HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-09-03 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Northern Parklands Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 2 September 2025.)

Clause 19.

Mr TELFER: Minister, just rounding out where we were at when we finished last night on the funds coming into a council that is raising the levy on behalf of the Northern Parklands Trust—and we have done that comparison work to the landscapes levy which is collected—there are circumstances where the landscapes levy is levied onto a ratepayer and that ratepayer is defaulting on their rates, so the moneys are not coming into a council to cover the obligation of the landscape levy annually, year on year, and thus the financial responsibility for the shortcoming from the landscapes levy for those unpaid amounts then gets foisted onto a council to carry the burden of it. I do note within this clause there is this aspect in subclause (10):

(10) If a council writes off a debt constituted by an unpaid Northern Parklands levy…under section 143 of the Local Government Act 1999, the Northern Parklands Trust must, on application by the council in accordance with any requirements determined by the Minister, refund to the council an amount equal to the amount of the levy (not including any related interest) that has been written off.

What often happens with these levies that are obligated to be collected but have not actually been paid by those ratepayers is they can accumulate for a significant period of time. It says at the bottom 'not including any related interest'. That amount can actually be quite substantive, and I know that the Playford council has had its challenges with some of these unpaid rates as a whole. Why is there not any related interest? I read 'related interest' as a financial interest component. Am I correct in my reading of it? If not, is it the minister's intention that the cost of raising the levy, including any defaulting and interest attached to that defaulting, will be covered by the council or a reduction in the amount that will go to the trust in a cumulative manner?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The member highlights perhaps one of the issues that happened for councils and people defaulting on their rates. It highlights the issue that might arise. It would be the government's intention that the trust and the council are acting in cooperation. It would be the intention of the government that the trust not leave councils with an unreasonable burden in those instances. I think in this case, it will be an easy issue for the trust, the council and, ultimately, the minister to deal with. In places in rural South Australia, it is perhaps a larger issue off a smaller base. In this case, it would be a relatively small issue off a larger base.

Mr TEAGUE: I have a question on subclause (3)(a). Is there any indication the government can give about what it is anticipating is going to be the basis for the levy? Are those four options deliberately in contemplation of a different basis being likely to be applicable at different times along the track over the decades to come, or is that just a matter for the trust to determine and that is just a smorgasbord?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: This is one mechanism that assists with the funding of the parklands. What we went through yesterday is that essentially we have developers through their open space requirements or through the rezoning process. The infrastructure schemes are also associated with the rezoning process, with the commercial activities that we talked about, and we have this proposition, which is essentially the same as the act I referred to yesterday. It is just designed to give a degree of flexibility. It still has to be in the annual plan, which, as we talked about yesterday, there is a publication of that and, of course, it has to ultimately go to the minister for approval.

Mr TELFER: Just some clarification on that item. On my reading of this, when we are looking at a council rates notice—and I have looked at a few of them in my time—there is the component of a variable rate in the dollar, which is a component that ratepayers pay, and it fluctuates depending on the value of their property. There is often a fixed charge, which is a flat rate that everyone pays. It is the same, no matter whether you have a $200,000 house or a $1 million house. There are often service charges, so that is for direct services provided.

The landscapes levy is raised as a flat charge, not variable depending on the value of your property. Is it the intention of the minister for that to be the structure for how you envisage the levy to be raised, or do you envisage that those with a higher property value, comparatively, are going to be paying a higher proportion of the Northern Parklands levy?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: In the first instance it will be the trust that determines that, in consultation with the council. It has to be part of the annual business plan and it has to come to the minister and then there are the provisions that relate to the house as well. There is a degree of flexibility in terms of the trust.

In terms of what the government's view is, obviously we want to establish the trust in the first instance. That will be done. As I said before, we have to establish a trust and do a master plan. The first stage of the Northern Parklands is government-held and council land. The second stage is development that is adjacent to the Northern Parklands, the Kudla rezoning code amendment. So that first phase of the creation of the Northern Parklands and the trust is most likely to be funded out of those mechanisms. These mechanisms are really about long-term sustainment and operating expenses, because, of course, we have all seen big capital expenditure followed by a failure to have good operating expenditure and, as I said before, the West Beach Trust is a model in this regard.

Clause passed.

Clause 20.

Mr TELFER: Is it the intention of the bill that the costs incurred by councils in collecting the Northern Parklands levy be fully compensated, or does the government intend that councils, in performing this new statutory function, will be out of pocket?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Councils will be compensated and they should not be out of pocket, or it should not affect their budget in relation to the collection of the levy.

Mr TELFER: For clarification, what is going to be the process for a council to ensure that there is that proper communication between it and the trust? Will it be representation on the board, or will it be the direct operational relationship, because this is an area where you can build a structure at the start and it can fall down and end up costing the ratepayers more, potentially. What is the intention of the minister as far as that relationship goes?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The intention is to build a very good park for the people of the northern suburbs. That is the intention. We want to build a new model for urban parks, as I said before. By necessity, that requires a higher degree of consultation, cooperation with and respect of the local councils. I imagine that both through their board representation and through directly working with the trust, because there will have to be a high degree of collaboration and working with them day to day, they will protect their interests in that respect. Obviously, the intention of the clause is to make sure that their budgets are not affected in this way from the collection of the levy.

Mr TEAGUE: Bearing in mind that the Northern Parklands Trust membership leaves the constituent councils in a small minority—with the structure of it, they are far from controlling the trust—therefore, there is a three-way arrangement involved at clause 20, in that you have got the trust having an obligation to make good the councils but by a means that is determined by the minister.

What is the virtue going on there in terms of that three-way arrangement? Is the minister guarding the interests of those councils in ensuring that the amount is adequate? I see there is the note there about what the minister might take into account on the overs and unders. Perhaps for the record, conveniently all sort of wrapped up in one, how is the trust going to ensure that it has got the necessary funds to pay that money to the councils?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: As a measure of safeguarding the councils' position, the clause itself safeguards it, the representation on the board safeguards it, the accountability mechanisms to the minister and ultimately to the public, because it is a part of the annual business plan—all of those things cover it. Then, of course, we are leaving it to the trust and the council about what mechanisms effectively they use to do it. However, I would have thought all of those mechanisms safeguard the councils' position.

Clause passed.

Clause 21.

Mr TELFER: We have touched on this stuff a little bit and then there was the bit that we deferred for consideration when we got to this clause, so I have been anticipating it for a while. Does the government intend to establish more than one statutory trust and, if so, what additional statutory trust will be formed? What will its purpose be?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: In the same way the reading of the Linear Parks Act focuses on the Torrens but then leaves open the way forward for future ministers and future governments to establish linear parks, the same pathway has been left open here for future governments. It is this government's intention to establish a Northern Parklands Trust and the Northern Parklands and, as I said yesterday, that in and of itself is a huge piece of work. We have to establish a trust, do a master plan and go through the rezoning process. There are a number of stages in it.

It is my intention and the government's intention to do that process, establish it and, if you like, prove that it works before we embark on any other trusts. But we are leaving the provision in there that, if the Northern Parklands Trust is a good model in the same way the West Beach Trust is a good model, future governments have that option to create new trusts.

Mr TELFER: Can the minister confirm that the bill is capable of technically applying to land right across the state? I am trying to work out what the intention of the government is. This is your big project about the Northern Parklands, and this is sort of like a little bit of an added addendum: to save us coming back to parliament if we want to form another statutory trust, here is a mechanism for us to be able to do it. Is this bill, especially this component in itself, technically capable of applying to land in any part of the state?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It would only apply where you were building a substantial park that crossed council boundaries. I think that is self-evident. There is a provision in this clause that refers the establishment of any new trust to the Legislative Review Committee, and that process can be disallowed. So, if you like, there is the capacity for future governments and future ministers to utilise this model, but the parliament retains control over where it would apply and how it would apply, and that is a suitably high level of parliamentary oversight and parliamentary approval to match, if you like, the pathway forward or the options available to government.

It is this government's intention to set up this trust in the Northern Parklands. That is a mighty piece of work. Having been through the code amendment process, having been through this process in partnership with councils—on Concordia, for instance, we have been working in partnership with The Barossa Council and in partnership with Concordia Land Trust and the other landowners in the area. To avoid the Mount Barkers and the Angle Vales, it is a very, very complex piece of work. It requires officials and governments and a degree of bipartisanship because these suburbs get built over decades. So I do not underestimate how much work is in front of us. It is our intention to, if you like, set this model up, show that it can work in a mature way and then leave the way open for future governments or future ministers to do it if they wish, but with parliamentary oversight and approval in that regard.

Mr TELFER: If this aspect in particular of the bill as a whole is technically capable of applying to any land around the state, could you confirm that also the cost recovery provisions to councils would be the same—technically, the capacity of this bill to be able to put that in place across a council area as well across the whole state?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Once the Northern Parklands are established and set up, any new trust would be set up in a similar way, but again it would require the consent of this parliament. Either house of parliament can move a disallowance motion in relation to the regulations, so there is appropriate oversight in that regard.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): If you are quick, member for Flinders.

Mr TELFER: A little half one: can you clarify for me, in establishing the statutory trust and if it can technically apply to any land within the state, does that land need to be contiguous? You talk about 'across council boundaries'. Under the parameters and powers of this bill, under the establishment of a statutory trust, could there be islands of land, to put it in a pretty basic way—portions of land in different council areas—that could then be conglomerated to fit under the banner, under the umbrella, of a statutory trust? In the broad perspective of the Northern Parklands, it is going to be a swathe across two council areas. Is there a requirement for that land to be contiguous in any potential subsequent statutory trust that is formed?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: There is no requirement for it to be contiguous, but you would imagine that if it was not contiguous at least it would be located in the same area; that would be common sense. Again, this government does not intend to, and I would expect it will take the better part of a decade to set up the trust to establish it and to run it appropriately.

But if a future government were to set up a trust where it was not contiguous or did not meet a public interest test, then it would come before this parliament, and parliament has the ultimate control over it. It would be the same if you were to not include that option in this bill. The alternative, I guess, is that we leave it out and, if this model did work, we would have to set up a whole new trust through legislation.

So we are leaving that option there; we are retaining parliamentary control. But through disallowance, which is not unusual, we think that that is the appropriate way forward to establish a new model for urban parks to allow future governments the flexibility to establish new trusts but to retain parliamentary control. As we have discussed before, this will only work if there is a high degree of bipartisanship across the chamber, intergenerational bipartisanship by policymakers—they would look at the West Beach Trust; do not include either of us in that—but also a degree of consultation and bipartisanship between local and state governments.

Mr TEAGUE: The minister says the alternative is to go about it by way of leaving it entirely to fresh legislation. Just to be clear, the way this is drafted on its face it does not actually characterise the statutory trust at all or limit it to even being related to parklands on its face, and it could. The bill does not have any purposes and the statutory trust is simply defined by reference to the constituent parts of a statutory trust. The clause that we are dealing with now simply provides for the power by regulation to establish one. So it is all completely vanilla flavoured, a bit like other aspects of the generic nature of the bill, for better or worse—that is a drafting approach that has been taken—so you could very conceivably on the face of this.

The Northern Parklands Bill might be the famous omnibus bill that is the mechanism for the establishment of statutory trusts left, right and centre. And again, just from a drafting point of view it would be very straightforward, I suggest, for the definition of a statutory trust back in clause 3 to be for the purposes of this bill a statutory trust with respect to trust parklands, for example, which is the very next defined term.

So if a statutory trust established under this bill was limited to a statutory trust with respect to trust parklands, then we would know what we are all talking about and then I would be with the minister on the rest of the checks and balances aspect of it, and we would all know what was actually being dealt with from the beginning. But I just stress that, on its face, it seems to me there is no statutory limiting factor, including by reference to any purpose of the bill.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The intent of the act is to establish a statutory trust to look after the Parklands. I think the member's concerns are low risk, in part because this exists in other acts like the Urban Renewal Act. There are very strong precinct powers in the Urban Renewal Act, as well, to make statutory trusts effectively. While there might be a concern voiced, it is a very, very low risk and the parliamentary oversight and the disallowance measures mean that it is not likely to occur. If there were that degree of parliamentary support for anything, arguably one could pass legislation to effect a government's desires at the time. Yes, it is vanilla, but it matches what this parliament has done previously and we have not seen the misuse of those powers.

Clause passed.

Clause 22.

Mr TEAGUE: We highlight the point, at clause 22, that we see there described a statutory trust. There is no limiting of that. It is just describing what a statutory trust is for all purposes, much like the definition.

Clause passed.

Clause 23.

Mr TELFER: This is a quite a short clause, but potentially very meaningful. So clause 23:

Ministerial control

A statutory trust is subject to the control and direction of the minister.

Does this clause basically give the minister carte blanche to overrule or direct a trust established by the bill?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It is the exact same clause as in the West Beach Trust act. It is the exact same clause you will find in the South Australian Housing Trust Act. It is a standard clause that is put in the establishment of these trusts.

What that is about is ensuring there is always, if you like, control of the minister over the trust because parliament sets up the trusts. The power is there but it is rarely used in terms of trusts. It is a standard clause that we put in this sort of legislation.

Mr TELFER: The minister uses the words 'standard clause', but basically he is admitting that it gives the minister the capacity to be able to control or direct a trust at their whim. As I have been saying all along, this is legislation as a whole that we are considering—no reflection on the current minister at all—and it could be read as a capacity for a giant power grab for a minister, the capacity for them—as we have already seen throughout the rest of the clauses of the bill—to be able to take land from an unalienated land and put it within a trust. It now gives the minister the ability to be able to control and direct the trust.

We were surmising about what commercial potentials could be used, and I took it to the extreme somewhat, but if the power is baked into the legislation, into a clause like this, when I was talking about the going to the extreme of some of those commercial potential outcomes, the minister assured me of the oversight of the trust. Now the minister has control over the trust, so that oversight of the trust could potentially be nullified by an overzealous (I think that was the word you may have used yesterday) minister.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: As I said before, that is a clause that exists in many, many acts. I could probably provide the member with a list, but it would be a long one. As I said, just two acts: the West Beach Trust and Housing Trust acts. It is an important clause to have in there and obviously ministers are judged on their actions. It is an important clause to be in the act and consistent with many, many other acts that this parliament has passed.

Mr TELFER: Just one more. It says 'a trust'. Is that any statutory trust in any act—like we talked about yesterday, the Waite Trust, for instance?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: No, it refers to statutory trusts created under this act.

Mr TEAGUE: I was only going to add that, just for the benefit of ease of reference at this point, I agree, the minister is quite right: it is a statutory trust as defined, and the definition of 'statutory trust' includes the subject trust, the main existing subject of the bill being the Northern Parklands Trust. It is not as though any of the procedures and safeguards and balances and all the rest of it that are spelled out in relation to the Northern Parklands Trust somehow make it special and different from any subsequent statutory trust that might be established under the bill. It is also smack bang front and centre under the control and direction of the minister, just like any future statutory trust that might be established subsequently.

Clause passed.

Clauses 24 to 27 passed.

Clause 28.

Mr TELFER: Just for some clarification on what is intended by the minister in the structures that are set here, the clause provides:

(1) Subject to this section, there will be—

(a) a chief executive officer of a statutory trust;

and a chief executive officer will be appointed by the minister on terms and conditions determined by the minister. What do you envisage as the structures for a statutory trust, as formed in this legislation to be appointed by the minister, the terms and conditions that you envisage as the author of the legislation?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Broadly, similar to the West Beach Trust act and the West Beach Trust.

Mr TELFER: Can I ask about the setting of the remuneration for the CEO in particular? Obviously, whatever the structures of the statutory trust are, the CEO is the one who is in charge of what comes below. Obviously here the arrangements, terms and conditions and, I am assuming, without it being specified in here, the remuneration level for the CEO will be determined by the minister, or do you envisage there will be a comparable process to be followed when deciding what that remuneration level for the CEO of a statutory trust would be?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Obviously, in regard to the Northern Parklands Trust, that has not been decided yet, but the way that it works in the West Beach Trust is the board, broadly speaking, in collaboration with the department, whether it be Treasury or DHUD, sets their terms and conditions, broadly speaking, in line with the rest of the government. Then, if there are any increases or changes to that, it comes to the minister and I believe has to also be signed off by the Treasurer as well. I will double-check but, in terms of the way those conditions are set, that is the way it is done and is broadly consistent with the rest of the Public Service.

Mr TELFER: Just one more piece of clarification: you envisage that the board of a statutory trust that is formed under this arrangement will be the ones who are responsible for making a recommendation to the minister on the remuneration terms and conditions of the appointment of a CEO and that the minister will take that advice and make the final decision on the basis of that advice, depending on the output that is expected of that statutory trust? That is, the minister will take the advice but the minister will have the final say?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: There is an ability to appoint a CE before the trust is established, obviously to get things going. I would imagine in those circumstances it would be the government's intention to set the remuneration there broadly in line with the West Beach Trust. Subsequently, it would be—I just cannot remember if it is noting or approval. Given the minister's broad powers in the act, which we talked about before, it would almost certainly come to the minister either for noting or approval, following advice from Treasury and other Public Service workforce agencies and the like.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Alright, member for Flinders.

Mr TELFER: I appreciate your flexibility, sir. Minister, you reflected just then on the broad powers of the minister. Do you envision that the minister has the power to be able to direct employees of statutory trusts?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: No. It is the trust itself which is subject to ministerial control, not its employees.

Clause passed.

Clauses 29 to 37 passed.

Clause 38.

Mr TELFER: Clause 38 talks about damage, etc., to property of a statutory trust and creates an offence of damaging the property of a statutory trust. Probably, thus, it raises the question of what is trust property. Does this include land that was previously owned or under the control of a council that has been taken over by the trust?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Yes.

Mr TELFER: Does this clause then apply to any council-owned land?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Only if it was in the care and control of the trust.

Mr TEAGUE: I will couch this in the form of a question. My understanding is that none of this is transferring title or ownership of any land. In being related to eligible land, it is simply identifying land that is capable of being brought within the care and control of the trust and its status is otherwise unalienated and unaffected, right?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Yes, with the exception of land that is to be acquired. That will obviously be owned by the minister.

Mr TEAGUE: On that then, the land that is to be acquired, the title will be dealt with, I think, as the minister on reflection put it: there will be no real property of the trust in that sense. The trust will simply do what trusts do and exercise powers and so on. Presumably, the land that is within the defined area of the Northern Parklands will have a variety of different statuses depending on where it has come from.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Yes, that is right.

Mr TELFER: There is a bit of a list of offences, for want of the better word, in this aspect. There are two that I would like a bit of clarification on concerning what you envisage the definition might be. Firstly, (c) and (e) together are probably comparable. What is the definition of 'cultivates'? That could be in the eye of the beholder somewhat, and the same with 'excavates'. Is a cultivation a scratch on a surface? Is an excavation a small hole? Who makes the decision when looking at the potential for a violation of these aspects in particular, especially with those two?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It has been modelled on the Crown Lands Management Act. If you look forward to clause 40, there are agreements that the trust can make with councils about enforcement, and obviously that model allows for if someone were to do these things and be prosecuted, that is how we would enforce it and that is how we go through it. That would be a matter for court, I would imagine.

Mr TELFER: The other aspect which provides a fair bit of ambiguity is paragraph (f):

cuts down, lops branches from or—

and these are the words I just want to highlight in particular—

otherwise damages any tree or bush (whether alive or dead) on trust parklands.

On face value, with 'otherwise damages any tree or bush (whether alive or dead)' there is a fair bit of range within that. What do you envisage that process looks like when the determination is made? Firstly, to what degree and, secondly, what is the process for the decision? We see later in clause 40 that an 'authorised officer' is 'a person who is an authorised person for the purposes of the Local Government Act 1999'. I see a full range of general inspectors throughout the years across the 68 different councils. Some are conscientious, some are overzealous. I worry that having this level of capacity range within a piece of legislation opens it up for that potential overzealous authorised officer within a council to go over and above the expectations of the minister or the community about what exactly would be defined as 'otherwise damages any tree or bush (whether alive or dead)'.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It is no different to a linear park, where councils have enforcement of their own by-laws. It is a very similar process and provision. Obviously, it is there to protect the parklands from a range of misuse, and one can imagine what that might be.

Clause passed.

Clause 39.

Mr TELFER: This clause is about the power to resume land in trust parklands. Can the minister explain the new powers to resume land and set out whether the previous owner of the land, such as a council, is required to be consulted or entitled to any level of compensation?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: If land is removed from the parklands, it has to be for a public purpose and it has to be tabled in parliament.

Mr TELFER: Can you set out whether the previous owner of the land that had been placed in a statutory trust, like a council, is required to be consulted or entitled to any level of compensation?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It is required to be consulted, but it goes back to a public purpose.

Mr TELFER: It goes back to a public purpose under what sort of arrangement? It could go back to Crown land managed by X department, or it could go to a council in that local government area. What is envisaged by this aspect in particular?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: This involves where the parklands were getting smaller, the land was going out of the parklands trust. You will remember the previous clause, that you need a resolution of both houses of parliament in order to effectively do that. So there are already two important provisions of the act. It just provides a mechanism that, if land is coming out of the parklands, it has to go for a public purpose and it has to be tabled in parliament.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Member for Flinders, you are stepping over the line. You are a habitual line stepper, member for Flinders, but go ahead.

Mr TELFER: So for a public purpose, what do you envisage? One automatically thinks of parklands, etc., but does public purpose also have the potential for public housing or a public golf course or a public sports stadium? Can you give some definition as to what public purpose might be?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I would imagine public purpose means public open space. I do not envisage it to be used for other purposes, but this bill is all about creating our parklands, not divesting oneself of it. It just provides a provision—

Mr Telfer interjecting:

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: No. I understand the member's question, but I think it is unlikely to be used and, if it was used, it would be for some other form of public open space.

Clause passed.

Clause 40.

Mr TELFER: We have reflected on this a little bit already. Can the minister explain the arrangements that are proposed within clause 40, including who would receive the revenue from any expiation notices issued?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It is a matter for the trust and the council once the trust has been established.

Mr TELFER: So there is the capacity within this for either the trust or the council, who would be the potential instigator or the one that has the authorised officer, depending on the agreement between the trust and a member council, to decide on who takes any expiation fees that are raised through these aspects from clauses 38 to 40?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It is an agreement between the trust and the council and those arrangements will have to be worked out. The purpose of the legislation is not to do the trust's job but to set out the mechanisms for which they would reach agreement.

Mr TEAGUE: It is an interesting choice, and there may be precedent as there is for lots of this, to provide that—including not just expiations, but penalties for the various offences the subject of clause 38. It might be $20,000; there could be a fair bit in it. That is not going to the trust but to the council. So if it does involve lopping of trees, you zero in on that particular part of the park in which that has happened. I do not want to call them the lucky council, but it is an offence against the concept of the parklands as a whole to see someone getting in there and destroying it, to use that example. One might wonder: is there not an alternative virtue in the penalty amount going to the trust, as opposed to that it just happens to be over the line from Playford to Gawler, or one way or the other, and it just all goes holus-bolus to that council?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Councils have experience as authorised officers. They know how to do this. It is not uncommon for them to do enforcement, like under the paid parking act. It is the same arrangement and that arrangement works well, so it works well for the trust, it works well for the council, and this is there to obviously dissuade people from engaging in activity that was contrary to the interests of the parklands.

Mr TELFER: Under that circumstance could the council recover from the state government the costs that it incurs from the enforcing of this new act? On the one hand the member was talking about a windfall, but the most likely outcome is that the enforcement requirements and costs are going to be larger than the amount they are actually going to be able to get from the expiation, or is that all to be incorporated within an agreement between the statutory trust and the council?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The idealistic hope is that enforcement is not needed and people love the parklands and do not engage in bad behaviour. That said, bad behaviour does occur and obviously that would be part of the agreement between the trust and the council, which they can sensibly reach, to deal with any of those sorts of issues.

Clause passed.

Sitting extended beyond 18:00 on motion of Hon. N.D. Champion.

Clause 41.

Mr TELFER: Can the minister let the committee know if the statutory trust will be required to publish annual reports to parliament and, if not, what will be the accountability measures for those statutory trusts?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Both the strategic plan and the annual plan are public documents, and obviously I have not turned my mind to other performance agreements. I think the parliament will want to know regarding the annual report, and I certainly have no problem with committing to the opposition that I would consider tabling them in parliament.

Mr TELFER: So you envisage that the annual business plan will be one that is able to be tabled, and we may or may not talk about the long-term strategic plan but the same sort of thing, so it is set out into a process that any future statutory trust should be required to participate in?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I think the government's position would be a maximum degree of openness. However, that said, there will be important commerciality issues in that. So, with that proviso of protecting the trust and its commercial ventures, I am happy to commit, when I come to setting up the trust and putting forward the performance agreements to consider, to the tabling of an appropriate report to parliament.

Clause passed.

Clauses 42 to 44 passed.

Clause 45.

Mr TELFER: Clause 45—Acquisition of land refers to stage 1 and stage 2. Can you explain the difference?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It mainly relates to the timing. Stage 1 is before 2030 and relates to the land, broadly speaking, from the top of the hill down to the river. Stage 2 is 2030 to 2040 and that is for the other section of the Northern Parklands.

Mr TELFER: For further clarification—and this is obviously setting parameters as well as setting expectations—the additional land to be expected in stage 2 is to be included?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Prior to 2030, whoever is minister at that point will lodge a GRO plan and that will outline the land that is to be acquired. Obviously, we would have to go through pretty sophisticated and sensitive discussions with landowners about what land is to be acquired. It is the government's preference, however—and I have met with a number of landowners—to work with landowners about reaching sensible agreements about the establishment of that stage 2. Noting that it is 2030 to 2040, I do not think that will be a job I am doing at the time.

Mr TELFER: We spoke about this a little bit earlier in the committee stage, but when councils change the use of community land they are required by the state to consult local communities in a pretty prescriptive manner. What do you envisage the process looks like? Do you agree or disagree that communities should be thoroughly consulted in a prescriptive manner before local land is acquired from a council or before they are charged a new property tax for local parks?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Again, we get back to the point. Council land will come under the care and control of the trust. For other lands that are acquired, the Land Acquisition Act will apply. We have sort of been through a bit of a semantic argument. We have outlined how the trust might derive its operating revenues. I would not characterise it as a new property tax because that is the wrong characterisation. I appreciate—

Mr Teague interjecting:

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: No, I did not—anyway, we will not get into it at this late stage. It is clear what the intention of the act is to do. As I said before, parks always require revenues, and if you form a linear park, it is paid for out of the rates of the council.

Mr TELFER: I was trying to get clarification on what your expectation is on the consultation process. The consultation for community land revocation is pretty thorough. There needs to be publication. There needs to be a reasonably extended period of time for community to have their input and then decisions made.

For consultation on the acquisition of a piece of land from a council, I note that the government's preferred mechanism for consultation often is the YourSAy website. Well, things can get lost pretty easily on YourSAy. Do you envisage there being a more prescriptive process when looking at the changing of that, e.g., local advertising, a letterbox drop within the affected council area, etc., a more detailed consultation piece than just broadly, 'This is what we plan to be doing; what do you think?'

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The 170-page discussion paper went out for around three months, and then there were the deliberations of the State Planning Commission, who released a draft plan, and there then was the government's formal adoption. That is already a huge amount of consultation. I have been meeting with landowners in Kudla and other places to discuss that with them as a result of those consultations. The trust will have an annual business plan or a long-term strategic plan. So I would argue there has actually been more consultation than many other processes, more transparency than many other processes, the processes you talk about for local government for revocation of land. We do have to provide a prescriptive process for the acquisition of land through the Land Acquisition Act. That is the answer.

Mr TEAGUE: Going to subclause (2) and then subclause (3), again, it might be interesting to note that the drafting approach here seems to be that it first sets it up as an obligation to comply with the process under the Land Acquisition Act, and then the notice of intention that is referred to in subclause (3) appears to be necessarily a notice of intention pursuant to section 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, but we do not see that separately stipulated.

In a way, the only purpose of subclause (3) appears to be to identify this offence that is going to apply only where the acquisition of land is pursuant to this particular process. There is no such offence in the Land Acquisition Act ordinarily. It is a serious offence with a very large maximum penalty, so I am interested to unpack the particular reason for the imposition of such a serious offence in circumstances where one might ask the question: why is the usual straightforward process of land acquisition pursuant to the Land Acquisition Act not sufficient?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It is because of the special circumstances of creating a park and in creating a park we want to make sure that the land is not damaged as part of that process. We are using the Land Acquisition Act and we are putting this provision in there to make sure the land cannot be damaged. You would understand that that might be an issue in the creation of a park and that we want to prevent any damage that might occur.

Mr TELFER: Just reflecting on the answer you gave before about the comprehensive process, minister, can you advise the house if the new Northern Parklands levy has been considered by either of the two affected council chambers? Have they made any decision or given any direction formally to the government on what their position is on the levy in particular?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I have met with both councils on many different occasions as part of the Greater Adelaide Regional Plan process and the setting up of these parklands, or the proposed setting up of these parklands. I do not know if council chambers have considered it; they certainly considered the GARP though. Gawler council certainly considered the GARP and I believe Playford council certainly considered the GARP.

Mr Telfer interjecting:

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Well, the bill is up on the SA legislation website. I have not received any communication beyond that.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (46 and 47) passed.

Schedule 1.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Planning–1]—

Page 30, line 31—Delete 'provision' and substitute 'provisions'

Amendment No 2 [Planning–1]—

Page 31, after line 4—Insert:

2—Transitional provision—constituent councils for Northern Parklands Trust

For the purposes of the appointment of the initial members of the Northern Parklands Trust (and until the approval of the first annual business plan of the Trust), a reference in section 12(1)(a) to the constituent councils will be taken to be a reference to the Town of Gawler and the City of Playford.

Just in relation to the issues the deputy leader, the member for Heysen, raised about the transitional councils, which would normally be dealt with in transitional regulations once the act is done, we decided to move these two amendments as a result of the opposition's questions.

Amendments carried; schedule as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION (Taylor—Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Housing Infrastructure, Minister for Planning) (17:43): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:44): I rise briefly—and I do not want to jump the gun if the minister had anything further to add, otherwise I will.

In relation to the amendments that have been passed in the course of the committee, I note they have just now been provided to me. I am looking at them and, on the face of it, I am not surprised, and indicate that the minister has flagged that amendments of this nature would be brought here at the conclusion of the committee stage in light of what was raised—most relevantly, at clause 3 primarily and also clause 12.

That is in relation to the necessity to have some constituent councils in existence before those councils can go ahead and nominate their two, I think, members of the trust. The trust can then be formed and can, among other things, settle on an annual business plan which can then reveal—for the first time, and pursuant to the machinery in the bill—the councils that are thereafter going to be the constituent councils for the trust. It is kind of a fundamental starting point and necessary, in my view, that that be specifically provided for, and I am glad it is there.

Otherwise, with the usual provisos as to reserving a right to consider that in debate in between the houses, in a way I am not expecting there is anything more to it than that, but that is as I understand it at this stage. I just indicate that, and it is a constructive and necessary step. I just refer to the fact that there is a bunch of useful material (for want of a better word) that has been aired in the course of the committee stage that I anticipate will be a useful reference point for, among others, those relevantly affected by the two councils that are going to be the constituent councils at the beginning, and anyone else who is more closely following the progress of the establishment.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I thank members of the opposition for their consideration and support of the bill, and for the debate on the bill. We had a good discussion about it, and I thank members for their contributions. The opposition has flagged some issues with clause 15, particularly relating to only the House of Assembly having oversight of particular sections of the act. I indicate that the government is happy to consider an amendment that includes both houses of parliament, as we have in other sections of the bill. That will be a matter we can consider between the houses. With that, I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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