HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2024-02-06 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Botanic Gardens and State Herbarium (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 14 September 2023.)

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS (Black—Leader of the Opposition) (11:02): I rise to make a contribution on the Botanic Gardens and State Herbarium (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2023, and I indicate to you, Mr Speaker, that I am the lead speaker on this bill in my capacity as the shadow minister for environment.

The Botanic Gardens in South Australia are a remarkable community asset. They are an asset with historic significance to our state, particularly the Adelaide Botanic Garden within our capital city's central business district, but they are also an environmental asset, an asset that enable members of our community to take time out with their families and friends, to enjoy, to immerse themselves in nature, to get away from the busyness of life. In some cases, many people in South Australia have chosen them as a destination, as a location for significant family events, in particular for weddings, to celebrate birthdays and anniversaries, and to get engaged in.

Our Botanic Gardens—whether the Adelaide Botanic Garden or the two other gardens within the Botanic Gardens estate, the Wittunga Botanic Garden in Blackwood or the Mount Lofty Botanic Garden in the Adelaide Hills—add to an estate which is much loved and greatly celebrated by South Australians.

I thought I would take a moment to talk a little bit about the history of our Botanic Gardens. Again, the most significant history rests in the Adelaide Botanic Garden, which was opened in 1857 and encompasses some 50 hectares of stunning gardens and unique architecture. When visitors go to those gardens, they will see places that are not only of environmental significance to the state but also places that now have been given immense heritage protection as well. I am talking about places like the Bicentennial Conservatory; the former Municipal Tramways Trust depot, now known as the Goodman Building and Tram Barn A; the entry gates and stone wall which flank the gardens along North Terrace; the Palm House; the East Lodge and North Lodge; and the Simpson Kiosk.

The Wittunga Botanic Garden was added to the estate in 1975, and although more modest in size it is no less loved by its community. At 13 hectares, the gardens offer an important collection of waterwise plants and a unique collection of plants from both Australia and South Africa, including extensive collections of plants from Kangaroo Island and the Fleurieu Peninsula.

The Mount Lofty Botanic Garden was opened more recently in 1977 and is now the largest of the gardens at 97 hectares. It is a spectacular area of gullies and gardens that was established as a cool climate arboretum and offers spectacular views across the Mount Lofty Ranges and, in some spots, back towards metropolitan Adelaide. Those gardens were, of course, very significantly impacted by the Ash Wednesday bushfires in 1983. Much of the garden was rendered to ash but was able to be restored. There is very little sign of that destruction today, but it does form part of the collective memory of those who love and cherish those gardens and who carefully restored the collections after the 1983 bushfire.

These places are all ingrained in the memories—whether childhood memories or adult memories—of many South Australians, and that is for good reason. They are places of wonder and imagination. They are places where you can get lost within a jungle of trees in some cases. You can wind through myriad paths which crisscross various landscapes. They are unique and they are special.

During my time as South Australia's Minister for Environment and Water, responsible for the Botanic Gardens of South Australia, I was pleased to be able to commence a significant program of works across all three Botanic Gardens. Those works reached a value of some $9.2 million. They included upgrade works at the Adelaide Botanic Garden which comprised the restoration of the Goodman Building and Tram Barn A, which provides a home for the administrative wing of the gardens and South Australia's State Herbarium, the place where a collection of over one million dried plant specimens is located. The upgrades included new toilets and the installation of LED lighting, as well as other less glamorous upgrades, perhaps, but ones that were required to waterproof the building and ensure that those collections could be maintained in the best possible condition.

At Mount Lofty Botanic Garden, the upgrades included the creation of additional car parking and improved visitor facilities, upgrades to trails and significant upgrades to toilets and new signage. Some of those works are still to be completed. It was good to be able to visit the Mount Lofty Botanic Garden earlier in the new year and view some of those works.

The works at Wittunga Botanic Garden were the first significant works to occur there since the gardens were completed and open to the public in the 1970s. That $750,000 upgrade, which was in significant part delivered with funding through the Adelaide City Deal, enabled the provision of a new lakeside path and viewing platform along with a brand-new nature play area for young people to come and experience the garden.

It provided a significant drawcard to pull people into the gardens at Wittunga, from which they could explore and experience somewhere that in many cases they had driven past before but not had perhaps the interest or inclination to explore beyond the fence. That nature playground significantly increased visitation to Wittunga Botanic Garden and, as a consequence, allowed a whole new group of people to explore what the garden had to offer.

We know that South Australians love to visit their Botanic Gardens. The visitation numbers speak for themselves. It has well over two million visits per year, and that has been steadily growing in recent years. The gardens were largely able to remain open during the darkest days of the COVID-19 pandemic, meaning that, with only the exception of Mount Lofty Botanic Garden which closed briefly, these places were locations and destinations that people could safely visit while socially distancing.

I like to think that that contributed towards the overall mental health and wellbeing of South Australians during that difficult period—the very intentional decision that we took to keep those gardens open. Not only did we keep them open but also, with the exception of a short period when Mount Lofty Botanic Garden was closed, we actively encouraged people to visit the gardens. We encouraged people to visit the gardens in a safe way, in a way that did not necessarily see them drive a significant distance from home, but it gave people the opportunity to get into nature. The same was encouraged with national parks and our coastal beaches as well, giving people that opportunity to get into nature and get away from the troubles of the world during that time.

By investing in these places on a continual basis, we will encourage and attract repeat visitation and give South Australians the unique opportunity to get into places which are quite different from any of our other parks and provide an opportunity for people to get into green space, to learn about plant life and to learn a little bit about history and heritage within our state as well.

The gardens in recent times have enhanced their cultural experiences and their storytelling around the plants that have a significance to Aboriginal South Australians. We have seen a very successful kitchen garden established at the Adelaide Botanic Garden. There has been the opportunity also at the Adelaide Botanic Garden to establish a stormwater harvesting and wetlands site, which again allows the public to see a practical demonstration of how high-quality stormwater harvesting and storage can be used to reduce water reliance and the overall environmental sustainability of the gardens, which obviously are significant users of water in their own right in order to keep the gardens surviving and thriving.

The previous government was proud to lead a reactivation of the Botanic Gardens through the upgrade of facilities and, of course, the provision of events from time to time as well. One of those events which was and continues to be very successful at a citywide level was Illuminate Adelaide, which launched in 2021. It saw more than 500,000 visitors during winter to enjoy the installations and experiences.

These were, of course, broader than just the Botanic Gardens across the city, but the Botanic Garden was a key site and demonstrated how the gardens can be activated, again, to draw more people in than those who might normally be visitors to the gardens. The opportunity to have events and activities in the gardens that draw people in who may discover the gardens for the first time and then form a tradition of visiting again and again and again certainly should be explored and, where that works well in a sensitive manner with those fragile landscapes, should be celebrated.

The opposition does remain exceptionally supportive of finding novel and important opportunities for the Botanic Gardens to expand the breadth of their commercial operations so that they continue to maintain and invest in the gardens and broaden their income stream and the sustainability of their financial status. We will continue to support activities that do this. We understand that the amendment bill before the house does seek to ensure that the legislation that underpins the management of the gardens in South Australia does so in a way that enables that broadening of investment and commercial opportunities. We do understand that the existing legislation is quite restrictive in regard to that.

We heard from the minister during her second reading speech on 14 September 2023 that the intent of the government's bill was to find opportunities for the Botanic Gardens to supplement its funding from government with additional sources of revenue so that it can deliver important new scientific conservation and public engagement projects. The board of the Botanic Gardens—who I have been able to work with closely over the years, particularly during my time as minister—have identified that their capacity to generate additional revenue is constrained by the current provisions of the 1978 version of the act, as I just foreshadowed.

Again, I repeat that we are supportive of legislative reform that would provide appropriate, expanded opportunities for the Botanic Gardens to be able to generate additional income, facilitating important investment and the maintenance of the gardens. However, the opposition has publicly raised concerns about the government's intention to generate income through the introduction of paid parking at the gardens on Sundays and public holidays. Those days are currently free within the way that the gardens are administered.

In her second reading speech, the minister explained that this would be an option as a future possibility, in line with similar changes occurring across the City of Adelaide. The opposition does not support this change—not now nor enabled in the legislation as a future possibility. We also think that it is relevant that the bill would not restrict the introduction of paid parking to the Adelaide Botanic Gardens, but it would also equally apply to Mount Lofty and Wittunga which are, of course, administered under the same act.

The opposition wants to ensure that these days continue to be preserved as a day in the week when a family can come together at any of those gardens at no additional cost. They are precious places and it is important that we maintain accessibility for everyone in our community, regardless of their financial means. The cost of living is a significant issue for many, many households at the moment and the opposition is committed to opposing the introduction of unnecessary additional fees and charges upon South Australians when proposed by the government. This includes the option of broadening this legislation to enable paid parking on public holidays and on Sundays.

In response to the concerns that we have raised about these charges, we understand that the government has acted. I understand that the government have prepared their own amendments to their own bill to now exclude the introduction of paid parking on Sundays and public holidays. We have not yet seen those amendments but remain extremely willing to support those once we see them. We have prepared our own in case they are not forthcoming and will be delighted to introduce those should that be needed.

We are delighted that the government plans to respond to our concerns and the concerns of many thousands of South Australians who have contacted the opposition, and we look forward to the committee stage of the bill, when we will be able to discuss those clauses in further detail. If we assume that the government does move those amendments, we will have achieved a win for South Australians to facilitate more opportunities for the Botanic Gardens to independently raise funds through commercial activities and hopefully broaden their financial sustainability while not causing added impost to members in our community.

Our Botanic Gardens are for all South Australians, regardless of their financial means. It is important that they do not become places that are elite enclaves and are instead welcoming to all. I look forward to the progression of this bill and welcome those amendments being tabled in the very near future.

Ms HUTCHESSON (Waite) (11:21): A lie is an assertion that is believed to be false, typically used with the purpose of deceiving or misleading someone. The practice of communicating lies is called lying. A person who communicates a lie may be termed a liar. Without naming names, there has been a campaign of misinformation and, not only that, a purposeful ambition to mislead South Australians and even worse the community that I represent, that I live in, that I have spent all but two years of my life living in.

Though knowing full well that the information being distributed would lead to unrest and concern, those opposite and their counterparts in the other place pretended to be part of a community that showed their party the door at the last election, and all they have for them is lies. Those opposite have spent their summer not lying by the pool but lying to the people of South Australia. Even after being scolded by the Botanic Gardens board, they continued to spread misinformation. Not only have those opposite and their colleagues in the other house shown absolute disrespect to the board of the Botanic Gardens and their staff, who have had to field concerns from South Australians about some sham picnic tax, but they have continued to lie to my community.

The amendment bill before us was never intended to cause the issues it has. Even more interesting information to add to the purposeful deceit from those opposite is that the reforms being sought here were started by the now opposition leader, who was responsible for the environment at the time. Many may suggest a title more fitting was 'the minister for Glenthorne' or 'the minister not for the Murray River', but you heard correctly: these reforms were started when he was the responsible minister.

It is the case that on 17 September 2021, under direction from the then environment minister, the board of the Botanic Gardens were asked to pursue commercial opportunities to supplement their state appropriation within the extent of their powers. The board found that the 1978 act is limiting in what they thought they may like to pursue and as such have done the necessary work to update the act to be fit for purpose for the future. So it is a bit rich to have the Leader of the Opposition out spreading misinformation about the ambitions of the amendments.

In a letter that Judy Potter, Presiding Member of the board of the Botanic Gardens, wrote to the opposition leader on 15 November in response to his lies, she clearly reminded the opposition leader of the fact that his staff and the member for Bragg were briefed on the changes; in fact, she said they carefully explained that the board has never had any intention to levy a general entry charge to the Botanic Gardens and has no intention of doing so in the future.

Given the member for Bragg was in the room at this briefing, it was surprising to then see him proudly standing out the front of the Botanic Garden on 12 November, spreading lies and misinformation with the new candidate for Dunstan. I wonder if the good people of Dunstan are aware that their local candidate for the Liberal Party is involved in a campaign of misinformation. It is not really a good start. Maybe they need to be reminded of this.

Ms Clancy interjecting:

Ms HUTCHESSON: True. On the member for Bragg's Facebook page on 13 November, he continued with his deceit, where he said, and I quote:

Well, parliament is sitting again this week and we expect Labor to progress their picnic tax legislation. This is a new proposal by Peter Malinauskas that would see new entry fees to enter the Botanic Gardens and also new paid parking on weekends. There are over two million visits to the Botanic Gardens every year but the key to their popularity and their accessibility is their affordability. During a cost of living crisis, I just don't understand why Peter Malinauskas thinks it's a good idea to tax the family picnic. So the Liberal opposition are going to try to stop this picnic tax in parliament this week and we'd love your support, if you could sign our petition.

Actually, all the Liberal opposition are picnicking on is our community's personal information by data harvesting and lying—not really something to brag about, is it? Worse than just bragging about their lies on Facebook, they also pulled together a very sad looking flyer and were letterboxing it.

Fortunately, many in my community raised their concern—not with the detail but with the misinformation. My community are outraged, alright. They are outraged at the barefaced lies the opposition have been telling them and that their data has been falsely acquired. But rest assured, they know I stand up for them, stand up to the opposition and their lies.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms HUTCHESSON: One of my community commented on a Facebook post about the deception, 'desperate people will do desperate things', and another:

…we really need truth in politics or else we will all be led up the garden path, lies need calling out, and [as] a consequence David Speirs…I'm calling you out.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms HUTCHESSON: Further, a community member said, 'Nonsense, man, the libs are truly scraping the bottom of their very shabby barrel.' In fact, the back page of the Blackwood Times in January stated 'Wittunga entry fee claims refuted', followed by a well-written article by James Swanborough, with the opening sentence announcing:

A RECENT campaign of misinformation has left confusion and anxiety amongst some members in the community regarding the future of entry to Wittunga Botanic Gardens.

With a letter from the board quite clearly stating that the picnic tax was offensive and untrue, did the opposition stop there? Why, of course not, because all they have for my community is misinformation.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms HUTCHESSON: In fact, as recently as Thursday (just over a week ago), we were blessed with a visit from the Hon. Nicola Centofanti from the other place and her staff. The opposition leader was supposed to be there as well but, by all accounts, only turned up in the last 10 minutes—but that is a story for another day when we talk about his interest in Waite.

It was reported to me by a concerned community member that staff members of the Hon. Nicola Centofanti claimed, 'They are going to charge for car parking at Wittunga.' When the staff member was asked, 'Who are they?' the staff member said, 'I don't know.'

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms HUTCHESSON: Now, not only are her staff still spreading lies but they don't even know what the lies are about.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms HUTCHESSON: Truly in touch with the Waite electorate, clearly. Not only were they upsetting my community verbally but they were continuing to distribute a flyer on the table which contained all sorts of paraphernalia. The leaflets in question are still being distributed. This ongoing deceit and defamation of the Botanic Gardens—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms HUTCHESSON: —and, more specifically, of my community, the Wittunga Botanic Garden, pushed the board to write to Mr Speirs again last week. Judy Potter, Presiding Member of the Board of the Botanic Gardens and State Herbarium again wrote to the Leader of the Opposition, and I would like to quote her directly here to avoid doubt of the intention of the bill we are here to debate. She states:

I refer to the Board's letter to you on 15th November 2023 regarding your campaign around entry and parking charges at the Botanic Gardens and State Herbarium sites. It has come to our attention that, in spite of the Board clearly setting out the fact that this campaign is promulgating misinformation, there are still leaflets being handed out containing such misinformation and suggesting that general entry and parking charges are being planned for the Wittunga Botanic Garden.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms HUTCHESSON: She continues:

To be absolutely clear, there is no plan from either Board or Government to introduce any such charges at this garden.

Mr Whetstone: 'We have made it three times worse.'

The SPEAKER: Member for Chaffey!

Ms HUTCHESSON: She continues:

Any suggestion to the contrary is false.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Adelaide! Member for Chaffey!

Ms HUTCHESSON: The letter continues:

I can also state that suggestions that we have seen in the media that either the Premier or the Deputy Premier have sought to have general entry charges introduced to any of our sites are also incorrect.

The Board is particularly concerned by the continuation of this campaign of misinformation, after I have both briefed your office on the actual intents of the Board, have written to you to formally correct the record, and have flagged the negative effect this is having on our community, visitors and staff.

The Leader of the Opposition has not even had the decency to reply to the board's first letter. I am exhausted, having to call out the poor behaviour of those opposite. We are here today to debate the Botanic Gardens and State Herbarium (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill, so let us get some truth, shall we?

The current act provides little opportunity for the board to pursue commercial opportunities like many other comparable bodies have access to, such as the Museum and the Art Gallery. We know that places like these do well when they are able to create funding opportunities that lie outside the state appropriations. As is the case with many of our cultural institutions, the Botanic Gardens and State Herbarium sought to find ways to raise additional money to support their organisation.

This bill will enable the board to raise money that is needed to update and maintain the gardens and their assets and to fund new projects and events and services. I can see it now: a Wittunga botanic gin, or some wattleseed biscuits, or a quandong dessert sauce—the opportunities are endless and will result in the Botanic Gardens having money to pursue and support research and conservation projects, like all cultural and collecting institutions can.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Chaffey!

Ms HUTCHESSON: This amendment is not about car parking; in actual fact, it already costs money to park in the city on weekends—

Mr Telfer interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Flinders!

Ms HUTCHESSON: —and, yes, even on Saturday, for a grand total of 80¢ an hour. But to really protect the garden from any more reputational damage caused by those opposite, we are going to further assist—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms HUTCHESSON: —and will lodge a government amendment to enforce that no changes will be made to the board's current capacity to manage car parking at its sites. This means that the status quo remains and no charges will occur for Sunday car parking, either for general parking or for special events.

The Hon. D.J. Speirs interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Leader! The leader is called to order.

Ms HUTCHESSON: It has also been the case that the gardens could charge an entry fee for admission to parts of its sites, such as the Bicentennial Conservatory, and to exhibitions, programs, special events and special after-hours activities, and this provision will continue. This bill does not seek to charge general entry fees to the Botanic Gardens. The Botanic Gardens have always been and will always remain free to enter. A further government amendment will ensure that general admission to the Botanic Gardens, including Wittunga, will continue to be permanently free of charge.

It is sad that all the opposition have for my community is misinformation. They lied about this so blatantly, and after being scolded by the Botanic Gardens board so clearly, they continued. They cannot be trusted.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Flinders!

Mr BATTY (Bragg) (11:31): I rise to speak on the Botanic Gardens and State Herbarium (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill—or the picnic tax legislation as it has become popularly known, or perhaps very unpopularly known. We have seen a lot of anger from the member for Waite just now, but I can tell you it is not nearly as much anger as we found at the Wittunga Botanic Garden and at the Adelaide Botanic Garden when we told people about the member for Waite's plans to introduce this new picnic tax, including paid parking on weekends at the Botanic Gardens—which, by the way, the minister mentioned herself in her own second reading speech.

Ms Clancy interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Elder!

Mr BATTY: We have a lot to say about this picnic tax, but let's take this in turn because this is an important piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation that seeks to update the powers and functions of the board of the Botanic Gardens, which is a very worthy aim. The Botanic Gardens are one of our state's greatest assets, managing three botanic gardens across South Australia, including the iconic Adelaide Botanic Garden just down the road, the Mount Lofty Botanic Garden not far from my own electorate and the member for Heysen's electorate, and of course the Wittunga Botanic Garden—which we have heard a lot about already from the member for Waite—which is beautiful and should remain open and free to the public.

We should push back against any proposal to introduce new car parking fees on weekends. These sites have been enjoyed by generations of South Australians. We are so lucky to have them on our doorstep, and we need to protect and preserve them and keep them open and accessible. So of course the Liberal Party supports any action that is going to safeguard the future of their operations, including some of the clauses in this bill that seeks to safeguard some of their operations into the future. Indeed, we put our money where our mouth is. We take a very different approach: rather than cash grabs from South Australians, we actually actively invested.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr BATTY: We actually actively invested in our Botanic Gardens. If we look at the Adelaide Botanic Garden, there were millions of dollars' worth of investment by the Marshall Liberal government, which saw ageing public amenities being revitalised, saw the heritage restoration of the historic Goodman Building and saw an upgrade of irrigation lines in Botanic Park. All of these infrastructure upgrades actually allowed the Botanic Gardens to remain open for longer. We increased the opening hours of Botanic Gardens because we want to attract people into our gardens; we do not want to deter them from visiting, like the proposals from those opposite.

At the Mount Lofty Botanic Garden, we saw the replacement of car parking amenity blocks and we saw the upgrade of key trails across the garden to improve access to horticultural displays and scenic visits. This approach of actively investing in our public gardens that we love contrasts very strongly with the Malinauskas Labor government approach, the member for Waite's approach, of greedy cash grabs from South Australian families who are simply trying to enjoy the Botanic Gardens.

I acknowledge that public institutions are generally expected to supplement their funding from government with their own additional sources of income and I acknowledge that the act as currently drafted somewhat hamstrings the Botanic Gardens board in doing this. There is limited capacity to pursue commercial activity. There is limited capacity to enter into joint ventures, for example, unlike other arts and cultural organisations.

So, to this end, I do not take issue with clauses that will enable the board to enter into these various commercial partnerships and joint ventures to try to make our Botanic Gardens even better places to visit. Indeed, it would seem to simply confirm work that is already happening in our Adelaide Botanic Gardens. The most recent annual report of the board of the Botanic Gardens states, 'Through partnerships with the arts and culture sector, our public engagement offerings have grown'.

It goes on to list a number of partnerships and events that take place in the garden, whether it is WOMADelaide or Light Cycles or the Wildlife Photographer of the Year. It also goes on to list existing commercial sponsorship arrangements, including with the likes of Santos. So we actually see this sort of work already occurring and it is not a bad thing because we want to attract these events to the Botanic Gardens. We want, say, the Adelaide Botanic Garden to be visited by many, many South Australians. We want to enliven our CBD and make it a vibrant place to visit.

What we cannot support, though, are measures in this bill that amount to simply a cash grab from South Australian families trying to enjoy the Adelaide Botanic Garden, the Wittunga Botanic Garden and the Mount Lofty Botanic Garden at a time of sky-high cost of living. This bill that has been introduced into the house amounts to a picnic tax. The key to the popularity of the Botanic Gardens—and indeed we see over two million visitations to Botanic Gardens sites every single year—is their accessibility and their affordability and there are aspects of this bill that seek to rip away those aspects of the popularity of the Adelaide Botanic Gardens.

There are two key concerns that the opposition have been voicing, alongside the local community, since this bill was introduced by the Minister for Environment a few months ago. The first relates to paid parking on Sundays and public holidays, for which I think I have just been labelled as a liar for suggesting might occur and we can take that up next time. But what we do know is it was not just an opportunity; it was in there. It was in there.

Currently, car parking is free on Sundays and public holidays at the Botanic Gardens, so South Australian families can come to our Botanic Gardens and enjoy them on the weekend for no charge. I have been told that I am a liar for suggesting that this bill is seeking to introduce paid parking on Sundays and public holidays at the Botanic Gardens.

Can I take you to clause 4 of this bill before the house, which might appear quite innocuous. Perhaps the member for Waite did not read clause 4 of this bill. Perhaps, she has not actually read the bill, or she did not go back and have a look at the legislation itself because clause 4 appears quite innocuous when you read it at first blush. Perhaps, you only had a brief glance at the bill, member for Waite. It states, 'Section 27(3)—delete subsection (3)'. Did the member for Waite see that? That means we need to go to section 27(3) of the act, which states:

(3) No regulation under this Act may impose, or authorise the imposition of, a fee… in respect of the parking or standing of a vehicle on a Sunday or a public holiday.

Ms Hutchesson interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Waite is warned.

Mr BATTY: That is being removed by the Malinauskas Labor government, by the member for Waite, in this bill. It would enable car parking to be charged on Sundays and public holidays. If the member for Waite does not believe me, she could have a chat to her own minister.

I refer to the second reading speech of the minister a couple of months ago. It was a very short second reading speech. I have about half a page here. One aspect that the minister saw fit to point out at that time was the introduction of new paid parking on Sundays and public holidays, and I quote, 'the option to introduce paid parking on Sundays and public holidays'. It is in there in black and white, and the minister goes on to say that these changes are in line with community expectations. We might explore how she reached that conclusion a little later on and why, indeed, if they are in line with community expectations, this new amendment is being introduced to remove this new paid parking charge that they tried to introduce by stealth.

So I suggest, before labelling me a liar next time, the member for Waite goes and has a look at the legislation before the house, reads the legislation and sees what her very own government was trying to do to the good people at the Wittunga Botanic Garden. We are not going to be bullied into going and talking to South Australian families who are trying to visit our Botanic Gardens on the weekend. I have gone and done it and I suggest those opposite do the same. They would have realised why this was such a bad idea: the popularity of our gardens depends on their accessibility and their affordability. So we cannot stand for this new picnic tax from those opposite.

The second issue that we have been talking about is the imposition of entry fees at the Botanic Gardens. This bill does enable a number of new fees to be introduced. They are proposed by the Malinauskas Labor government in section 13(2)(he), which allows the board to regulate and control admission to venues for events. Section 13(2)(hf) allows the board to 'charge and collect fees and charges for admission to exhibitions, events or activities'. We also see that existing section 27(2)(c) allows the regulations to 'prescribe and provide for the recovery of charges for admission to the gardens'. We might explore in due course what sorts of special events and special occasions the minister envisages where we might see charges for the Botanic Gardens.

Make no mistake, unless the amendments that have been foreshadowed now—only today by the way before this house; this is the first time we have seen these amendments before this house—unless those amendments are supported and passed today, entry fees can be charged at the Botanic Gardens: at the Adelaide Botanic Garden, at the Mount Lofty Botanic Garden and at the Wittunga Botanic Garden. Make no mistake, that can happen unless we amend the bill today. That is what the Liberal Party has been advocating for months alongside the local community and that is what the Liberal Party will be urging this house does today, because we just cannot abide this new picnic tax from the Malinauskas Labor government and the member for Waite.

The opposition has been campaigning against it since it was introduced in this house. We have been down at the Botanic Gardens talking to many families on a Sunday. On a Sunday they all park for free, of course, as the act prescribes for now. We met many families from my own electorate and from the former member for Dunstan's electorate. We have been to the Wittunga Botanic Garden and we have met many constituents from the member for Waite's electorate. What we heard from them is how this new legislation is really going to impact them and their families during the midst of a cost-of-living crisis. The Liberals stand shoulder to shoulder with these communities. We have collected thousands of signatures—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr BATTY: —on petitions—

Ms Savvas interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Newland!

Mr BATTY: —to send a message to this minister, to the Malinauskas Labor government, that we do not want this new picnic tax and it seems, remarkably for once, the Malinauskas Labor government might have actually listened to us and the community because the minister has realised perhaps she has not got away with this new picnic tax that she was trying to introduce by stealth through this piece of legislation. Days after the opposition call a press conference to raise our concerns with this matter we apparently see this amendment filed.

What did we highlight in that press conference? First, we highlighted our concern with new paid parking on Sundays and public holidays. Secondly, we highlighted our concern with entry charges at the Botanic Gardens. What two things does the amendment that will soon be before this house, we hope, cover off only days after our press conference, with the Leader of the Opposition and myself speaking to families at the Botanic Gardens? Well, we see them removing their new paid parking on Sundays and public holidays that were apparently in line with community expectations, of course. We have seen that disappear, which is a very good thing, and we have seen a prohibition being introduced on general entry fees at the Botanic Gardens.

We are very pleased with this humiliating but happy backflip from the Malinauskas Labor government. It is the right thing to do, and it is the right outcome that has been secured by the South Australian Liberals' advocacy over the last few months and that of many, many thousands who have stood with us to urge this government to stop this picnic tax.

Finally, I do want to take an opportunity to thank the board of the Botanic Gardens not only for their fabulous work in running one of our most prized assets but also for their very generous and thorough briefing from Judy Potter as well as the director of the Botanic Gardens. The board have said very publicly now that they apparently had no intention of levying general duty charges in the garden or necessarily immediately charging for parking.

We say that makes them on a unity ticket with us. That makes them on a unity ticket with the South Australian Liberals—with us, too—because they are two things we have been trying to stop, alongside the board, perhaps, for these last few months. It has been the Malinauskas Labor government that has perhaps had other ideas on this front. It has been the Malinauskas Labor government that has thrusted this, perhaps, on the board of the Botanic Gardens, but we stand with them, as well. We do not want to see this paid parking they were trying to introduce. We do not want to charge people to enter the Botanic Gardens.

Of course, another really important point is that we do not make legislation in this place on the basis of what current boards tell us their current intentions are. What we do is we look at the words of the act—the words of the bill before this house. Make no mistake: if we do not amend this bill the words of this act would introduce new paid parking on Sundays and public holidays, it would allow the Botanic Gardens to charge entry fees at our gardens and it would place a new and very unfair burden on South Australian families during the midst of a cost-of-living crisis.

The South Australian Liberals will not let that happen. We will support amendments to this bill that will scrap Labor's new car parking fees at the Botanic Gardens that they have tried to introduce by stealth, and we will support amendments to this bill that will ensure the Botanic Gardens cannot charge a general entry fee to enter the Botanic Gardens. We will stop Labor's picnic tax.

Ms HOOD (Adelaide) (11:48): I would like to issue a warning to anyone in my community or the community of Waite that if they see a gentleman in chinos and a check shirt holding a clipboard and after your personal data, you better be very careful about handing it over, because the claims they will use to try to harvest your personal information will more than likely be misleading and wrong. We have seen that in this case and we have seen it when they have stood out the front of the Aquatic Centre. They will go to no end to harvest people's personal information based on misleading claims.

The Adelaide Botanic Garden is a beloved institution in my community. Like other icons along North Terrace—the Art Gallery, and the Museum—it offers a free escape from the hustle and bustle of our capital city. I know that, as a country kid coming up to Adelaide when a family member of mine was at the old Royal Adelaide Hospital, it provided an important escape for my family while our beloved family member was seeking treatment in hospital.

Like many in my community, I am passionate about accessible open green space, and the Botanic Gardens form part of this. It is an ever-growing institution and it needs increased flexibility for it to thrive. That is why we introduced this bill to parliament with proposed amendments to allow the Botanic Gardens board to explore commercial opportunities, such as co-branded food and drinks to help supplement its income. This is in line with other institutions such as the Art Gallery and the Museum. An example of this might be a Botanic Gardens gin, which sounds rather refreshing. We might all need one today after this debate.

However, instead of supporting this amendment bill the Liberal opposition chose to play politics. They sent out a misleading email to our communities, they stood out the front of the Adelaide Botanic Garden with incorrect claims that we would be charging entry fees for the Adelaide Botanic Garden, calling their claims a picnic tax. This was blatantly wrong and what is even worse, they knew it was wrong.

What is really disappointing is that the Liberal opposition were even briefed by the Botanic Gardens board on the amendments to the act, and they were specifically advised that general entry fees would never be charged by the Adelaide Botanic Gardens, and yet they pressed on with their misleading claims. This makes the fake news spread by the Liberals even more deplorable, as it demonstrates that they are deliberately willing to mislead our community for their own political gain and dine out on people's personal information at all costs.

The Botanic Gardens board was so concerned by these claims that they chose to write to the Liberal opposition leader, David Speirs, calling for him to correct his claims. This is humiliating. They wrote originally in November last year when the misinformation first emerged, with the Presiding Member of the Botanic Gardens board, Judy Potter, writing:

On behalf of the Board, I ask you to correct the record on the suggestion that general entry charges are being introduced, or even contemplated, by the Board.

What is even more humiliating is that again, to reiterate the board's frustration—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms HOOD: —that the retractions and corrections of the claims had not been made, in the most recent letter Judy Potter wrote, and I quote:

The Board is particularly concerned by the continuation of this campaign of misinformation, after I have both briefed your office on the actual intents of the Board, have written to you to formally correct the record, and have flagged the negative effect this is having on our community, visitors and staff.

It is absolutely deplorable that because of these misleading claims the staff of the Adelaide Botanic Garden were having to bear the brunt—

Mr Telfer interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms HOOD: —of your misinformation—

The SPEAKER: Member for Flinders!

Ms HOOD: —campaign. It is deplorable. It is disgraceful that you were willing to allow staff of the Botanic Gardens to bear the brunt of your lies. Like many in my community I am deeply disappointed that the Liberals would try to tarnish the reputation of our beloved Adelaide Botanic Gardens to score some cheap political points. This bill does not seek to charge general entry fees to the Botanic Gardens. It always has been and always will remain free to enter.

A government amendment will ensure that general admission to the Botanic Gardens will continue to be permanently free of charge, and it has always been the case that the gardens could charge entry fees for admission to parts of its site, such as the Bicentennial Conservatory, to exhibitions, programs, special events and special after-hours activities, and this provision will continue.

A government amendment has also been lodged to enforce that no charge will be made to the board's current capacity to manage car parking. This means that the status quo remains and no charge will occur to Sunday car parking for general parking or special events.

I want to end on a positive note, as we probably all need a little bit of positivity at this point in the debate. I would like to just flag that in a really exciting coup for the Adelaide Botanic Garden we are going to have the world's most celebrated contemporary glass artist, Seattle-based Dale Chihuly, come to Adelaide. He has chosen our Adelaide Botanic Garden for the first major exhibition of his work in Australia. It is coming from September this year to April next year. I hope all our community can come on down and support this incredible exhibition that is coming to Adelaide and, more importantly, support our beloved Adelaide Botanic Garden. With that, I commend the amendment bill to the house.

S.E. ANDREWS (Gibson) (11:53): I, too, rise to speak to the Botanic Gardens and State Herbarium (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2023. We are so lucky to live in a city that has many beautiful green spaces, and some of those are our Botanic Gardens, where many South Australians have enjoyed picnics and weddings, the mix of historic and modern fountains, the range of native and exotic plants, flowers and trees, and the lakes and wetlands.

Unfortunately, these beautiful places have been under attack lately and you would think that the Deputy Premier is heading down there with a padlock and a ticket booth and the adjacent Botanic Park would never see another half-eaten sandwich for the wildlife to feast upon. The allegation being made by those opposite that this bill will lead to entrance fees being introduced is total rubbish—just another scare campaign. A government amendment will ensure that general admission to the Botanic Gardens will continue to be permanently free of charge.

The Botanic Gardens and State Herbarium Act 1978 currently provides limited capacity for the Board of the Botanic Gardens and State Herbarium to pursue commercial opportunities which could support its ability to secure additional sources of funding. This bill will enable the board to raise money needed to update and maintain the gardens and their assets, to fund new projects, events and services. South Australians expect that the gardens will remain accessible, contemporary and offer new projects, events and services.

I note the gardens have recently updated their toilet facilities, and works are underway to revitalise other parts of the gardens, but this has to take place over a period of time due to availability of funds. The ability to raise additional funds to allow the gardens to be enriched through new projects and assets will further enhance the visitor experience.

As you can imagine, maintaining these beautiful gardens and delivering new services is a challenge, which is why, like all cultural and collecting institutions, the gardens need to raise additional funds in order to deliver a dynamic and changing array of services for the community and to carry out their extensive range of research and conservation projects.

The changes in this bill will assist the board to find diverse ways to raise money to support the work of the organisation so they never need to charge the public. These amendments bring the act more in line with both the SA Museum Act and the Art Gallery Act and other acts of other jurisdictions establishing comparable bodies. It is about updating the act, not living in the past like those opposite who probably believe these institutions should not be accessible to the masses.

The previous version of the act listed a specific set of functions and activities whereby the board and management could pursue commercial revenue. This bill replaces the prescriptive list with a general function, enabling the board to seek revenue to support the work of the gardens.

The Botanic Gardens and State Herbarium could consider a range of activities such as licensing imagery from their extensive collections, developing new products for sale, either directly or through partnerships or joint ventures with the business sector, or establishing new access programs and services.

South Australians will not be charged to picnic in the Botanic Gardens or to visit the zoo or Botanic Gardens on a Sunday. This was just another scandalous suggestion made by those opposite, which is simply untrue. Fearmongering in a cost-of-living crisis—disgraceful.

The amendment enables the board and management of the gardens to manage car parking demand and ensure equitable access by being able to arrange and enforce parking time limitations that will ensure the gardens' car parking is not used as a free all-day parking option to access other areas of the city.

This is a bill that will allow our beautiful Botanic Gardens to enhance their offerings to visitors and should be supported by all members. There will be no charge to enter the gardens, unless an event is occurring, and parking will remain free on Sundays. I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI (Unley) (11:58): I take the opportunity to speak on this bill and of course raise my concern about another attempt by this government to impose a new tax on South Australians. We know how tricky Labor can be when they are in government about how they sell broken election promises. We even saw an article last week about no new taxes by the Treasurer of South Australia, but of course if you call it a charge or if you increase taxes and revenue dramatically that does not fit in that category.

One thing is for certain: if there is no ability for car park charges and entry fees to be charged and event charging for the Botanic Gardens, then these amendments that are going to be introduced by the minister during the committee process would not be necessary. They are only there because of the campaign that was run by the Liberal Party, making the public aware of the government's intent, after more than a century of free access to the park and free parking on weekends, to change all that overnight for, I suppose, 30 pieces of silver. It is a very small amount of money, but we know how Labor operates: a small amount of money here, a small amount of money there.

We saw the doubling of the emergency services levy when the member for West Torrens was a new Treasurer. Nothing was mentioned, of course, in the lead-up to that election, but there was a doubling, and of course we were very quick to make the public aware of the impact that would have. That was a very early election promise for the 2018 election, which we announced back in 2014 because we knew it was so unfair.

We also know there was an inquiry that was conducted under the previous Marshall government that found Labor cooked the books when it came to the figures that they presented to ESCOSA justifying rises in water rates. They artificially inflated the value of their assets. I think there is someone else who is facing criminal charges about artificially inflating assets—a US presidential candidate, Donald Trump. Maybe he learnt that from the South Australian Labor Party. You can actually pretend that something is worth more for financial gain, just as Donald Trump did and just as the previous Labor government did when it came to water rates in South Australia.

People do not believe the members opposite when they claim that it was a lie or a scare campaign run by the Liberal Party, because today in this chamber they are actually seeing amendments brought to this place by the government, the government that drafted this legislation and brought this legislation for a new tax in South Australia, to amend the very issue that was raised by the Liberal Party, the additional costs that were imposed on park users by the Labor government. We would not be seeing amendments from this government today if the opposition had stood back and just waved this through. We did our job. We exposed it, and it was not fake news, it was not a lie, it was not alternative facts, because we are seeing amendments to correct it today.

If you want to talk about despicable campaigns, let's go back to the 'You can't trust Habib' campaign. Let's talk about that with the Labor Party. We saw somebody with a Lebanese name singled out, her name written against a bullet-ridden wall in an election campaign asking if people could trust Carolyn Habib. That is a dishonest campaign, not a campaign advising people of changes to the use of the Botanic Gardens in South Australia, something that people value and they want to use. They expect the government to make that available to them for their use.

That is one of the things that general taxes pay for. We do not have a user charge for most of the services that government provides in Australia. We have a tax system, and it is managing the revenue from that tax system that will enable things like the Botanic Gardens to continue to be an asset available free of charge for South Australians to use.

While I am on my feet talking about the Botanic Gardens, I would like to raise how active and how concerned a number of my constituents have been, living so close to the Botanic Gardens, about the Queensland bats. We have learnt so much about the disease that bats carry. It is claimed that these bats are native bats. They are not native to South Australia; they have come down from Queensland.

On any warm night in the suburbs of Unley you are almost covered by a dark cloud at dusk as the bats fly through the suburbs dropping God knows what as they excrete their day's feeding over the suburbs of my electorate in Unley. I think it is time that a solution came up to deal with those bats to get rid of them. I know that there are people who have contacted me who say they will not go to the Parklands because they do not want to be bitten by a bat. You can understand that, because we know that bats carry diseases that are not common, diseases and viruses that can be very damaging if that virus is injected through a bite or some other means.

So I call on the minister to investigate what opportunities are available to deal with those bats. I know it is a sensitive issue because they are native to Australia, but they are not native to South Australia and they are not native to Adelaide. I think this is the confusing issue that we see from time to time, when people defend something that is not working when someone has just decided that we should be using native trees or we should be protecting native animals when they are not in fact native.

A classic example is in the streets of Unley: box trees from Queensland which replaced plane trees and jacarandas many years ago. We see time and time again people tripping and falling on the debris these trees produce, with bark being stripped or leaving the tree almost every day of the year. The difference between those trees and deciduous trees of course is that deciduous trees have a season where they drop leaves and the council is very active in removing those leaves from the streets and keeping the gutters clear so we do not get flooding. With the box trees, it is continuous. Although they planted the damn things in the first place, local government do not have the resources to keep the gutters as clean as they should be.

With climate change we are seeing—particularly in the summertime—heavier, shorter downpours and the consequences of minor flooding off the streets in the inner suburbs. As we are seeing more infill coming through over the years and more hard surface, we are seeing fewer gardens. Where there was one property there might be three properties on the same block of land. Trees have been removed and so we are seeing a lot more water running. The debris from the trees is causing issues with minor flooding. Whether it be on gardens or whether it be even into people's cellars, it is a concern that has been raised with me by constituents.

In conclusion, the bill in its current form introduces a new tax, introduces new charges, and we look forward to supporting the government's own amendments. They have been dragged kicking and screaming back into this place to remove that risk of charges being imposed on South Australian botanical garden users.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Defence and Space Industries, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water) (12:08): I am delighted to close the second reading on this and thank all of the people who have contributed. The virtues of this bill have been described by both sides of the house. This was in fact, as has been indicated, a bill whose genesis came under the previous government and was presented to me after considerable work had been undertaken by the board. We have advanced it for all of the good reasons that have been articulated both in my original second reading speech but also by speakers on both sides of the house so I will not repeat those.

There has of course in the interim been quite the dust-up over what the bill intended and did, and also what the government intended to do. To use the word 'misleading' is probably as generous as I can be in some of the statements that were made. Essentially, two allegations were made, and they are two quite separate allegations, even though they have been muddied together in the discussion of them by those opposite.

The first allegation responded to the suggestion in the original bill, which said that we would no longer prohibit the board from considering charging on Sundays. The only place where charging is being debated, of course, is in Adelaide, and the charging on Sundays is prohibited by the current act. The board asked me if we could remove that prohibition because you do not change an act all that often, and they felt that it might at some point be useful, probably just for special occasions, in order to ensure there is a turnover of people using the parking on a Sunday or a public holiday, but that in any case, if they were ever to turn their minds to doing it, having had the prohibition removed they would of course undertake extensive consultation.

I understand that that had in fact been discussed with the previous minister, that he had inquired as to why it was that parking was not able to be charged on Sundays and public holidays. Having agreed that that was a reasonable request, and given the amount of parking charges that exist across Adelaide, the opposition decided to seize on that and say that the potential 80¢ an hour, which is what it is on Saturdays, was a picnic tax. The Leader of the Opposition I understand phoned the chair of the Botanic Gardens Board and said that, out of friendship and respect, he wished to tell her that he would be politicising this bill and seeking to gain political advantage. That is what politicians do, I understand that.

In order to assuage people's concerns we almost immediately—in early October—filed an amendment to make it clear that any such changes could only occur in the event that there was a special event occurring, rather than generally on a Sunday or a public holiday. This was in order to remove the concern that there would generally and always be a charge on Sundays.

A bill that is filed and an amendment that is filed exists in the same universe—you cannot refer to the bill and not refer to the amendment: they have both come from government, they are both our position, and the one succeeding the other subsumes the other. However, that did not dissuade the opposition from continuing to suggest that parking would suddenly be charged at all three Botanic Gardens, and that it would be charged always on every Sunday and every public holiday, even though there was an amendment that clearly meant that that was not the case.

That is one element, and it could be argued that we should never have suggested removing that prohibition at the request of the board, and because of the extent of concern that has been agitated by the opposition we will no longer pursue that and no future board will be able to consider introducing charges on a Sunday at Adelaide Botanic Gardens, regardless of the event that is being managed at the time. We have accepted that the opposition's position has agitated sufficient people that we need to make sure that the reputation of the gardens is preserved.

Unfortunately, the second charge the opposition made, which has absolutely no basis in fact in the bill that had been presented by this government, has been far more harmful to the reputation of the institution. I understand again that we are politicians, that it is something that we engage in: trying to get people to listen to us and want us to be in government and not the other side to be in government—and we need to find angles for that.

We also have an obligation as politicians to be honest with the people of South Australia. From time to time politicians get away with misleading, but usually it catches up with them—look at Scott Morrison. Usually when you serially make up things people start to notice and, unfortunately, on the pathway there you can do terrible damage to institutions in which people have faith. People love the Botanic Gardens: it has enormous visitor reach, and the Leader of the Opposition was perfectly right when he said that, having kept it open during COVID, it was one of the places people were able to go to feel that they could quite genuinely breathe.

I felt the same about Semaphore Beach, despite some experiences the Leader of the Opposition visited upon my community during that time. I truly understand that for those living near any of the three Botanic Gardens that was a lifesaver, or at least a mental health saver, and an indicator of the extent to which people are attached to the Botanic Gardens.

To suggest that the government has secret plans to introduce a charge on general admission is simply untrue. Nothing in the bill suggests that. There is not one clause in the bill that we presented that facilitates, encourages, hints or implies that that would be the case—nothing. What the opposition has done is take a pre-existing clause—that has been in the bill forever—which gives the board the power to charge but which has never been exercised for general admission, and suggested that somehow, although that existed during the opposition's time in government, suddenly we would use it, with no evidence whatsoever.

That is what has agitated the board, and that is why the board—without my request; at no point did I ask the board to contact the Leader of the Opposition; at no point did I ask the board to engage publicly in this matter—decided that to protect the interests of their institution they had to ask that that misinformation cease. But it didn't, it hasn't. Therefore, we have an amendment to put beyond doubt that the original act—which always had that facility—will no longer have the facility to charge for general admission.

Proof that was never the intention of this government—as it was not of the previous government, for whom that legislation existed in exactly the same form as for this government—is that, having announced the Chihuly exhibition, which will be a magnificent exhibition, the general admission hours will be free, and so they should be. What an extraordinary exhibition to share with the people of South Australia and everyone who is visiting here.

Of course the general admission should be free. It always has been, even though there is a little clause in the act that has existed forever that suggests that the board could choose to charge. In order to try to protect this institution, which has weathered such a storm, we have, of course, also filed an amendment yesterday (I am not sure why the opposition is so puzzled by the existence of these amendments) to remove that.

Members have quoted from the letters from the board, and I would like to read those letters now so that they are on record, because there are many people in South Australia who have heard from the opposition—and who, touchingly, believe that a politician could not possibly completely make something up—who have become concerned they might be charged for general admission to the Adelaide Botanic Garden, to Mount Lofty, and also to Wittunga, about which I wish to say a bit more. I will just read this onto the record. Dated 15 November, it reads:

Dear Mr Speirs—

be reminded that this Mr Speirs, the Leader of the Opposition, was their minister for four years and, I think, showed a lot of interest in the Botanic Gardens, as well as in their undertaking commercial activities—

On behalf of the Board of the Botanic Gardens and State Herbarium, I am writing to you to express our disappointment at the 'No Picnic Tax' campaign you are prosecuting in South Australia in response to the proposed changes to the Botanic Gardens and the State Herbarium (BGSH) Act 1978.

A central tenet of this campaign is the incorrect claim that these changes to the Act will result in the introduction of general entry charges to the Adelaide Botanic Garden, the Mount Lofty Botanic Garden and the Wittunga Botanic Garden.

As I carefully explained to Mr Batty, and the staff from your office when we briefed them on the changes of our Act on 28 September at your request, the Board has never had any intention to levy a general entry charge to the Botanic Gardens and has no intention of doing so in the future. Indeed further amendments to the Act, which I am advised were filed in parliament on October 18, enshrine this stipulation into the Act.

No proposed changes to the Act reference general entry charging, with the exception of special sites and projects that have been subject to entry charges for many years, and across multiple governments. Given that we were very clear with your team on this, statements that there is a plan to introduce general entry charges across our sites, and the stress that this claim is causing our loyal visitors and staff, are particularly disappointing. Your passion for the gardens is well understood to us and we would like to ensure you fully understand the Board's position and intentions.

Free daytime general entry to the BGSH sites is a fundamental part of our ongoing success in serving the community of South Australia. Thanks to the hard work, innovation and creativity of the Gardens' staff in building on our core offer with special events and programs aimed at growing and diversifying our audience, we have seen significant growth in visitation over recent years, leading to a 6 year high of 1.3M visits to the Adelaide Botanic Garden in 2022/23.

Under your letter of direction as our Minister (17th September 2021), the Board was asked to pursue commercial opportunities to supplement our State Appropriation within the extent of our powers. We have found that the 1978 Act is limiting in what we can pursue and needs to be updated to be fit-for-purpose in 2023 and beyond. The fundamental objective of these changes is to give the Board the flexibility to pursue commercial opportunities consistent with our mission and purpose, and it is the responsibility of the Board and the Minister of the day to ensure these activities are in line with that purpose and with community standards.

Parking fees at our sites have long been part of our operation, and funds raised from these go directly to support the important horticultural, conservation and public engagement of the work at the BGSH. The modification of the 1978 Act's blanket ban on parking charges on Sunday were proposed to better enable the Board to manage parking demand at a time when parking charges apply across the City on Sundays. Again, I was clear with your office that there is no immediate plan to implement this, rather it was to give the Board the flexibility to respond to parking demand over the future life of the Act.

Mr Speirs, the Board takes its responsibilities to ensure that the BGSH serves its community very seriously. The Board and I would strenuously oppose any proposals to introduce general entry charging to the sites we manage and the suggestion that we are seeking to do so is a misrepresentation of the Board's position, and of the changes that have been proposed to the Act. On behalf of the Board, I ask you to correct the record on the suggestion that general entry charges are being introduced, or even being contemplated, by the Board.

Noting we have not discussed this with you in person as you were not able to attend the briefing, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter with you at your convenience.

Yours sincerely,

Judy Potter

Presiding Member

Board of the Botanic Gardens

A very polite and restrained letter. On 2 February, Judy Potter was again moved to write a letter:

Dear Mr Speirs,

I refer to the Board's letter to you on 15th November 2023 regarding your campaign around entry and parking charges at the Botanic Gardens and State Herbarium sites. It has come to our attention that, in spite of the Board clearly setting out the fact that this campaign is promulgating misinformation, there are still leaflets being handed out containing such misinformation and suggesting that general entry and parking charges are being planned for the Wittunga Botanic Garden. To be absolutely clear, there is no plan from either the Board or Government to introduce any such charges at this garden. Any such suggestion to the contrary is false.

I can also state that suggestions that we have seen in the media that either the Premier or the Deputy Premier have sought to have general entry charges introduced to any of our sites are also incorrect.

The Board is particularly concerned by the continuation of this campaign of misinformation, after I have both briefed your office on the actual intents of the Board, have written to you to formally correct the record, and have flagged the negative effect this is having on our community, visitors and staff.

I note that we have not received a response from you to our earlier letter. I remain available to meet with you to brief you directly in case you remain unclear on any aspect of the amendments to the BGSH Act.

Yours sincerely,

Judy Potter

Presiding Member

Board of the Botanic Gardens and State Herbarium

I place those on record, and I think they speak for themselves. Any suggestion made in this house earlier today that somehow there is a unity ticket between the opposition and the Botanic Gardens board and the Botanic Gardens staff is laughable and will be treated so by the staff and by the board, who know exactly—exactly—what you have been up to.

I conclude by talking very briefly about the Wittunga garden because, having had the history recited by the Leader of the Opposition, I was reminded that, yes, indeed, it opened in 1975. I was at primary school next door. I was already there waiting for Wittunga to arrive. I recall the excitement at the time that there was this neighbour being developed and being presented to our community.

I grew up in Coromandel Valley. I went to Blackwood Junior Primary School, Blackwood Primary School and Blackwood High School. I am of that community, although I have been living in my own community for about 20 years now, and of course my children were born while we were living, and are living, in Semaphore. But I did grow up in that community and I understand how much people love Wittunga. From time to time, there has been anxiety about the future of Wittunga which has always been able to be reassured.

The opposition will know that well, too. They have chosen to make a community alarmed about something that is not real. They may well have success in garnering information and data. They may well have success in portraying changes to the act as some sort of victory of theirs. But politics is a long game, and in politics people learn who you are and what you stand for. For someone who is early in their career, they might want to think about how they want to present themselves to the community in the long term, because this will be remembered and it will come back. It will come back next time.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: One-term wonder I think is probably an exaggeration. Having been around this game for a very long time, it is so easy to go for the cheap shot and it is almost never worth it in the long run.

I commend this bill to the chamber. I look forward to passing the amendments that have been tabled for a long time and that have been available to the opposition for a long time. Let's get this done so that we can reassure the public of South Australia about one of their most dearly loved institutions.

The house divided on the second reading:

Ayes 25

Noes 13

Majority 12

AYES

Andrews, S.E. Bettison, Z.L. Bignell, L.W.K.
Brock, G.G. Brown, M.E. Champion, N.D.
Clancy, N.P. Close, S.E. Cook, N.F.
Fulbrook, J.P. Hildyard, K.A. Hood, L.P.
Hughes, E.J. Hutchesson, C.L. Koutsantonis, A.
Malinauskas, P.B. Michaels, A. Mullighan, S.C.
Odenwalder, L.K. (teller) Pearce, R.K. Picton, C.J.
Savvas, O.M. Stinson, J.M. Thompson, E.L.
Wortley, D.J.

NOES

Basham, D.K.B. Batty, J.A. (teller) Cowdrey, M.J.
Gardner, J.A.W. Hurn, A.M. Patterson, S.J.R.
Pisoni, D.G. Pratt, P.K. Speirs, D.J.
Tarzia, V.A. Teague, J.B. Telfer, S.J.
Whetstone, T.J.

PAIRS

Boyer, B.I. Pederick, A.S.

Second reading thus carried; bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr BATTY: With whom did the minister consult with respect to this bill?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am advised that the board determined the nature of the bill through its own internal processes.

Mr BATTY: In the minister's second reading speech, you mentioned that these changes are in line with community expectations. Given your previous answer that seemingly you have not consulted with the community on this bill, what was the basis for that statement?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: If we regard the majority of the bill in one sense and then the parking question separately, the majority of the bill is bringing the Botanic Gardens into line with the other cultural institutions in South Australia, so we regard that as having set the community expectations for how cultural institutions are managed. Parking would never have happened without a consultation process prior to any changes, so while it removed an inhibition it was not a decision to charge for parking, which was always going to be—if it ever occurred—a subject of community consultation. There have, of course, been two sets of amendments filed since then: first to limit that only to special events and then to accept that there will be no changes to parking.

Mr BATTY: It is that parking question that we have taken a lot of issue with, obviously. Just to confirm: there was no community consultation at all on the removal of prohibition on paid parking on Sundays and public holidays at the Botanic Gardens and, to the extent there was any, I assume there was no support for that proposal?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The Botanic Gardens board took the view, as I expressed in my close of the second reading speech, that given that acts are updated only rarely it was an opportunity to remove a prohibition that exists for the Botanic Gardens but does not exist for most of the parking in the city—which reflects a community standard itself—but that, as has been clearly articulated, any actual change to the parking would have been subject to community consultation.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

Mr BATTY: What fees and charges are currently being collected by the board of the Botanic Gardens?

The CHAIR: I am not sure how that relates to the clause. There has to be some relationship to the clause, even a tenuous one.

Mr BATTY: What fees and charges are currently being collected by the board of the Botanic Gardens, and how will this change on the commencement of this act?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: In essence, there will be no change to fees being charged. There have been longstanding charges, while both sides of politics have been in government, for special events. That will not change, and there will be no addition.

Mr BATTY: We see currently charges for special events already. I mentioned some of them in my second reading contribution. I am trying to understand the mechanism under the current act for currently charging. I note section 27(2)(c), which deals with the power to set fees by regulation, and I query whether that is how we are currently charging for Light Cycles or the wildlife photography display. Is there an intentional decision to move that power to collect fees and charges away from the regulation space and into just the domain of the board in this bill?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The bill makes no changes relating to that matter. When we deal with removing the capacity to charge for general entry, for reasons explained at length, that then creates some changes, but we are not discussing that amendment at the moment.

Mr BATTY: On commencement, this bill will introduce several new powers in the new section 13(2), and I will look at some of those in turn. One of them is section 13(2)(hg). This is a section that will give the board the power to collect advertising and sponsorship revenue. My question is whether the board already has that power and, if not, how are we seeing the Santos advertising currently at the gardens? Secondly, how do you envisage that commercial opportunity being realised over time? Are we going to see more sponsorship in our Botanic Gardens?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It might be worth asking more specific questions in the clause that actually makes the change that is being referred to, which is coming up, section 13(2)(h), where we delete the general powers and substitute the specifics. It might be that if you have specific questions about how that will work that we go through them when we get to that clause.

The CHAIR: I will give you a chance if you want to rephrase that question more narrowly to something that relates to this clause, or we will move onto the next clause.

Mr BATTY: I do want to go through some of the specifics in the following clause, but I am trying to allocate my questions across. My question on clause 2 is: on commencement, what changes to sponsorship and advertising will we see? We already see sponsorship and advertising at the Botanic Gardens. How is that occurring at the moment in the absence of this bill, and are we going to see much more advertising and other sponsorship at the Botanic Gardens?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We would not expect to see any more sponsorship under the new legislation than we have previously, but the sponsorship will continue to be part of the way in which the gardens advertise what is occurring.

Clause passed.

Clause 3.

Mr BATTY: This is the crux of the bill that inserts a whole lot of new powers for the Board of the Botanic Gardens. One of those new powers is section 13(2)(hf) which will give the board the ability to charge and collect fees and charges for admission to exhibits, events or on special occasions or for special purposes. My question is: what do you envisage as being some of those special occasions or special purposes where we will see the ticket booths going up at the Botanic Gardens, and who determines whether Tuesday is a special occasion?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Just to be clear, the reason for this clause is because we are deleting the general provisions we need to then replace that with specifics and it is articulating what has been occurring for some time but has to articulate it specifically because of the removal of the general provision.

The understanding of general admission is essentially: during the daylight hours when there is no event that requires extra resourcing to put it on. For example, Fringe events have long occurred in the Botanic Gardens and a Fringe event, as a special event that people can choose to go to, will be charged for. The Fire Gardens, which was done under the previous government, the Illuminate Light Cycles, and, currently, the wildlife photography which is in the Conservatory, are examples of events that have had additional expenditure associated with them, additional cost and are discretely used.

As we have made clear and are introducing with the amendment, charging for general admission, the access to the gardens as they are during daylight hours, will be removed from the current act.

Mr BATTY: I am not sure that the specific provisions are in here because of the removal of the general provision because that is, of course, not coming until we amend the bill, once again, following advocacy from the opposition. But I guess what I am trying to understand is if there are any activities currently taking place in the Botanic Gardens that are currently free that, due to the provisions of this bill, the board could decide, as soon as this bill is passed, to start charging for.

I know a particular popular activity is the corpse flower, where you see queues around the street. Is this something we are expecting, for example, to see ticketed in future? Again, I am less interested in what the current director might tell you now and more interested in what this bill, and the words of this bill, might allow for down the track.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Just to be clear, the current act allows the board to set unregulated charges. So, right now, without this bill going through, the board could charge. This bill, particularly with the amendment that we are introducing, will restrict that, so this is a step forward, not a step backwards, in terms of access. I appreciate that we are talking about legislation and therefore the views of a particular board or even a particular government do not stand; the legislation stands. Nonetheless, in answer to the question of 'Will things that are free now suddenly be charged for?', they will not be.

Mr BATTY: I think some of that goes back to my previous questioning, though, of how the board is currently charging now. My guess, which it would be good to have you respond to, is that it is taking place through the process in section 27(2)(c), which does not allow the board to charge, on a whim, for the corpse flower. It allows fees and charges to be set by regulation. My question is: in the future, if this bill is passed, could the board of the day decide to charge for the corpse flower because it is now a special event or a special occasion?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I think, to put all things beyond doubt, there is absolutely no intention of charging for anything that is currently free, using any provisions of either the current or the future act to charge for them. The current act does facilitate that occurring, and we are restricting that so we can make sure that we preserve general entry. That is absolutely crucial. It is interesting to note that with the corpse flower the approach that the Botanic Gardens board took was to simply ask for donations. People were very generous, which just shows how much they care about the gardens. I move:

Amendment No 1 [ClimateEnvWater–2]—

Page 3, after line 40 [clause 3(5), after inserted subsection (4)]—Insert:

(5) To avoid doubt, the Board may not charge or collect fees or charges for admission to the gardens or other land vested in, or under the control of, the Board, or any part of those gardens or that land (except as permitted under subsection (2)(hf)).

This makes sure that we cannot charge or collect fees for admission to the gardens or other land vested in, or under control of the board, or any part of the gardens, except as identified in subsection (2).

Mr BATTY: This is an amendment to the minister's own bill, and it is inserting a prohibition on charging or collecting fees for admission to the gardens. If this amendment is not passed now, could general entry fees be charged to enter the Botanic Gardens?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: That is exactly what the current act has always said. It has always been the case, including when the Leader of the Opposition was the environment minister. This now restricts that.

Mr BATTY: How did this amendment come about and when did it come about and is there a reason why it was not included in the initial bill as drafted?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The fact of the capacity to charge general entry fees was not drawn to my attention. I did not realise because no-one has ever done it. I did not realise there was a capacity to do that. The campaign waged by the opposition claiming that we had some secret plans to do so with absolutely no evidence we could have done exactly the same while in opposition suggesting that the previous minister was planning to do it as he had exactly the same powers before him, and he did not and nor have we. In order to calm people's concerns about the Botanic Gardens, we introduced this amendment, and it is also once I realised that the existing act contains such a provision, which was not previously drawn to my attention.

Mr BATTY: Was any consultation taken on this clause and did the board of the Botanic Gardens request this amendment?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The board indicated that it was in line with its intention to never charge in any case.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 4.

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

Amendment No 2 [ClimateEnvWater–2]—

Page 4, before line 2—Insert:

(1) Section 27(2)(c)—delete 'gardens or other land vested in, or under the control of, the Board, or any part of those gardens or that land' and substitute:

Bicentennial Conservatory situated within Adelaide Botanic Garden

Amendment No. 2 continues to allow a fee that has never been charged and is waived for the Bicentennial Conservatory, given that it is an expensive asset and may at some point require some funding. Amendment No. 3, as described at length, no longer persists in the view that we might at some stage want to manage parking on Sundays and public holidays.

Amendment carried.

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

Amendment No 3 [ClimateEnvWater–2]—

Page 4, line 2—Delete all of the words in this line

Mr BATTY: This is the paid parking on Sundays backflip. If we do not pass this amendment today, would the bill that you initially introduced allow for the introduction of paid parking on Sundays and public holidays?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The bill and the amendments both have equal weight; they are both from government and one subsumes the other. The government will pass an amendment to no longer pursue that position.

Mr BATTY: What you initially introduced would have allowed for paid parking on Sundays and public holidays, so it would not be wrong to suggest that that is exactly what it did.

The CHAIR: From previous discussions, you would just need to explain how the existing law stood. What you are inferring is that the existing law did not stand and that is incorrect.

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner interjecting:

The CHAIR: The member for Morialta shouldn't be interjecting, but you are also not in your chair.

Mr BATTY: I have a question about this amendment that I would like the minister to answer. If this amendment does not pass today, would the bill that the minister introduced allow for paid parking on Sundays and public holidays? The minister and those opposite have been running around saying—sorry, we might have to continue.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended from 13:01 to 14:00

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT