HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-09-02 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Northern Parklands Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 20 August 2025.)

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON (Ramsay—Minister for Tourism, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (11:05): I rise today to speak in support of the Northern Parklands Bill 2025, which seeks to create a new statutory authority responsible for the new Northern Parklands proposed in the Greater Adelaide Regional Plan (GARP). As the member for Ramsay and a local resident in the northern suburbs, I understand how important it is to maintain green open spaces for the community to enjoy.

The Northern Parklands offers us the chance to reconnect with nature and create more green spaces where families can picnic, children can play and the community can come together. In an increasingly busy and digital world, the parklands provide vital mental and physical health benefits. We know that access to green space can reduce stress, promote exercise and improve overall wellbeing. With three interconnected linear parks, including 38 kilometres of walking and cycling trails, a vast array of sporting facilities and countless places for barbecues with friends and family, there will be something on offer for everyone in the Northern Parklands.

I spent my childhood years living in Gawler, where I attended Gawler East Primary School and one year at Gawler high. Many a school trip was taken to the wide-open spaces adjacent Gawler, such as the Para Wirra Conservation Park, which is not too far from where the Northern Parklands will be located. I remember us all piling into a bus and going up to what would be considered a national park to make sure we could connect with nature up there. Having things at a walkable distance and connecting to where we are going to see lots of growth is incredibly important.

I remember as a young person when Clonlea was developed, which is a playground around the Little Para River in Gawler, it was the first time we had a playground that was for teenagers and not for little kids, and that was really well received. So we do know when these parklands go up that they are very activated. We want to see that future generations are able to enjoy similar spaces to what we had.

The vision and the development of the Northern Parklands will transform northern Adelaide's landscape and create a lasting legacy for future generations. It will offer people access to high-quality urban spaces, parklands and facilities that contribute to Adelaide's global reputation. We are the second place in the world to be a National Park City, and we have this very much in the CBD. We are world famous for being a city in a park, but why should people in the northern suburbs not have this same experience?

We know that Linear Park goes out from east to west and people are very active there. As we see this further development in the northern suburbs, this is future planning. I recognise the work of the minister and his forethought in this area. We know that we are having larger houses and smaller backyards, but we also want to keep our kids active and off screens, so we need to think about these things in the future.

The northern suburbs of Adelaide play a pivotal role in accommodating new housing infrastructure as suburbs like Kudla, Angle Vale and Evanston grow. We want the parklands and the natural beauty of suburbs to grow with them. Spanning up to 1,000 hectares, the Northern Parklands will be one of the most significant public open space investments in South Australia's history. However, as I said, this is just a nod to who we are as a state. It is a nod to the kind of community we want to build and it is part of Light's vision and an extension of that. It is a recognition of what people love about South Australia, recognising as we push out into those northern suburbs that people deserve to have that opportunity as well.

The Northern Parklands will span from the ridge line following One Tree Hill Road—the future urban growth areas surrounding Kudla Railway Station—through to the banks of Gawler River via Karbeethan Reserve. The government's vision for the Northern Parklands will be set out in a master plan to be developed over the next 12 months. This process will include extensive community and landowner consultation. The master plan will direct the future development of both the Northern Parklands and the Kudla growth area, serving as a catalyst for private investment and supporting essential housing growth in Adelaide's north.

The GARP marks a significant shift in planning by identifying infrastructure needs, including schools, hospitals and emergency services and parklands, before housing construction begins. This approach gives communities confidence that their new homes will be supported by essential amenities and services from day one. As much as we look back in history about the importance of having access to green space, we have also learned that if you do not pre-plan for population growth, you are always catching up. This is one of the things I want to say so strongly about the work of the GARP and this future-looking focus on who we are as a state and our growth.

The bill reflects the hard work and dedication of many individuals committed to South Australia's planning system. The development of GARP spanned more than two years and involved more than 1,400 submissions, which played a crucial role in shaping the plan. The Northern Parklands Bill will establish the initial phase of the parklands through a plan lodged in the General Registry Office, known as the GRO. The GRO plan will outline parcels of land currently owned by both state and local governments that will be included in the initial phase of these parklands.

Upon the commencement of the act, responsibility for the land identified in the GRO plan will automatically transfer to the Northern Parklands Trust, placing it under their care, control and management. Careful timing and stage development are essential to the successful delivery and long-term sustainability of the Northern Parklands.

Stage 1 of this project is scheduled for completion by 2030, which will be here before we know it. Under the bill, land identified in the second GRO plan will be acquired within five years of the bill's commencement. This land is currently privately owned. In preparing the second GRO plan, efforts will be made to minimise impact on these landowners while preserving the connection of the Northern Parklands green corridor. Stage 2 is planned for completion by 2040. Additional land comprising both government and privately owned parcels will be identified in a third GRO plan and acquired between 2030 and 2040.

To support the creation and ongoing management of the Northern Parklands, the bill proposes to establish a new governing entity called the Northern Parklands Trust. This trust is based on the proven model of the West Beach Trust, which was established under the West Beach Recreation Reserve Act 1987. Northern Parklands Trust will comprise seven members with a broad range of experience and qualifications that will be vital to the trust's operations. Additionally, the trust will be able to partner with both the City of Playford and the Town of Gawler. This enables use of the existing council workforce for their operations, promoting sustainability and avoiding resource duplication with local government.

The bill also outlines the Northern Parklands Trust's responsibilities for ongoing management and maintenance, including oversight of future developments such as recreational caravan parks and the granting of leases and licences. It grants the authority to impose rates or charges on local councils to help fund ongoing maintenance costs, with councils permitted to recover these expenses through council rates. It requires the trust to prepare both an annual business plan and a long-term strategic plan. It establishes a framework for entering into agreements with local governments to utilise their existing maintenance resources to promote operational efficiencies. There are also safeguards by the Northern Parklands from being sold, and it allows for the creation of additional statutory trusts by regulation.

The Northern Parklands will further incorporate carefully planned commercial uses that contribute to the site's activation. We have seen this very well done in the West Beach Trust, not just the caravan park but the golfing facilities and some of the activated experiences that they have down there. These commercial uses may include nature-based tourism, hospitality and other facilities. I am really excited as Minister for Tourism. This is a great opportunity to activate that space as well.

There are many other things that we need to look at, with a focus on native plants, wildlife habitats and sustainable design. We think it has the potential to attract eco-conscious tourists who seek nature-based experiences, which is the third driver in tourism in South Australia. There are the food and wine events and festivals, and the third driver is that connection to nature. Obviously, there is the opportunity for sporting and recreational activities. There will be the relocation of the South Gawler Football Club to occur within these parklands. This is a major opportunity for the club due to their currently constrained facilities that are no longer fit for purpose in the area.

The parklands also have the potential to play a powerful role in supporting and celebrating our multicultural communities, providing additional spaces for festivals, markets, art installations and performances to be held. I know there is much excitement where we see a lot of new migrant communities moving to our northern suburbs, but they are looking for facilities—whether it be a community language school or an opportunity to come and gather and celebrate different cultures and traditions.

In the Northern Parklands, we are not just creating a park—we are strengthening our identity as a community that values inclusion, respect and connection to country. I commend this bill to the house.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:16): I rise to indicate that I am the lead speaker for the opposition and indicate the opposition's support for the bill. In addressing the bill, briefly I now flag there will be some particular areas of interest in the committee stage shortly. The focus of that might be part 4 of the bill and the arrangements that are going to affect those local councils that are impacted by the levy mechanism, the subject of that part.

As we have just heard from the Minister for Tourism and Multicultural Affairs, who happens relevantly to be one of the local members in the near vicinity, the benefit and the financial effect will be something of keen interest I am sure to the member for Ramsay's constituents. We have also just heard that this is a matter clearly to be coming to fruition, certainly not in the short term, and one might really remark that this is already providing for what we will call a park map rather than a road map—but a trajectory out over actual decades.

There is a first stage that is supposed to be coming to fruition just in the few years ahead, but the park map for the second range is not even projected to be finished until 2040 and then there is more to come down the track. So this is really a very long-run program to create these Northern Parklands and the part 4 levy, it might be seen, will have work to do over a particularly long timeframe. Those of us in the rest of South Australia included will be aware of cost-sharing arrangements that apply between the state and the Adelaide City Council in relation to the Adelaide Parklands, and there is fairly wideranging familiarity with open-space contributions and that sort of thing.

But the Northern Parklands levy, the subject of part 4, is directed at those affected council areas, and it will be then, as a matter of importance, for residents in those areas in particular to know what contributions are going to be made by those constituent councils because they are specific contributions—and it might be fully expected that they will sound in rates the particular term for a discrete addition to rates in relation to the contributions by those councils. I do not think any of that is surprising, but it will be I think a matter of particular interest to the residents of those constituent councils. That is all provided for in part 4, clauses 16 to 20.

The balance of the bill is providing for the establishment of those Northern Parklands and the establishment of the trust, and then arrangements to be made in terms of securing the parklands, both as to area and in relation to the finances for the long term—and there might be some reference to that along the way.

I just indicate that there is a relevant interest in the consultation aspects of this, both residents and councils, bearing in mind that this is going to roll out to an area—not an enormous area, but relatively significant; about 1,000 hectares I think—and that is in the Evanston, Gawler River area north-east of Munno Para and then stretching in a sort of serpentine way to the west, following the catchment area, an interesting shape and size of some rather spread out area, much of which is already well-known and recognised open space.

This is coming along, in the context of what we have seen from the government, in analogous circumstances in the Parklands in North Adelaide, where the government is proposing doing some redevelopment work for a golf project there, and that has involved interaction with another council, the Adelaide City Council, that had been involved in a negotiation, as we understand, over a relatively extended period of time, culminating in legislation to bring an end to that and to see that the state is directing traffic and doing so so as to meet timeframes and so on—and we have heard about that along the way—to the extent that there is an analogy here that may be conveniently unpacked in the course of the committee process, with a focus on part 4, as I have said.

The success of a long-term measure such as this is going to depend in a significant way on the identification, community support for ownership, for want of a better word, of the local communities that are going to hopefully benefit from this over the long term, and so understanding where the financial commitments are and being onboard with those is going to be an important matter.

Of course, the establishment of the parklands, unsurprisingly, might be anticipated to carry benefits, including the maintenance of a green corridor, hopefully capacity for recreation, sports, biodiversity benefits, cultural space and perhaps some tourism and hospitality benefits along the way. All of that is unsurprising, and I do note that this all aligns, we are told, with the Greater Adelaide Regional Plan.

The groundwork is here. We are not in a great big rush, but one might anticipate that levies are to be applied in those particular council areas, commencing fairly shortly and running, one might expect, for a significant period of time. Flagging those interests in particular, I again indicate that the opposition supports the bill. I look forward to the committee stage in terms of that aspect in particular.

Mr FULBROOK (Playford) (11:25): I rise in strong support of the Northern Parklands Bill 2025. I must say, given the proximity to my electorate, I really am honoured to speak on this and do thank the minister's office for seeking out my opinions. I also remark on the fact that it is wonderful to see that the opposition is in support of such a momentous bill.

From the outset, I want to place on record the importance of this moment, not only in establishing a new stretch of green space for the north but in shaping how we intend to use it and, most importantly, how we intend to enjoy it. Legislation of this kind is not just about land management. It is about the life that will fill that land, the facilities that will bring the parklands to life and the communities that will call the parklands their own.

Looking into the future, the northern suburbs will carry a high share of population growth. This is not something we resent. It is a responsibility we take on, because we know that it underpins South Australia's prosperity and because it is an important pillar in helping us keep housing affordable for the next generation.

The reality is clear: just building more houses will never be enough if we do not also provide open spaces to give people air to breathe, places to gather and a sense of pride in their community. That is why I see the Northern Parklands as nothing less than a new set of lungs for the north. This will be up to 1,000 hectares of land—not insignificant—an extraordinary investment in health, recreation, culture and nature. It is a legacy that acknowledges our growth but also matches it with generosity of spirit and foresight.

The community that I have the privilege to represent sits almost midway between the existing city Parklands and these new Northern Parklands. The geographic reality creates both opportunity and responsibility. We can be a bridge between the historic vision of Colonel Light's green belt and the new vision of a northern green corridor stretching from One Tree Hill down the Gawler River.

But a parkland is only as good as it is accessible. This is why from day one we must be clear that supporting infrastructure matters. Bike paths, car paths, walking trails and appropriately designed buildings are not intrusions on nature; they are enablers of enjoyment. They turn empty space into community space.

In the past, we have too often seen drawn-out arguments over whether sporting clubs, multicultural associations or community groups should be allowed to use parklands. This bill offers us a chance to move past that. If we accept from the outset that open space must be matched with facilities, then clubs will not be left to fight for scraps or wonder if they belong.

The bill establishes a trust and power to develop and maintain the Northern Parklands for recreation, culture and sport. That means we can confidently say, yes, there will be places for soccer clubs, for netball courts, for festivals and for family events and yes, there will be room for quiet walking tracks, shady trees and contemplative spaces. It is not an either-or. It is about a balance that serves the whole community.

I love nature and I want to see biodiversity thrive, but I also believe that land so heavily locked away that people cannot access it misses the point. I see this with land around Scott Creek where I grew up. In most cases, conservation should not mean exclusion. By establishing the Northern Parklands Trust with expertise in ecology, recreation, cultural heritage and tourism, we ensure that the land will be protected but also enjoyed. Let me be clear: enjoyment sometimes means events, from cultural festivals to sporting carnivals, from music gatherings to markets. These parklands should be alive. If we want people to care for the land, they must be first invited to use it.

I particularly welcome that the bill aims to reserve lands for cultural purposes. We have many multicultural communities in the north who seek a place to call their own. I think of my time in Darwin, where the suburb of Marrara plays host to hubs of many different cultural groups side by side. It is a model that works. Communities flourish when they have their own space but remain neighbours. It builds harmony, reduces the pressure on residential areas struggling with car parking or after-hours noise and creates an environment of mutual respect.

This bill may well give us the chance to do something similar. We can make the Northern Parklands a space where cultural identities are celebrated, where clubs have certainty and where people see their heritage reflected in the landscape.

The governance structure of the Northern Parklands Trust is one of the most impressive features of this package. The trust will comprise seven members, three appointed by the minister, including a presiding member, two nominated by adjacent councils, one ecologist or Green Adelaide representative, and one Aboriginal person. On top of this composition, members will collectively bring expertise in biodiversity, recreation, cultural heritage, landscape design, tourism, Aboriginal culture, financial management and, of course, local government.

This is a recipe for balance and for harmony. It means decisions will not be dominated by one voice but enriched by many. It gives me confidence that the parklands will be managed wisely, with vision and with respect for all communities.

Another feature worth praising is the guarantee this land cannot simply be sold off by a future government. Any disposal of land would require resolution of both houses of parliament. That is as strong a safeguard as we can provide. This parkland is a gift to the future, and by protecting it from short-term disposal we are making clear that it is meant to endure. This future orientation runs right through the bill. It is not just about today's amenities; it is about planting trees whose shade we may never sit under, about setting aside corridors for species we hope will return, and about creating places for children who are not yet born to play.

I look forward to the master plan that will guide the parklands. Consultation will be crucial. The bill makes provision for long-term strategic planning, but the success will depend on the ideas that come from the ground up. I want as many northern residents as possible to be involved. Out of that engagement, I am hopeful we will see innovative proposals that make these parklands not just adequate but the envy of the world. This bill flows directly from the Greater Adelaide Regional Plan. That plan takes a long-term view and sets out how growth should be balanced with infrastructure. It is about ensuring schools, hospitals, transport and green space are all thought of before the houses go up.

This forward-looking approach is what good planning looks like, and it is why I find it so frustrating when some, who choose not to engage with the consultation process, only now raise criticisms. Nearly 1,400 submissions went into shaping the GARP. I myself contributed, and I know many in my community did so as well. To wait until the end and then claim to have better ideas is not only disingenuous but also unfair to those who did the hard yards in the consultation process.

The minister's second reading speech rightfully acknowledges the many stakeholders who have brought us here. The City of Playford and the Town of Gawler deserve praise for their partnership. The State Planning Commission under Craig Holden, the Department for Housing and Urban Development and dedicated individuals like David Reynolds, Sally Smith, Chelsea Lucas, Marc Voortman and Ben Sieben all deserve recognition. Their work has been painstaking but visionary.

This bill is a statement of confidence in the north. It says we are not just about building houses, we are about building communities. We are not just about accommodating growth, we are enriching it. We are not just protecting land, we are inviting people to live within it, celebrate within it and take pride in it. Future generations will look back on this legislation as one of the moments where a government acted, not for the next election but for the next century. That is why I support the bill wholeheartedly and commend it to the house.

Mr BROWN (Florey) (11:34): In 1904, the Australian-born novelist Elizabeth von Arnim wrote:

How good it is to look sometimes across great spaces, to lift one's eyes from narrowness, to feel the large silence that rests on lonely hills!

This is a feeling that I imagine most of us have experienced, and especially those of us fortunate enough to have lived any part of our lives in such a beautiful place as South Australia. There is a soul-stirring joy in looking across an open landscape set under the vast canopy of a big sky. Quality public infrastructure and amenity, including public open space, is highly influential in supporting quality of life for a community. As a population within a particular locality or region grows, the importance of establishing and maintaining high-quality public amenity increases.

Northern Adelaide is experiencing a period of significant population growth. In fact, the northern metropolitan region is the fastest growing area of our state. A 2024 transport study reported that the outer and inner north together have the highest projected population increase in South Australia from 2021 to 2041, with nearly 90,000 additional people projected to live in the outer north in particular and 40 per cent of Greater Adelaide's projected population growth by 2041 occurring in northern Adelaide.

The Northern Parklands Bill seeks to create a new statutory authority that will be responsible for the establishment and maintenance of the Northern Parklands, which are proposed as part of the Greater Adelaide Regional Plan. With an area of up to 1,000 hectares, as the minister explained in his second reading contribution, the Northern Parklands will be one of the most significant public open space investments in South Australia's history.

The establishment of the Northern Parklands at the current stage in the growth of northern Adelaide aligns with best practice in planning. There are two broad approaches that can be taken in relation to a government's establishment of key infrastructure: we can be proactive or we can be reactive. In established communities, for a variety of reasons, the building and infrastructure often tends to be undertaken reactively, but where communities are experiencing significant growth and expansion or where they are being newly established, there is an opportunity to be proactive in the approach to infrastructure provision.

In new and emerging areas, it is desirable that key infrastructure is in place before the area is fully established with housing. This approach provides opportunity for planning choices to be undertaken in a way that is more deliberate and more effective. It also provides confidence for those who are considering building their first home or their next home in these communities. All of this is applicable when we consider the growing areas of northern Adelaide. Getting the infrastructure in place first will support better outcomes for both emerging and established communities across our northern growth areas.

The benefits that the Northern Parklands will offer the communities of northern Adelaide are numerous and significant. The story of the Adelaide Parklands over their nearly two centuries of history does an excellent job in illustrating the value of public open space as a contributor to the overall quality of a city's built environment as well as its identity, character and reputation. This can also be said of the range of excellent public open space amenity that is enjoyed across other regions of the Adelaide metropolitan area.

The city and inner suburbs have the Adelaide Parklands. The east has the foothills and its conservation parks, in particular Morialta Conservation Park, which offers excellent amenity for a number of uses by members of the public. The south has Glenthorne National Park, Sturt Gorge Recreation Park and plenty of other high-quality curated open spaces. Western Adelaide has the West Beach Parks and an abundance of coastline, which enjoys enhanced recreation amenity thanks to the Coast Park initiative.

The other metropolitan areas of Adelaide offer abundant high-quality opportunities for recreation and sport in curated open spaces. While there are many well-maintained public parks in the north, we do not yet enjoy the benefit of public open spaces commensurate in scope and quality with what the other parts of the metropolitan area enjoy.

The establishment of the Northern Parklands will strengthen social equity for communities across the north of Adelaide. I think it is reasonable and uncontroversial to say that it is time for our region to have the benefit of amenity that puts us on a fair footing relative to our geographical counterparts. It is valuable and important from many distinct perspectives for people to have access to high-quality public open spaces. Open spaces generate value in a diverse variety of ways at both the individual and community levels.

High-quality open spaces promote and enable physical activity, which underpins not only our physical health but also our mental health and wellbeing. Places for people to engage in physical activity, whether it is formal exercise such as organised sport or informal types of activity, including play, contribute significantly to overall community health. This is especially true for communities with higher levels of disadvantage, where gym memberships may be an unaffordable luxury for many. Supporting the physical health as well as the mental health of such communities aligns with our efforts to make improvements across our health system and to support health and wellbeing for communities across our state.

The opportunity to access high-quality public open space for the purposes of recreation and exercise is important for people of all ages, but it could be argued that children and young people are the cohort for whom it is most important. Regular physical activity helps children build stronger, fitter and healthier bodies. It helps them develop coordination and gross motor skills. It can also help them establish lifelong habits that will set them on the path to living healthier and happier adult lives.

Of course, as with people of every age group, the benefits for children and young people of having access to high-quality public open space are not only physical. The benefits for children's emotional and social health are significant as well. Exercise, recreation and play are good not only for brain development and wellbeing but for social and emotional development as well. Public open spaces offer chances for young people to have fun with friends and family and help them to build stronger social skills and even a stronger sense of self.

For young South Australians the Northern Parklands will offer high-quality, well-designed play spaces in addition to an abundance of open green space. These play spaces will support families and young people to live well, and they will offer enticing opportunities to get off screens and get outside. For young people who are coming into adolescence, having stronger opportunities for recreation and sport can help to steer them away from antisocial behaviour. From every angle of consideration, this investment in the Northern Parklands will offer enormous benefit to the many children and young people who reside in communities across our region.

High-quality public open spaces also promote community connection and social cohesion for every age group. They provide opportunity for people from all backgrounds and cultures to come together and exist harmoniously in the same space or to meet and engage with one another. They are places for everyone to utilise and enjoy on equal terms.

Public open spaces often take pride of place at the centre of our felt sense of community, and if they are well designed and well looked after, they are a significant positive contributor in defining the character of a community. I am confident that the Northern Parklands will become a substantially character-defining element for the communities of northern Adelaide.

Importantly, it is not only visual attractiveness and public amenity that the Northern Parklands and associated works will enhance. The activation of the Gawler River corridor will contribute to significantly strengthened ecological protection, restoration and protection. Biodiversity, in particular, will be supported and protected. The tree planting that is to be undertaken will offer a range of environmental benefits.

During the warmer months, it is of course the case that developed communities tend to experience extra impact from heat, substantially due to the ubiquity of hard, dark-coloured surfaces such as roads and roofs. Establishing a significant environmental corridor within a developed area assists in mitigating this phenomenon. The Northern Parklands will form part of the design of the new suburb of Kudla to boost its resistance to the heat-related impacts of development.

Of course, high-quality green spaces also play an important role in supporting healthy populations of flora and fauna, and they offer our communities increased opportunity to engage with and appreciate them as well. Public green spaces within our communities give us the chance to connect with nature locally in a way that we would otherwise have to travel for. Creating well-established, resilient, attractive and accessible landscapes within our suburban settings is one of the most reliable ways to ensure that nature can still be part of our daily lives, even if we live in a developed area.

The Northern Parklands Bill seeks to ensure that these parklands will be a sporting, cultural and recreational complex of statewide significance. It also embeds a framework for developing and maintaining the parklands so that they support a range of environmental and social values and activities that the Malinauskas government believes should be protected and enhanced.

To create and maintain the Northern Parklands, the bill seeks to establish a new governance body that will be known as the Northern Parklands Trust. The Northern Parklands Trust has been modelled after the West Beach Trust, which was established under the West Beach Recreation Reserve Act 1987.

The Northern Parklands Bill seeks to establish the first stage of the Northern Parklands through a plan to be lodged in the General Registry Office. The plan will set out land currently owned by the state and local governments, which will form part of the initial stage of the Northern Parklands. Upon commencement of the act, the land that has been identified within the plan will come under the management of the Northern Parklands Trust. Stage 1 of the Northern Parklands will be completed by 2030. Further stages, which will involve the acquisition of some private land in addition to the inclusion of further government-owned land, will be completed by 2040.

Among other features, the bill proposes that the Northern Parklands Trust will be required to establish both an annual business plan and a long-range strategic plan for the Northern Parklands to guide their ongoing management and to ensure financial sustainability. Very importantly, it also seeks to ensure the ongoing protection of the Northern Parklands against disposal by a future government. Over the next 12 months, a master plan will be created to guide the future development of the Northern Parklands and the Kudla Growth Area. As part of the master planning process, significant engagement will take place with the community and with landowners who will be impacted.

This is an undertaking that has the potential to significantly transform the character of northern Adelaide. It will enable access to high-quality open green space and facilities, which in turn will provide inviting, welcoming and safe settings for outdoor pursuits, relaxation and social interaction. It will also encourage investment in housing in the north, supporting vital housing supply growth for our community.

The initiative is well-supported by stakeholders, including nearby councils, which will greatly assist in ensuring that the project can be undertaken in a collaborative way and that such collaboration will be ongoing. To enable efficiency and to avoid the duplication of effort and resources, councils will assume a significant level of responsibility in relation to the operation and maintenance of the Northern Parklands. This will occur in agreement with the Northern Parklands Trust and will be funded in part by contributions from the trust itself. This cooperation will mean that the hardworking council workers, who are likely themselves to be members of a community nearby to the area, will feel a sense of pride and ownership in the work and the care that they put into looking after the parklands. I am hopeful, in fact, that all residents of northern Adelaide will have the opportunity to share in this sense of pride.

I believe the residents and communities right across northern Adelaide will very warmly welcome the enormous social, environmental and economic benefits that the Northern Parklands will bring. I greatly look forward to enjoying them myself, alongside people of all ages and backgrounds from my community. I commend and thank all those whose work on the Northern Parklands initiative has brought us to this point and who will continue to work hard to make this excellent concept a reality. I further acknowledge the many people across government who have contributed to the development and the delivery of the Greater Adelaide Regional Plan. I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (11:47): I would like to speak briefly in support of the Northern Parklands Bill. The proposed Northern Parklands will cover an area of about 1,000 hectares in size. Most of this area is actually in my electorate of Light, and it is also within the Town of Gawler. So, for a start, I think the minister perhaps should think about renaming the parklands to be the Gawler Parklands, which is probably a more appropriate name for the parklands, given that these parklands will be an integral part of the Gawler community. They are an integral part of the Gawler community, and so, while I can appreciate the idea of 'Northern Parklands', I think perhaps 'Gawler Parklands' would probably be a more appropriate name. Names aside, I think it is an important proposal which is worthy of support.

The parklands proposed to be established will go from the ridge line along One Tree Hill Road and the future urban growth areas surrounding Kudla Railway Station through to the banks of the Gawler River via Karbeethan Reserve, which are all areas I have known quite well and which I have actually represented in public life since 1981. That is a long time.

I can say that since 1981 there has been ongoing controversy about the future of this area, and it has taken this government to actually resolve that controversy. It is a proposal which I will not say is actually 100 per cent supported by people who live in that area, but the majority of people do support the proposal—and that has been through the numerous meetings we have had out there with the minister and myself being present. We have engaged with the community. The reason it has been reasonably well received is because of the process we actually followed. We made sure that people understood what was happening and what was proposed. It was also to make sure that any minor issues could be tweaked, or the proposal could be tweaked, and sorted out. Generally speaking, the proposal has been well received.

The development of the parklands not only provides in terms of a whole range of environmental factors but also provides an opportunity for one of the issues I have been working on with my committee, namely, the relocation of the South Gawler Football Club, which will find a new home in these parklands. The South Gawler Football Club is not exactly a hotbed of Labor supporters, but I have been more than happy to work with them. I think the current president was actually a former candidate against me.

Importantly, the parklands provide not only an important character-defining place for the Town of Gawler but also a lot of practical applications in the sense that they provide opportunities for necessary recreational areas for the growing community of not just Gawler itself but the southern end of Gawler around the Kudla areas—Hillier for example, Evanston Gardens, Evanston South, which are all areas that have been identified as growing areas for future populations.

The proposed parklands bill ensures that we have those open spaces which are needed for not only healthy communities from an environmental point of view but healthy communities in terms of spaces where people can congregate, play sport, meet, and a whole range of things. It provides for the development of balanced communities, so it has our support. This proposal is certainly supported by the Town of Gawler and also the adjacent City of Playford which abuts it and is also at the southern end of my electorate.

As I said, to arrive to this point of the parklands, this area has had controversy. The area of Kudla was only named, I think, in the early eighties, and there was controversy about the naming of the suburb, and in the end the name Kudla was chosen. In those days I was just a councillor at the District Council of Munno Para. I think it may have become the City of Munno Para by that stage, but it was the Munno Para council, which no longer exists.

I recall it went to a ballot of all the residents in the area, and the name Kudla was overwhelmingly supported by the local people, compared to the other choice of naming the suburb Stebonheath after the Andrews family—Andrews Farm, Andrews Road, etc. To be quite open about it, Kudla was a community in those days, and it has changed dramatically and has become more diverse now. It was a community of migrants and the thought of having to write 'Stebonheath' on every piece of paper you wrote was very difficult. Kudla was much easier. We had the train station where I caught the train to go to the University of Adelaide years ago, and from work to town, which I still do from time to time, so that was well related.

Historically, there were two councils, both the previous City of Munno Para and the Town of Gawler—not the current council of the Town of Gawler; they have actually come on board but have held up, if you like, the proper planning and future envisioned for this area. There were some on the council who thought this was prime agricultural land. These allotments start at about two or three acres, and my colleagues who are in farming communities would know that two or three acres would not be enough space for just the homestead and all the other buildings needed, let alone anything meaningful in primary production.

However, there were people on the council who thought this was prime primary production land, cropping land. It would be hard to crop there because there is no water there. When I was a boy out there certainly we had some mixed farms and they did quite well, but that is going back to the late sixties and seventies. The world has changed since then.

Mr Telfer: The golden days.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The golden days, yes.

An honourable member: Olden and golden.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: That is when I was still allowed to go hunting with a shotgun and walk through the paddocks and shoot rabbits and quails, etc. You cannot do that now.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes. They did not stop still for me, they were moving.

Mr Teague: You shot moving rabbits with a shotgun?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes.

Mr Teague: How many?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Enough. In those days it was open land, but it was never going to be prime production land, because the development that occurred back in the early sixties was all five acres, 10 acres, and that in itself meant it was going to be dated. By the late seventies most of the farms had closed down, whether they were small dairy farms, pig farms, chook farms—most had closed down because the reality was there was not the economy of scale to make them productive.

The Town of Gawler, in its wisdom, for decades has held on to that view that it is prime production land and should be protected. Unfortunately, they spent tens of thousands of dollars getting reports to support their view. More importantly, they were at odds with the residents and the ratepayers in the area. The people who lived there could see what the future of this area would be, but the Town of Gawler came very late in the piece. Having said that, they have come on board and there have been changes in the council, which has made this process smoother and certainly one that is supported.

I think the idea of linking the Hills face through a corridor to the parkland areas, then through Karbeethan Reserve, then again to the Gawler River and creating a linear park along the river is really an excellent idea.

The Hon. N.D. Champion: It was your idea.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: No, it was not my idea. What is important is that this idea is not a new one. It was proposed back in the mid-seventies, but what is different between now and the mid-seventies is that the mid-seventies proposal had no strategy on how to actually implement it. It said that this will be a green belt. All the area was actually in private hands. Private landowners were supposed to provide the green belt for this whole area. As we can imagine, nothing happened—the area went backwards.

With this recent announcement through the GARP and the minister's intervention and a whole range of things, people are now starting to reinvest in this area, and this area had lacked investment for 20 to 30 years. Because of uncertainty about its future, it was not productive primary production land, and it took one brave government to make the right decision, also to take on the local council, to some extent, but it also took a lot of action by residents at numerous public meetings where they made their views quite clear.

This proposal does actually now bring together both community and public sentiment and the government in sync. That was just by way of a brief history of the area; there are a lot of other things I could talk about, given that I have lived in the area for over 60 years.

Mr Teague: Is this a valedictory?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: No, not quite. It might be for Light, yes. This proposal will be achieved through the establishment of a trust, which is a really good concept, to ensure that governments, councils and the community have a say in it. I think this proposal will enable the appropriate social infrastructure for this new committee, which will develop over time and be provided in time.

If there is one thing we have learnt in this place from even recent events, with which previous Labor governments unfortunately have been associated, is that you need to plan ahead to make sure the infrastructure is in place when it is needed, whether it is physical infrastructure such as roads, water, etc., or social infrastructure such as reserves, schools, police, etc. The whole proposal for this trust is predicated on an idea to make sure this community, when people are there, will be living in a healthy amenity, in both the physical sense and the social sense. With those few words, I certainly endorse this proposal.

Mr TELFER (Flinders) (11:59): I rise to make a short contribution on this, and I look forward to the committee stage to try to understand a few more of the details. As we have seen with a lot of pieces of legislation that we have debated over this term, there is a broad concept, a bit of a light bulb, but it is what actually happens in the detail that I am interested in, especially with this bill. It is basically putting in place a structure, the capacity for a structure to tell a local government area that they will need to levy a certain amount on their constituents, on their ratepayers—and it gives the flexibility of how to do that—but it is adding an extra impost, an extra cost, onto the communities and the constituent councils.

The last speaker, in his contribution, spoke about the Town of Gawler—he talked about a variety of different subjects, but he spoke about the Town of Gawler and the City of Playford as the two constituent councils. I will be interested through the committee stage to understand a little bit about the engagement with the councils. I am talking about substantive engagement, not just, 'Do you mind this idea? What do you think?'

It is great to have this great big parkland area, but have you considered the obligation of a levy put onto your constituents, onto your ratepayers, because that is basically what this structure is putting in place. It is putting the obligation, the responsibility financially, onto ratepayers at a time when there is a fair bit of pressure on those ratepayers with the cost-of-living challenges that they are facing at the moment. So it is an extra tax, an extra levy, an extra obligation on top of what they are currently having to face. Do they really understand—and know and acknowledge—that that extra obligation is going to come?

There was talk in some earlier speeches that I was listening intently to about not wanting to duplicate effort. There is a great opportunity for council to be able to do this work and not create an extra obligation or an extra layer of maintenance capacity. I think at the moment councils are employing enough garden staff, enough outdoor staff, to be able to do the work that is required of them. With extra work on top, there will be extra staff that will be required, and that extra cost will have to be borne by someone. With the structures that are being proposed here, on my reading, the extra obligation will be upon those ratepayers, this extra levy on top.

We do know that there are levies that are raised by the state government through legislation, but councils are obligated on behalf of the state government to do it through their rating system. The landscape levy is a classic example of it. It is a levy which every single council is legislatively obligated to collect on behalf of the state government. In theory, although the structures in a piece of legislation like this are saying that all the cost burden of the collection of these extra rates can be clawed back by local government, we know the reality of the structures of it, and this is mirrored in the way that this legislation is going.

If there is a certain cohort of ratepayers who are defaulting on their rates—like with the landscapes levy—if they are defaulting on their rates, then the extra obligation has to be borne by the council somehow. The landscape levy is a classic example and this I assume, and will find out through the process, will be no different. The council have to cover any shortfall in the amount that has been collected. If they are trying to extrapolate it out across the whole of their constituency, the whole of their ratepayer base, and there is a 5 per cent portion who do not pay it, that means they have to cover it in the rest of their general revenue. There is always an extra financial obligation despite the best laid plans in a piece of legislation. I know that from what I have seen in local government. Councils all over tell me that.

Like I say, I think there is a real risk that there are details that are put into a piece of legislation that are not fully understood by those who are impacted. I am sure that the councillors at the Town of Gawler and the City of Playford are aware that there is a plan out. I wonder if they have seen the legislation; I will be curious to find that out. In conversations with some representatives in that area, this was a surprise to them, that this was a legislated thing that was coming through the state parliament. Secondly, has there been discussion and consultation with either community or council or a combination of the two about what the expectations are about a level of financing; that a levy or an additional rate take will be required of the council?

In the end, when we are making laws in this place that affect people's hip pocket, we need to be fully aware of what those impacts are going to be. So there is a whole heap of detail within this piece of legislation that I am cautious about, I am curious about, and I am going to do my best on behalf of local government as the shadow minister to try to get some consistent answers from the government about.

Once again, it is fine to have a conceptual idea, a big picture perspective, 'Look here we are making grand plans for the future of this area' and the contributions that have been given so far speak about that, but what about the impact day to day on the ratepayers and the obligation on councils? To form a Northern Parklands Trust as the managing entity for a significant parcel of land like this is absolutely a structure that could work if we get the frameworks right.

The different representation, which is put out here in clause 12, which we will look at a bit later on, really does try to strike a balance but, in the end, when there is external ministerial involvement, there is always a risk that the decisions that are made with appointments or the decisions that are made about the amount of money that is required, that is levied from those communities, will get out of whack with the expectations of those communities, of the ratepayers themselves.

So with those few words, I look forward, once the second reading contributions are all completed, to be able to unpack a little bit through the committee stage what this legislation actually means and the impacts it is going to have on ratepayers, especially within the Town of Gawler and the City of Playford.

Mrs PEARCE (King) (12:06): I am so very pleased to rise today to speak on the Northern Parklands Bill. The north has a rich history of resilience, hard work and innovation. From manufacturing and defence to trades and small business, the north has powered much of South Australia's economic growth over the years and now our secret is out: the north is an excellent place to live, work and play. It is growing and it is growing fast.

By 2050, Greater Adelaide's population is expected to grow by an additional 670,000, which is exactly why the Malinauskas state government has set a clear direction for coordinated and strategic growth by launching the Greater Adelaide Regional Plan, also known to us as GARP. This strategic plan identifies where 315,000 new homes will be built over the next 30 years and preserves important land for future infrastructure. We need to ensure that Adelaide, including our outer suburbs, remains one of the most liveable cities in the world, which is why we as the government are adapting our policies and protecting what makes our great state so special.

We must plan well for the future, and the future of our beloved northern suburbs is looking so incredibly bright. The Malinauskas state government has already made key investments in the north, including but not limited to: the announcement of a new high school in the northern suburbs delivering high-quality educational facilities for our children now and into the future; much needed investment for the Curtis Road railway crossing; a $1.5 billion investment in SA Water, which will unlock new housing releases in the northern suburbs; and a brand-new ambulance station in Gawler.

But what I am particularly excited for is that the state government will create the Northern Parklands, and knowing the popularity of our treasured Cobbler Creek Recreation Park, I know my community will be very pleased about this too. Our state is so very proud of our Parklands. They have always been a part of Adelaide's identity and modern history, so it should come as no surprise that the Malinauskas state government will use the biggest ever investment in public open space in Greater Adelaide to create the Northern Parklands.

The creation of the Northern Parklands is no small feat. It will stretch from the ridge line following One Tree Hill Road to the future urban growth areas surrounding Kudla Railway Station through to the banks of the Gawler River by Karbeethan Reserve. In short, it is going to be absolutely enormous. Totalling 1,000 hectares, this green corridor will be 39 per cent larger than the Adelaide Parklands, big enough to make my inner-city colleagues very envious. These parklands will provide much needed recreation, greening initiatives and community spaces, and shape a sustainable and thriving future for our northern suburbs.

They will feature a 70-hectare sport and recreation precinct with ovals, courts and public transport links. I am especially excited about the relocation of the South Gawler Football Club to the Northern Parklands. It will provide them with a major expansion opportunity, due to their current constraints and facilities being no longer fit for purpose thanks to a rapid growth of club members at the sporting club. Sport is, for so many, a home away from home. It is a place to connect with others, to stay active and grow. Most importantly, it plays a vital role in supporting our overall wellbeing. We want to encourage that as much as possible, which is why I am so pleased that it features strongly in our plans for the Northern Parklands.

It will also feature the establishment of a significant green corridor linking Kudla to Karbeethan Reserve and over 760 hectares dedicated to biodiversity, native habitats and environmental preservation; the activation and preservation of the Gawler River corridor, with a 38-kilometre loop of shared use, walking and cycling paths; and a new railway station, a gateway to the Northern Parklands, making it easier for everyone to access green open spaces.

Through engagement with many stakeholders—including our local councils the City of Playford and the Town of Gawler council—we are working together for the north to achieve this significant, character-defining opportunity for our great community. In order to do so, the Northern Parklands Bill seeks to create a new statutory authority responsible for establishing the new Northern Parklands. A new governance body, the Northern Parklands Trust, will oversee its management and future funding through council contributions and development revenue.

There will be seven appointed members of the trust, which will include an ecologist and a First Nations appointee. The trust will explore opportunities to ensure it has a financially sustainable business model that is inclusive of defined commercial activities, like caravan parks and sports. Partnering with our local councils, the Northern Parklands Trust can utilise and develop the existing council workforce for the operation of the parklands, which will create a sustainable operating model.

This development presents a unique opportunity to shape the character of Adelaide's northern suburbs in a way that respects their roots. As the north continues to grow, so, too, must our commitment to the spaces that bring us together. This is an investment in the wellbeing of future generations and will serve as a place for recreation, connection and restoration, a living and breathing part of our expanding community.

This is not just smart planning but an investment in our northern suburbs for the generations to come. It is creating a space where people can build their lives, not just pass through, and the Northern Parklands will become part of the identity of Adelaide's north, a place people are proud to call home. I am so very pleased to commend this bill to the house.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:12): I rise to make a brief contribution on the Northern Parklands Bill. As I have said many times in this house, I note my family connections through to Gawler River and, previous to that, in 1840 farming at Plympton, of all places. Obviously Plympton was getting built out and we ended up, in the late 1800s, right next to Gawler River; in fact, we owned the land where the Gawler River Methodist Church is, which in recent times was sold privately. My great-grandparents and great-great-grandparents are buried there.

In the discussion earlier by the member for Light he talked about prime farming land. Decades ago it was prime farming land—it probably always has been—but as we see with too much farming land it gets built on over time and developed. That has certainly happened over many, many decades. I go back to conversations with my late father, who was born in 1920; he knew a lot of the history of the opening up of land between Adelaide and Gawler, and then watched what was happening around Angle Vale before he finished farming up there. He was aware of the original farms that were sold for building houses and cities on at Salisbury and Elizabeth back in the day. Certainly, it is some very good country.

As we see with cities like Adelaide that are built right on a river—for obvious reasons, where the early settlers would have needed water—it is some of the best land in the state and, as people moved out to areas like Gawler River and Angle Vale and surrounding communities, it is similar. It almost hurts when you see how much housing development is on that really good country around Angle Vale.

It is interesting that there has been some foresight and there will be a 1,000-hectare park. It is certainly land that my grandfather and father would have been well known to traverse. As I have said before, some of their properties were compulsorily acquired in 1939 and 1950 for defence purposes and they were running out of land to farm, so they did the trek up to a property at One Tree Hill from where they were at Angle Vale. They were sharefarming up there for the Harvey family, so there are certainly a lot of links to my family.

Looking at this legislation, it is forward-looking so that there is some open space kept. Too many times we see in development that land is just built out. I know I have mentioned it here before, but I look at the debacle at Mount Barker. I hope everyone has learnt from these past mistakes, because it is essentially just going to be an Adelaide city suburb mounted on some beautiful hills and valleys up in the Adelaide Hills. Some would say it is progress, but I think we need to have better planning decisions in the future.

As has been mentioned, the Greater Adelaide Regional Plan—and the Murray Bridge expansion that is coming now and into the future over the next 40 years—will provide many tens of thousands of new residents to the area. I know the full strategic planning is going into place, with developers from Victoria heavily involved and going through that process. It will be interesting to see how this rolls out. It is a bit of a shining light to see that some land will not just be built on. Obviously, it will not be used for primary production purposes but will be put to community purposes, which I think will assist.

In terms of recreation, we have heard about the South Gawler Football Club being relocated. With any sporting club developments, I hope people look at what happened at the Summit at Mount Barker. That has not worked very well at all. It is a great oval, but it appears that no-one seems to want to use it because of the high costs. The soccer grounds get used quite regularly and they are excellent soccer grounds. Looking at the facilities at the Summit, I guess you could say they are partly adequate but they do not really have a function room there at an oval of that standard. I hope people look at what has happened. I have not seen what has happened at Lyndoch, but from what I understand it should be a pretty good set-up with $40 million being invested there.

We need to make sure that our cultural facilities and our sporting facilities are fit for purpose and that we do not scrimp. I know things cost a lot of money and they cost far more than what you think they should—for the layman or laywoman, you usually put in a times two when you are trying to estimate a cost. But this is an opportunity. Let's just hope that we get things right. I know that there will be some questions in committee. This should bode well for people living in the northern areas.

Mr ODENWALDER (Elizabeth) (12:19): I rise, I promise, to make a very brief contribution to this bill. I will allow the opposition to interrogate the clauses as they wish, and I hope for a speedy passage for this bill. I have had many conversations with the minister over the last few months about the GARP, about the Housing Roadmap and obviously about the Northern Parklands, which is part of that overall suite of ideas in terms of both improvement to the northern suburbs but also addressing our very acute housing crisis.

As other speakers have mentioned, there will be tens of thousands of new houses immediately north and west of the electorate of Elizabeth. It is really important, and I am pleased that provision has been made and will be made in this bill for really good and quite extensive recreation spaces along the northern and eastern edges of all of that development, as well as maintaining some of that green belt, which people talk about a lot, between Elizabeth and Gawler.

When I first arrived in Elizabeth in 1981, there was almost nothing from Uley Road in Elizabeth Downs to Gawler. When I say 'almost nothing', of course I assume the member for Light had a house somewhere there, so there were things there, but there was very little in terms of large-scale development. I should not downplay the importance of the member for Light's household. In my conversations with the minister over the last few months about the Northern Parklands, which of course I wholly support, we were reflecting on some of the other green space, particularly around Elizabeth.

For those who drive through Elizabeth, they will know there are what the council call windbreaks on either side of Main North Road. As you drive from around Saints Road all the way up past the Munno Para shopping centre, on both sides of the road there are quite wide, almost continuous reserves of land with trees and so on. At the moment, I have to say that I have become very concerned, and in my conversations with the minister I know he has too, about the upkeep of some of these windbreaks by the council over time.

I remember back in the early eighties they were green spaces. They were full of kids playing on their BMXs and skateboards and so on. They really were both a place to have recreation in or to play in but also to go through and along. They really were parks where people could enjoy the amenity and crisscross the city in a really pleasant way. Now they are places that people largely avoid. They are fairly barren places. There has been some development in terms of minor gravel bike tracks and so on, but really I do not think this is enough.

A conversation has started between me and the minister and some others to try to get back the idea of Elizabeth as a garden city. When it was first developed by the Housing Trust, the idea was that Elizabeth would be called 'the Garden City'. Of course, that got a bit lost in the amalgamation of the councils of the City of Munno Para and the City of Elizabeth to become the City of Playford. However, the original concept of Elizabeth was as a garden city, and I remember growing up with not only those windbreaks but also the areas around Elizabeth City Centre and the railway station and so on being very colourful in terms of the flowers planted. It really was a garden city, and I think that is something we have lost. I did promise I will be brief.

I am writing to the minister this week—it is no surprise, he is expecting my letter—to begin an investigation into whether we can look at declaring some of those windbreaks a linear park, as has been done in other parts of the state, most obviously along the River Torrens up into the eastern suburbs. In declaring it a linear park, of course you would lock that land so that it could not be developed on, as I understand it, without the permission of both houses of parliament.

It could not be developed in any big way, but of course it would be able to be used for various recreational pursuits. I would envision that there would be bike tracks and walking tracks. Having looked now more closely at the map of the Northern Parklands, I notice there is quite a large parcel of it immediately to the north-east of Blakes Crossing. It is not hard to envision that such a linear park, whether it started at Saints Road or John Rice Avenue up the stretch of Main North Road, on either side or both sides or however the consultation phase finally landed, could join to the Northern Parklands up there in that Uleybury quarter.

Obviously, there will need to be lots of consultation with local communities, but I really think it is a vision worth pursuing, realising Elizabeth once again as a garden city. As part of this process, I will also be writing to the minister to see if there is any provision within the Planning and Development Fund to aid in some of that beautification and provide some of the amenity along such a linear park. I look forward to that process taking place, and I look forward to the consultation process with my community about this because I think it will be very popular.

Over the last several years, we have seen some rather unpopular development proposals along some of those parcels of land. In declaring it a linear park, that would put an end to community angst about some of that pretty ugly development which has been proposed along those places. I look forward to hearing a response from the minister, and I look forward to the community consultation involved. In doing so, I commend the Northern Parklands Bill to the house.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION (Taylor—Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Housing Infrastructure, Minister for Planning) (12:25): It has been a really terrific debate, beginning with the member for Ramsay reminding me of her history in Gawler. Of course, I went to high school with the member for Ramsay, so we share a commitment to the northern suburbs and the Mid North just through our longevity and our long association with it. She made some really pertinent observations that Gawler was surveyed not so much by Light but by Light's planning firm, and the survey was done in the year of his death. These linkages between the Adelaide Parklands and what was in the mind's eye of planners then are particularly apparent.

In terms of contributions, we also had the member for Heysen. I do thank the opposition for their support of this bill. As the member for Heysen pointed out, once this bill passes—and there is absolutely no doubt of the urgency—the work to construct the full vision of the parklands will go over many governments and many generations of politicians and, by necessity, it has to be bipartisan, so I do thank the opposition for their support and their thoughtful comments and questions in their contributions.

The member for Playford reminds us that during a housing crisis it is incredibly important that we do not forget the importance of the urban realm, of urban space and of parks in particular. He reminded us of that old adage that those who are thinking about the future are always planting trees that we might never sit under or experience the shade of, but indeed our children and our grandchildren might.

The member for Florey I think is always a thoughtful contributor to the equity question, and there is an equity question in open space. You see it in the north and, frankly, in the western suburbs as well. There is a great disparity in terms of open space and often the quality of open space. It is important for all communities to have access to high-quality parks, but it is especially important for those communities which are challenged by unemployment or low incomes.

It has an even bigger effect for those communities, those working-class and lower middle-class communities, to have access to parks and playgrounds which they can take their children to, which they can play sport in and can seek refuge in, because parks are free, because parks are a public good. In that regard, they can provide great quality to working and middle-class suburbs, whereas the wealthy can always afford to get access to space. That is one of the things that wealth does bring you.

The member for Light made a tremendous contribution. This has been a long march for the member for Light. I was talking to him just before his speech about the naming of Kudla. He has always been a passionate and thoughtful contributor to local government, to this place and especially to the Northern Parklands.

It would be fair to say that the component of the long linear path along the river did come from the member for Light and from his consultations with the community and with the State Planning Commission. I can remember Craig Holden, head of the State Planning Commission, rather excitedly telling me that this had been raised as a point in one of the consultations with the member for Light and his community, and that the commission had thoughtfully taken it up. It reminded me of when I was preselected and first elected. I had asked the member for Light about his recommendations about election commitments, and he recommended to me to put in place a funding commitment for this pathway along the Gawler River.

There had been a community group down there—the Gawler environment group, I think is their name. Lots of really passionate people had been cleaning woody weeds, olives and shopping trolleys out of that river for a decade before that, and Tony had worked with them. We contributed about $7 million, I think it was, to build some bridges over the river and a bike path; I remember going out and riding it myself just before it was opened and seeing people already using it. It had not been officially opened but it was there, and the number of people using it made me realise what an absolute winner it was. Of course, ultimately it was a winner for the Barossa, too, because it meant that we got on with the next stage, which was Gawler to Tanunda.

The power of bike paths and of good urban realm was an early lesson I had in public office, so I thank the member for Light for his wise counsel, not just in this debate but ones that have gone before it. Quite rightly he says we are going to start out with the South Gawler footy club. If those opposite want to see a bit of a run-down facility, go to the South Gawler footy club. It has not changed since I played under 17s—not very successfully—a long time ago, in 1988-89. I was not much of a footballer; in fact, my under 17s team lost every game except one against Gawler Central, and I remember that game vividly.

The South Gawler footy club has had, on occasion, some enthusiasm. There has been a bit of cross-pollination with the local branch of the Liberal Party. Tom Zorich, of course, was my opponent in 2013. His sons played A-grade for South Gawler footy club, and it was the only year I ever got beaten in corfluting; they were the most efficient corfluting crew I have ever seen. I did catch up to them and I did win the election, so that was something, but it was a rude shock to me the night the election was called, I can tell you—so a tribute to the Zorich family and that year's A-grade or B-grade teams for outdoing me.

I should also point out that James Agness, Labor's candidate for Light, played for South Gawler, so perhaps he is evening up the bipartisanship for the club. They are a great community club and their facilities are so embarrassingly run down. They have had to expand into the old squash courts, which are pretty run down. They have done a good job, if you like, stretching the life of the grounds at the moment, but there is an opportunity to put them in the new section in the first stage of the Northern Parklands, and it will be a great outcome if we do that.

The member for Flinders quite rightly, I think—and we will get into this in the committee stage—points out that the funding of an urban park is absolutely critical, and the cooperation of the constituent councils is absolutely critical as well. We will not be able to do this process without their enthusiasm and cooperation, and without their workforce frankly, too, which is the other thing on which we will have to seek their cooperation.

I put quite a bit of thought into this because, as the member for Hammond points out, there have been a few mistakes made with multi-user facilities, and I think there have also been some mistakes made with long linear parks in the past where the funding mechanism is not robust enough to properly fund public open space. You get them established and then they either get these big investments that do not work for the community or they get no investment at all.

The member for Hammond made some good points about farming on the Adelaide Plains. I think the only way to have avoided that would have been to prevent Thomas Playford's enthusiastic expansion of the city. It would have been a very different city and a very different economy, I think, had we not had postwar industrialisation.

There are some very good interviews with Thomas Playford in the national sound archive. When you listen to them, you listen to a Premier who had a very methodical and deliberate plan, which originated in the government of Sir Richard Butler but really found its full flourish post war. I do not know whether once those postwar wheels started turning they could be avoided, but it was a good contribution, I think, from the member for Hammond and the member for Flinders.

The member for King made the obvious point that the northern suburbs is a growing community and is one that is taking so much of the growth in the north. It is such a good working-class, middle-class community, with good values, open values and hardworking values. As she and the member for Playford and the member for Florey pointed out, these communities deserve some measure of equity in terms of things.

Finally, the member for Elizabeth is an old friend and, like the member for Ramsay, a person I have had a long association with. I first met the member for Elizabeth when we were at university together, at the now-defunct UniSA Salisbury campus. I suppose we spent a long time rolling around pubs and the uni bar and all sorts of parties out in Elizabeth North and other places.

Of course, Elizabeth is the city of my birth, so I have an emotional and passionate interest in making sure that we honour Elizabeth and we honour that great city. I know the windbreaks are a separate issue, but they are an issue of open space. In my last term in federal parliament, there were proposals to sell them off and open the door for big-box retail to dominate those places, those windbreaks. That open space was deliberately put in place by the Housing Trust when they designed the new town of Elizabeth, and it is unique. No other city in Australia was built with such deliberate, thoughtful planning.

It is in Robin Boyd's book, The Australian Ugliness. Its planning is referred to in that book, a thoughtful exposition at the time of Australian planning and aesthetics, but it was mentioned in a very positive way. So you think to yourself that this is not something that one council has a right to sneakily degrade and then sell off. The urban realm of Elizabeth is a function of South Australia's history and of the Housing Trust's history. I ran a campaign and I was pretty tough with the council. I had some tough conversations with some of the councillors—old friends—about that.

Clearly, we have to engage with the City of Playford about that open space, which defines the city. Anybody who is travelling up and down Main North Road gets a bit of a break from the endless development along it. You get this wonderful green corridor as you run through Elizabeth. The council has not helped itself by building a pretty hideous and empty car park on the corner of the land, near the shopping centre and near the council chambers. We all supported that bit of it, but I think it is a financial temptation, frankly, to try to revoke the community land status of that land and do something commercial with it, which will not be acceptable to this government, and I will take the member for Elizabeth's very sensible proposal into consideration.

In closing can I just say, in my mind's eye I have always been able to see a great park forming between Gawler and Kudla, and on any planning criteria Kudla stacks up as the best land to develop; it is close to water, power, public transport and to roads we have already put in, and so to develop Kudla the infrastructure costs are substantially lower.

As the Deputy Speaker observed in his speech, there have been many discussions, proposals, controversy and plans over this land, because of him, because of the State Planning Commission and because of the long and thoughtful public policy work that we went through. Also, the people who live in Kudla, their thoughtfulness about what should happen in the future has meant that we can see the creation of a new suburb, of thousands and thousands of homes, which is important for housing supply. Also, critically, we had to make sure that Gawler kept its identity and that Kudla had an identity of its own as well.

Inherent in that is the interurban break with its substance and meaning. As the member for Light observed, previous interurban breaks have been on private land and so have been functionally meaningless—in fact, they have led to the disinvestment in land rather than the investment in land. What we will see here is private investment being unleashed in Kudla to build homes, communities, shopping centres, and all of those things, but we will also see some of that private investment being matched with some of the public investment to make a great park, and in my mind's eye I can completely see just how great this park can be.

As I said before, it is important for communities, particularly where people are new homebuyers and where there is a diverse range of incomes, to know that that open space will be built in at the start and that they can barrack for the South Gawler footy club or, with the number of people coming in, maybe even the Kudla footy club; there will be new sporting teams formed. It is important that they know that the open space is there and thought about in a meaningful way.

I have looked quite closely at the way urban parks have been formed, because in actual fact the impact of lights on urban planners in this city has been profound. We all understand the power of the Adelaide Parklands. There are many debates about the Parklands, about investment in them and the like, but, broadly speaking, this range of Parklands has stayed intact and it is a beautiful and unique open space that is valued and precious in terms of cities around the world.

However, when you look at it, it is not funded the way it should be. The investment from the City Council—and I am not knocking the City Council—is not commensurate with its greatness. I look at Linear Park and I see a patchwork quilt made up of councils' contributions and the enthusiasm of mayors who come and go with administrations and, frankly, the previous government's contributions in the south around creating parks.

What we are trying to build with the Northern Parklands Trust is an advanced and modernised version of the West Beach Trust, where we set in place a governance model that is both inclusive of councils and inclusive of the broader challenge when we have parks across council boundaries—so a modern governance but also a modern funding mechanism, because parks are only created when there is an appropriate investment.

Investment must come from two avenues, frankly. It must come when the suburb has been created, and that is why we have an open space requirement on developers. There is no doubt that developers in and around Kudla and Evanston and on government land will be providing contributions as they build the homes, but also that requires ongoing maintenance and an ongoing budget to maintain and develop parklands.

We have been very thoughtful, too, about allowing the Northern Parklands Trust to provide some ability to have commercial ventures that might help fund the park. West Beach Trust is deliberately mentioned because they run a very popular caravan park, for which I am minister. The great thing about the West Beach Trust is it never asked government for great wads of budget because they have their own ability to generate revenue. It is a popular one, one that people want to avail themselves of and so it is a successful venture. With the Northern Parklands, I think that some ability to do something similar with some small part of the land that they will eventually have will be sensible because then you get life and activity in them as well.

When we get to the committee stage, we will be able to go through those in some detail, but it is not the government's intention to build funding models that put some unreasonable impost on councils or some unreasonable impost on ratepayers. What we want to do is create a funding mechanism so that people know that they do not have to worry about where the next soccer pitch is coming from or, as the member for Hammond points out, whether sporting clubs can afford to use the facilities that have been built. With the Northern Parklands Trust, we are trying to build a model of inclusive and progressive governance with the ability to actually do things as well.

There is no doubt that this has been the great passion of my ministerial life so far. The creation of these parks is an important thing to do. Subject to the passing of the legislation, we will certainly be getting on with the creation of a park on lands that the government holds and we will be getting on with the creation of the suburb of Kudla. Although this work will go on for decades and in all likelihood go far beyond my political life, it is not something I intend to leave for future generations. It is something that I intend to begin and progress, and it is something that the government is very committed to on behalf of the people of the northern suburbs: to create a model for a park not just for the north but, more broadly, for other suburbs. With that, I close the debate.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 passed.

Clause 3.

Mr TEAGUE: The substantive provisions include reference at clauses 12 and 15. The question at clause 3 is then the definition of constituent council. What councils are constituent councils, bearing in mind the way that works vis-a-vis the establishment of the trust and the annual plan, the subjects of clauses 12 and 15?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: In the initial phases it is Playford and Gawler. There is an ability to extend, if the parklands are extended into other councils' areas.

Mr TEAGUE: Just from the point of view of the statute, that is interesting to know, and I might be guided, but I perhaps will just spell it out. The definition of constituent council is a council specified as such in the Northern Parklands Trust's annual business plan. We do not see the Northern Parklands Trust established until we find out its constituent parts in clause 12, and then the business plan gets a mention in some detail at clause 15.

So I am just wondering, as far as the legislative instrument is concerned, how perhaps the nomination process in clause 12(1)(a) gets to occur, in that the Northern Parklands Trust itself cannot get up and running until its members are found, including those two that are to be nominated by the constituent councils. Is the circularity solved somehow so that Playford and Gawler can do their job and then the annual business plan can arrive and then presumably the annual business plan can specify what the—and is that not in reverse?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: In terms of circularity, getting started is always the most difficult thing, is it not? In terms of the Northern Parklands the two main councils, if you look at the map, are Playford and Gawler, so we would write to them asking for a representative, whether it be the mayor or CEO or some other member. They would be appointed to the trust, and then as the minister I appoint some members, and then the Minister for Environment also appoints a member. So in effect the trust will be established, and Gawler and Playford will be the, if you like, founding councils.

Mr TEAGUE: I think the committee is assisted by the answer. It sounds like there is a commonsense answer to what is intended, at least from the outset. There might be a question arise subsequently about any other additional constituent councils that might find their way to being referred to in the annual plan, in which case they become constituent councils, no worries. But is there not, in light of that, a problem or need to do something about that? I have not been able to find it in the transitional provisions or elsewhere. That might be just because I have not found it, and I am conscious the committee will have an opportunity to reconvene at some stage after a break.

So there is the commonsense point—understanding the expectation as to who the relevant councils are that might be intended at the outset. There is that problem and then there is the problem that somebody has seen fit to go out of their way to say that the constituent councils are the ones referred to in the annual business plan. That might make eminent sense for additional ones, but, in that case, is the definition of 'constituent council' better directed, for those purposes, to be 'additional constituent councils', and is there an initial constituent council mechanism, perhaps, that is required to get that up and going?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It is sort of an interesting issue of circularisation. From the outset, we have only ever imagined Gawler and Playford as being the two constituent councils. I think there has been some latitude left there if you were to cross the river in any substantial way. Gawler council I think already owns some land across the other side of the river as well, on the riverbank, so effectively that is already done. I do not anticipate that there would be additional councils.

We might just consult parliamentary counsel on the issue of circularisation, and if there is some minor amendment that we need we will do it. But, from the government's point of view, we have essentially been consulting with the Playford and Gawler councils, and they are the councils we imagine to be on the Northern Parklands Trust.

Mr TEAGUE: I just indicate that it is not my intent to take the government by surprise. It might just be that there is a necessity to deal with that. As I say, I am ready to stand corrected in case there is actually a reference to those two councils as being the initial ones. If there is a need to change, then it might be to refer to the fact that, at the outset, the constituent councils are Playford and Gawler.

Clause passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00.


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