a suggestion to the House of Assembly to amend the clause.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I thank the member for his feedback today, but we will not be supporting the amendment that has been put forward. I understand that a requirement to consult with the impacted councils already exists within the bill. In addition, both houses of parliament will provide oversight of the new increased levy. This consultation oversight is considered sufficient.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I rise to indicate that the opposition will be supporting the Hon. Rob Simms' amendment No. 1 [Simms-2].

Suggested amendment negatived.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I will be moving my amendment No. 1 [Centofanti-2]. This amendment adds wording to clause 16(5) so that the minister, before approving a business plan involving council contributions, must have taken into account the matters referred to in section 15(5a)(a) to (d).

This amendment directly links the minister's power under clause 16 to the fairness and equity considerations inserted by [Centofanti-1]. In effect, this ensures the minister cannot approve any annual business plan or levy arrangement without explicitly considering the new fairness—I do not think I can move this because it is consequential to [Centofanti-1]—

The CHAIR: But we love hearing your dulcet tone, so thank you.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: So I will not be moving this amendment.

Clause passed.

Clauses 17 to 30 passed.

Clause 31.

The CHAIR: This is another suggested amendment to the House of Assembly.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: It is a very good suggestion. I move:

Amendment No 2 [Simms–2]—

Page 21, after line 35—After subclause (2) insert:

(3) However, regulations for the purposes of this section cannot have the effect of allowing a statutory trust to require a constituent council to make a contribution towards the costs of the statutory trust performing its functions without the consent of the constituent council.

I outlined the rationale for the amendment earlier.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: The government will not be supporting this amendment as we have provided that there will be parliamentary oversight of the business plan.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: As previously indicated, the opposition will be supporting the Hon. Mr Simms' amendment.

Suggested amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 32.

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

Amendment No 10 [Simms–1]—

Page 22, after line 13—After subclause (2) insert:

(2a) Despite subsection (2) (and section 31), regulations providing for an annual business plan of a statutory trust to set out a proposal relating to the payment (or proposed payment) of contributions by constituent councils under the applicable provisions of Part 4 towards the costs of the statutory trust performing its functions under this Act relating to the region for the trust parklands must require the consent of each constituent council to the proposed contributions to be obtained by the statutory trust.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: The government will not be supporting this amendment for similar reasons that I have already outlined.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: As indicated, we will be supporting this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I move:

Amendment No 6 [Centofanti–1]—

Page 22, after line 13 [clause 32, after subclause (2)]—After subclause (2) insert:

(2a) Despite subsection (2) (and section 31), regulations providing for an annual business plan of a statutory trust to set out a proposal relating to the payment (or proposed payment) of contributions by constituent councils under the applicable provisions of Part 4 towards the costs of the statutory trust performing its functions under this Act relating to the region for trust parklands must make provision requiring the statutory trust to take into account—

(a) the likely impact of the proposal on—

(i) ratepayers in the region; and

(ii) the long-term financial performance and position of the constituent councils for the region; and

(iii) issues concerning equity within the community in the region; and

(b) the extent to which the trust parklands are provided for the enjoyment and benefit of users that do not live within the boundaries of the constituent councils for the trust parklands region, and the corresponding extent to which it is reasonable for ratepayers in that region to be responsible for paying a levy in respect of the trust parklands; and

(c) the proportion of the trust parklands that are (or will be) available for unrestricted community use and are not (or will not be) operating under a lease or other arrangement restricting open community access; and

(d) the proportion of the trust parklands that was previously under the care, control or management of a constituent council for the trust parklands region and the level of service to the community provided by the constituent councils in respect of such land (such as the extent and standard of facilities and amenities provided at the land).

I will also speak to amendment No. 7, which I understand is consequential and, if this fails, I will not be moving amendment No. 7. Amendments Nos 6 and 7 replicate the fairness and equity tests introduced in clause 15 within the general provisions of the bill. Amendment No. 6 inserts new clause 32(2a) requiring any future statutory parklands trust to apply the same fairness factors when preparing its annual business plan, while amendment No. 7 inserts clause 32(3a), requiring the minister to consider those same matters when approving such a plan. Together, these amendments ensure that the fairness framework applies not only to the Northern Parklands but to all future parkland trusts established under this legislation. They establish a consistent statewide benchmark for fair and transparent parkland funding and governance.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: The government will not be supporting this amendment. As previously outlined, this has an annual business plan that has oversight, on my understanding, from both parliament and the minister.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 7

Noes 10

Majority 3

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 33 to 41 passed.

Clause 42.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I move:

Amendment No 8 [Centofanti–1]—

Page 26, after line 6 [clause 42, after subclause (2)]—Insert:

(2a) A statutory trust must, before submitting its long-term strategic plan to the Minister for approval, consult with each council in whose area trust parklands for which the statutory trust is the responsible statutory trust are located on the long-term strategic plan.

Amendment No. 8 requires a statutory trust to consult directly with each affected council before submitting a long-term strategic plan to the minister for approval. It gives councils, as financial contributors and community custodians, a legislative voice in shaping the Parklands' long-term direction, priorities and management. By embedding formal consultation, the amendment strengthens cooperation between the trust and local government, ensuring Parkland planning reflects local need service levels and community expectations.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I am happy to support the amendment based on the principles I outlined earlier.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: The government will not be supporting this amendment. I have been advised that there would be members of the council who would be on the trust, so there would be natural consultation that would occur anyway.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 7

Noes 10

Majority 3

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 43 to 45 passed.

Clause 46.

The CHAIR: There is amendment No. 3 [Simms-2].

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Reading the tea leaves, the numbers are clearly not there. These amendments relate to the principle that I have made reference to a number of times. That is around councils being consulted and ensuring that there is not acquisition of land without their consent. In light of the numbers, I will not proceed with the amendments.

Clause passed.

Remaining clause (47), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister for Autism) (17:23): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.