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

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 4.

The CHAIR: The minister was going to look up some things during the break, from memory. Is that correct? He was going to talk to parliamentary counsel, if I recall correctly.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Just in relation to the member for Heysen's questions beforehand on clause 3, clause 47 allows for a transitional regulation to be created, which will effectively get us around the lacuna or the circularity issue that was raised by the member for Heysen and which temporarily stumped us. We had some advice from parliamentary counsel which alerted us to that particular clause.

Mr TEAGUE: I appreciate the minister's answer. Far be it from me to cavil with that or to give advice. I am not here to do it, and I am not in a position to, either. The first point is I have had a quick look at clause 47 and the regulations and so on. They are very wideranging. That said, they do contemplate a range of categories of regulation of certain aspects that are otherwise dealt with on the merits in the course of the bill. It would therefore be a regulation, as I see it, that is reliant on clause 47(1) in its broad generality, but that is not where the problem is, it seems to me.

I completely understand, and we all understand, what is intended and who those constituent councils are going to be: Playford and Gawler, for the foreseeable future. The trouble is, even if it was possible to regulate—it may well be—you are still stuck with a definition of a constituent council that says that it is a council specified to be such in the Northern Parklands Trust's annual business plan. In the period prior to the annual business plan coming into existence, you are going to be reliant on the regulations. The question might be: is it not easier to just amend the definition to say it is Gawler and Playford, and then subsequently it is any other council you see named in the annual business plan?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I talked about the advice given by parliamentary counsel. Apparently, this is not an unknown issue, and transitional regulations were what were used to do it. In the spirit of bipartisanship and for the sake of completeness, I am happy to work with the member and the opposition to perhaps come up with a form of words between the houses that might absolutely cement the issue, because there is no doubt from the government's perspective they are the two councils that we want to be on the Northern Parklands Trust.

The CHAIR: Member for Flinders, do you want to say something on clause 4?

Mr TELFER: Clause 3—are we still on clause 3?

The CHAIR: No, we finished clause 3 before lunch.

Mr TEAGUE: Almost as a point of order, we have heard from the minister. What has just now happened has been an exchange in relation to something that the minister has brought back to the committee in relation to clause 3. Otherwise, I appreciate what the Chair has just said. That is the context in which we have just been dealing with what a constituent council is.

The CHAIR: We have actually dealt with clause 3. That has come and gone. However, if the member for Flinders wishes to raise a question specifically to the advice given by the minister and that alone, I am happy to allow it. If it is beyond that, I will not allow it.

Mr TELFER: It is beyond, but I am happy to go to clause 4. If clause 3 is already formally passed, then I am happy to go to clause 4.

The CHAIR: But I was happy to have a clarification on the advice brought back by the minister. Do you want to go to clause 4?

Mr TELFER: Yes. If clause 3 is passed already, then clause 4 is the natural next step for me.

The CHAIR: I don't know, it could have been 47!

Mr TELFER: I want to be thorough, sir.

The CHAIR: Well, 46 then!

Mr TELFER: It is sort of broaching across the two, because within clause 3 we saw a definition of 'eligible land', and clause 4 thus refers to eligible land, of which the definition was given in clause 3. Minister, in working through what is the expectation of eligible land from the government, I reflect on clause 3 and am asking my question on clause 4. Eligible land, as put in clause 3, refers to unalienated Crown land or land owned by or under the control of the minister—e.g., the state—or land owned by or under the care, control or management of a council.

Do you envision that there is a process within this aspect in particular where a council has the power to appeal the inclusion of eligible land within the area? What is the process as far as allocating what the eligible land would be? It is pretty broad in the definitions that we are reflecting on. What capacity does a council have or what powers does a council have perhaps under the bill to object or to appeal a decision to remove council control pursuant to the bill over a parcel of land?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: If you read on a little further, in clause 4(3) it says that the minister must consult with councils and must give due consideration to their views and submissions. What I would say is that this mainly involves land along the river that is currently held by Gawler Council. They have been slowly purchasing sections of the river themselves to form a linear park, but quite slowly. There is also Karbeethan Reserve, which is a sporting field—soccer and other sports—which is also subject to that.

Obviously, we are going to be consulting very closely and have been already with Gawler Council who are, if you like, the main council, because they cover the areas of both Gawler and Kudla. If you like, Playford is also in the trust because they look after Angle Vale, and there is a section of river coming down to Angle Vale as well. So that gives you a bit of the geography around it, but the intention is to work with councils. We have already had a huge amount of consultation as a result of the Greater Adelaide Regional Plan, and also on a whole range of other issues that are going on regarding the Kudla code amendment, which will require a great deal of consultation and agreement with the Gawler Council.

Mr TELFER: On my reading of the bill—and you talk about what the intention of the bill is and what land to include—it is not limited to the land that you are particularly talking about; it is any council land potentially. Am I reading this wrong? This is the bit where the intention is not necessarily, from my perspective, reflected in the legislation of what it is trying to achieve. It is quite broad in its scope of the parameters that the legislation has put forward.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: A point of clarification, because we have been quite deliberate with the establishment of the GRO plans: are you talking about land that might not be contiguous or related to the Northern Parklands?

Mr TELFER: Yes. The scope within this part of the legislation seems fairly broad, and it could include any council land which may be included under that umbrella, on my reading of it.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: For the acquisition of the land (a), there is a process in there to follow, and (b), it would have to be for the purposes of the parklands. I do not think you could then extrapolate from that that you could seize the town hall or something like that. It would have to be for the purposes of the Northern Parklands Trust.

Mr TELFER: I am just following the bouncing ball a little bit with the legislation. Paragraph (b) provides:

a variation to the Northern Parklands may not be made unless the Minister—

with the parameters under that including having to give 'written notice of the proposed variation to any council that would be affected by the variation'. You talked about consultation; this is talking about 'notice'. 'This is the final decision, this is what we are doing, here is written notice.' What do you envision that process looking like? I would not say that the current minister would do something like this, but within this legislation these powers would be absolutely vested in the minister to give written notice of a proposed variation to a council or to Crown lands, or otherwise, to include a parcel of land, a portion of land, into the Northern Parklands area.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Clause 4(3)(b)(iv) provides that the minister must have given:

consideration to any submission made in response to a notice under this paragraph within a period (of between 3 and 6 weeks) specified by the Minister in the relevant notice;

So there is a process there, in effect, for the council to make submissions and be given a hearing, and obviously the minister has to consider that, but we are talking about the creation of a park and the act is quite clear in what it is attempting to achieve. It is attempting to achieve a Northern Parklands. In both the initial GRO and the subsequent GRO those plans have both been out there in the public domain.

Mr TELFER: I get that bit, but I am reading the legislation as it stands alone, and the purpose of the parklands, as you speak about it, even that in itself is very, very broad. It could be sporting, entertainment, biodiversity or tourism. It is quite broad and thus the scope within the legislation that is given potentially includes whatever is at the whim of a minister. Are there safeguards, or greater parameters that should be put in place—and we are talking about a process which is going to be going for years, for decades—to ensure that there is not any ambiguity around what, firstly, the intent is, but secondly, what the powers of a minister are when considering what may be adapted, be changed or be added into the process?

You are talking about between three and six weeks, but three and six weeks goes pretty quickly when it comes to trying to work out a process. If you have a headstrong minister who may just want to make a decision on the fly, they could be making a decision about the construction of a sporting facility, a building, or whatever it might be. That is the aspect which I am cautious about when forming the basis for what this legislation is trying to achieve.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I think the safeguard is that even if a future minister was to become too headstrong or wilful the land falls to the trust. It does not fall into the minister's control. It falls into the trust's control, and the councils have representatives on the trust itself. The safeguard is twofold. The first thing is you have a process at the beginning, and that process would undoubtedly be a public process, given what we know about councils and ministers and the like. The second thing is that the land would only ever fall into the Northern Parklands Trust and that, in and of itself, is a safeguard for the public interest. I guess the member is worried about some future circumstance where a minister is wilful or—

Mr Telfer interjecting:

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Whatever it might be, perhaps idealistic in a sort of headstrong way.

Mr Telfer interjecting:

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Yes, that can happen too, but anybody who has dealt with councils as a minister and anybody who has dealt with boards or trusts as a minister understands the extent of their powers, as they should, and so I think that is a safeguard in the legislation.

Mr Telfer: The minister can direct the trust, though.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Well, that is true. We will get to the directions issue later on, but again that is a standard thing in many of our boards and trusts as well. That is the answer for you.

Mr TEAGUE: Just quickly, from the point of view of the drafting of this provision and in line with what the member for Flinders has already contributed, we have a definition of 'eligible land' that is basically a definition of land as such. It is a general definition. It is not saying eligible land is land that is characterised by anything other than its status as unalienated, but it could be, on the face of that definition, Crown land anywhere in the state. Then you have to go to the clause to find out the process by which that is added to the Northern Parklands, and it is a bit of a one-way journey, because getting it removed from the Northern Parklands later is a harder process, in that it requires the houses of parliament to do that.

In neither one of those is there a delimiting area or nature of the land within its broader definition or any criteria around the minister forming a view, so you might expect to find that in clause 4, in order to add it, the minister first has to form a view that it is appropriate or something. You do not have it in the definition section, and so you are just left with, as the member for Flinders has put it, more or less any land in the state and the minister following the steps necessary in order to add it to the Northern Parklands.

It is not implausible that, in some future interpretation of the world that might abide at that time, Northern Parklands could be anywhere. There is no indication that there is any intent that it be contiguous. It could be broadly somewhere in the north and this mechanism could be used to add it to then what is known as the greater Northern Parklands. Who knows? It is not a wild hypothetical, in my view as well. That is, though, what we are left with on the face of the bill.

I just draw attention to, possibly, the desirability either to have eligible land defined as something that is sort of relating it to the land that has already been defined in subclause 1 and/or some sort of stipulation that the minister has to be satisfied that it is somehow meeting some merit criteria, not just following the necessary process.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I understand members' questions but this is modelled on the Linear Parks Act. It is more or less word for word, a very similar clause. We have not seen abuse by ministers in the Linear Parks Act. We have only seen the Linear Parks Act be useful for positive outcomes from governments of all persuasions.

I understand the motivations for the questions but first of all there is already something in the Linear Parks Act. It is more or less word for word, a similar clause. Secondly, there is already a range of powers in the planning act, in the Urban Renewal Act and a range of other acts, which allow for the purchase of land in one form or another. Again, those powers have been mostly not used by ministers and if they have been used they have been used judiciously. I understand the concern outlined by the opposition but I do not think that their worst fears are warranted.

Mr TEAGUE: By reference first specifically to subclause (1) but then to the process that is contemplated in subclauses (2) and subsequently, has the government received any advice about whether either of those has an effect of alienating any native title, and is there any native title involved? And in the broad, has the government consulted the Local and State Voice about the bill? This might be a convenient point to ask.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I have not sought specific advice about the native title aspect of it but I have not been alerted to any issues in regard to native title. What we have done, and we might get to this later on about the composition of the board, is there is a specific reference to having a First Nations person as defined by the First Nations Voice Act 2023. I think it is a very important aspect of the bill that we do that. Obviously, in every river area or everywhere there is water, humans tend to congregate around rivers and around fresh water generally. Indeed, that was the way Adelaide was situated for just that reason. We see that that representation is very important. It has elevated to the board level and we think that is sufficient to deal with any issues that might come up.

Mr TEAGUE: To perhaps reiterate but bearing in mind in particular that importance, has the Local or the State Voice been consulted about the bill at any point?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: There has been no specific consultation on it.

Clause passed.

Clause 5 passed.

Clause 6.

Mr TELFER: Minister, this leads on from the questions that I have been asking about the previously put clauses. Clause 6 here gives the minister power to establish new parklands simply by depositing a plan in the GRO without many other restrictions. You referred to the Linear Parks Act, and the Linear Parks Act is more definitive, on my reading of it, and this one speaks specifically about the River Torrens and adds a level of parameter within that definition.

The concept of the Northern Parklands is somewhat in the eye of the beholder really. Is there any restriction to the parts of South Australia that this could apply to? You speak about basically copying and pasting from the Linear Parks Act, but could the minister simply by depositing a plan in the GRO take control over council-owned land in Port Lincoln or Mount Gambier or Murray Bridge?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The Linear Parks Act talks about the Torrens but allows for other linear parks to be created, if you look at it, and it is exactly the same in this act as well. This act establishes the Northern Parklands Trust and the Northern Parklands. It then allows for other trusts to be created—we have yet to get to the clause but there is a fairly strong mechanism around that. The answer to your question is technically yes, but a government minister would be unlikely to do so because it is clearly ridiculous: under the Northern Parklands Trust, I am going to try to take the town square in Kapunda. I think that would be a bridge too far.

The ultimate test on a minister would be obviously the broad public interest. But why would you do that when, if you wanted to establish a park somewhere else, there is a Linear Parks Act, there is a range of other acts where you could do that, and there is also the ability under this act to create another trust which would better reflect that local area. If you were going to do it in a country area you would obviously have different constituent councils and, just for the good order of things, that is what you would do.

What we clearly want is for the Northern Parklands to be created and the Northern Parklands Trust to administer it. We have defined the councils quite clearly in the debate. If you were going to try to replicate it somewhere else you would set up a separate trust, which is provided for in the act.

Mr TELFER: Once again, this is reflective of the legislation and not the current minister. Does the bill contain powers—you speak about the powers it does contain and say technically, yes—for the state government to take control of the Adelaide Parklands?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: We specifically exclude the Adelaide Parklands. The reason we do so is not because I do not think a trust model might not be appropriate, but I do think the Adelaide Parklands are an established parklands. It is already Crown land and is under the care and control of the council, and has been for many, many decades, and I think to include it in this act would be not an appropriate mechanism, so we have deliberately excluded it.

Mr TELFER: In the comparisons that we are doing with the Linear Parks Act, the other obvious difference for mine is that the Linear Parks Act does not have the capacity to require the raising of a levy or costs from a council. You said that technically, yes, this could give the minister the capacity to take land and include it within. Also, with that other aspect of the cost-raising, could it be used by the government to take control of a piece of land, wherever it might be—you spoke about the intention of the legislation—and then compel local councils to pay for the management of that land with that additional aspect, which is in here, as opposed to the Linear Parks Act?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I will begin with your fears first, and then I will answer the technical aspect of the bill.

Mr Telfer: I don't fear; I am just asking questions.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Your fear is, or your question is: could the government take control of a piece of land and force the council to pay for it? Essentially, the Linear Parks Act allows the minister to declare a linear park, and then the council is forced to take care of it because they end up with care and control.

Mr Telfer interjecting:

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: No, just hear me out. There are already provisions that effectively work the way the member talks about, but in reverse. What we are trying to do with this bill is set up a trust. We already have a trust model, the West Beach Trust, that has been operating for many, many decades. It has local government representation; it has a way of funding itself. What we are trying to do with this trust is to provide a new model for urban parks—and it is a new model—that allows the trust itself to have a small ability to raise revenue, and the purposes for which it can spend that revenue are stipulated, and there are a whole lot of safeguards around that.

The idea is not to rob local government or burden them but, rather, to create good urban parks that run past or along many council boundaries. It is an ability, if you like, to create revenue. The revenue for the Northern Parklands Trust and for the acquisition of land will also come from the code amendments and the open space requirements in the development of Kudla. There will be a huge requirement to provide open space in Kudla anyway, so some of that will be created in the Northern Parklands.

The other bit of it is obviously to be able to pay for the trust to maintain the parks, much in the same way as the council maintains the parks, and that is by getting a sustainable funding mechanism. Obviously, there will have to be, for both the trust and the council, a good working relationship because the council is on the board of the trust. Also, we are going to require Shared Services agreements around workforce and the like to make sure we get the efficiencies that we need. These clauses are about the creation of a new model for urban parks, but in effect they amalgamate a few different acts, or ideas or clauses from a few different acts, to be able to do that.

Mr TELFER: Clarification from my comments attached to my question: you are talking about the Linear Parks Act having the power to obligate ownership of councils, so the requirement for them to do the upkeep, etc. The difference is that within this legislation there is now a middle entity—being the trust—that will obligate the level of service, the level of what it expects the Northern Parklands will look like. It is not councils.

You speak about the membership on the board, but it is only two of seven from constituent councils, so obviously not a majority. You are giving power to a trust with minority representation from a council to decide on a level of service and thus decide on the level of contribution from the councils that they will then be obligated to pay. We talk later on in the clauses, whether I ask questions or not at the time, where it sets out the capacity of the trust to be able to hold a debt against the council's name. It can rack up a bill, and if there is a disagreement between a council and the trust the power is all within the capacity of the trust.

This is the bit where I am wondering what capacity there is for a council to ensure that there is not a situation where its ratepayers are being expected to take on an extra obligation from what their expectations are, because this is where the Northern Parklands Trust have decided the level of service or the level of input is required and thus require it of the council and its ratepayers.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I think the member has been reading forwards, but he should also read forwards to clause 15, which outlines that the trust has to establish these things in its annual business plan. Its annual business plan has to be approved by the minister, and that ultimately can be disallowed by both houses of parliament. That is the standard way this parliament provides a level of scrutiny and oversight to ministerial or executive power that is appropriate.

Later on in the bill there is a very clear clause about how and when the trust can apply such levies, and it is not just simply that the councils are outvoted on the board. It is that the trust has to come up with a business plan, and the business plan has to be approved by the minister and both houses of parliament. That is the standard way in which we make sure, in this parliament, the many, many things that hit the disallowance motion over in the other place. That is the accountability mechanism that prevents what the member fears.

Clause passed.

Clause 7.

Mr TELFER: How many statutory trusts does the minister envisage will be created pursuant to this bill, and what are they?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: As you would have heard in my second reading speech, my singular passion is the Northern Parklands Trust and the establishment of the Northern Parklands. That will be a large endeavour in and of itself. However, just as with the Linear Parks Act, we have left capacity for future ministers and future governments to establish new trusts if they so wish.

Just looking at the workload alone for the Northern Parklands and for the establishment of Kudla, I would not anticipate much appetite for any other trusts at this point. Equally, part of the legacy of this legislation is not just to leave a very good urban park in the northern suburbs, but a new model for urban parks. If is it successful—and I have every reason to believe it will be—we want to leave the capacity for the minister and the government of the day, and indeed the parliament, to be able to establish new ones.

Mr TELFER: So there is no limitation within this legislation to the number of statutory trusts that can be created under this bill?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: They are established by regulation and, again, they can be disallowed, so in that respect there is always parliamentary oversight and control. Just as in the Linear Parks Act, the exact same provisions occur. We have one linear park around the Torrens, and that was obviously why the act was created, but they have left capacity for other linear parks to be created if governments wish to do so.

Mr TEAGUE: Apart from this being modelled on another form of parks legislation, is there any example of how this might be deployed—a second or multiple trust associated with the Northern Parklands?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: No, because this is an entirely new proposition. As I said before, this is taking the combination of a number of other acts—West Beach Trust, Linear Parks—and putting them together. I would think that would give some assurance to the opposition that in actual fact we are acting broadly in a long continuum of the creation of parks in this. Obviously, the Northern Parklands and the Northern Parklands Trust is the first. It might be the only. If it is successful, it might be replicated.

Just as an aside, I have a planning report from the late 1950s-early 1960s that has a section on metropolitan parks. It hints at this sort of model. I think that was probably the origin story of the West Beach Trust. Parliament set that up. It is a very, very good model but it is a smaller model and it maintains itself out of its commercial activities—as I know the member knows, because he has been minister as well.

Mr Teague: I have been criticised for my appointments to that—

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I did. In a moment of intemperate—

Mr Teague interjecting:

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: No, I have reappointed some of those appointments. I thought you had forgotten about that, my moment of intemperate criticism of you. I would not make it with this level of experience now; I know how difficult these things are.

The issue is to create a new model for an urban park. Make no mistake, this has not been done before, but we are using established legislative models, if you like, and combining them to be able to create this. The Northern Parklands, in both its stage 1 and stage 2 forms, is such a large amount of work. We are not trying to walk before we run here, let us put it that way.

Mr TELFER: Just for clarification and reflecting on those answers, future trusts that could be formed from this clause in particular do not need to be in northern Adelaide—they could be anywhere in South Australia? If so, with the powers and the capacity that this legislation gives the minister, it could be any council within South Australia that could potentially have exposure to the powers of this legislation under the capacity for it to be able to form a statutory trust, as put in this clause in particular but obviously in the title and the explanation of the bill?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: We might be getting ahead of ourselves, because there is a whole clause 21 later on.

Mr TELFER: It will save you questions later.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I just think it is probably easier from a debate point of view, because I do not want to move forward. Effectively, the purpose of this bill is to set up the Northern Parklands and the Northern Parklands Trust. As with other acts, it allows for the establishment of other trusts. Clause 21, later on, gives us all of the criteria that one might have to go through to do that.

Of course, I cannot speak for future ministers or for future governments out decades as to what they may or may not do in that regard. I can only tell you this government's intention, and our intention is to create a model for urban parks in particular, because I think there are other mechanisms for parks in other parts of the state which provide for high-quality urban amenity and high-quality parks which communities want. The northern suburbs want ovals, they want sporting fields, they want walking tracks desperately, so this is a mechanism to provide that in a sustainable way.

Clause passed.

Clause 8.

Mr TELFER: This particular clause provides for the sale of land. The sale of land can only come after the acquisition of it. It states:

…land within trust parklands may not be sold or otherwise disposed of except in accordance with a resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament.

It is a robust process. But in reflecting on the powers of this bill, setting aside the intention, would those powers, plus the capacity within clause 8, be used to take control of a piece of council land—which I think we reflected on earlier in clause 4—have it for a period of time within a trust and then dispose of the land, with a gap in between or otherwise?

You give me a furrowed brow, but I look at the legislation as it is presented. It gives the capacity for unalienated land to be acquired from a council, and then at some point in the future, whatever that point may be—one day later or 50 years later—they could then onsell sale that land. Am I reading this legislation correctly, or is it another example of, 'Trust me, we're not going to do it, and hopefully no-one in the future does'?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Again, it has been modelled on the Linear Parks Act. The reason why we do that is that we do not want to establish parks and then have them privatised or disposed of. I think there was some debate with the member for Elizabeth talking about how that exact proposition has occurred in Elizabeth. This clause is there to protect, if you like, the parklands. It is established. In regard to the scenario that the honourable member puts forward, why would a minister put themselves through such a strange pathway when there are already powers of compulsory acquisition under both the planning and urban renewal acts? Why would a state minister—

Mr TELFER: It is just naming it within the GRO.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: You pose a hypothetical question to me, and I am just posing a hypothetical question back. Why would a minister who wanted to effectively compulsorily acquire land from a council and then dispose of it again use this act when they have a range of other acts where they could do it far more quickly and efficiently? You would not use this act if that was your intent. Indeed, most of these acts require a degree of looking at the whole act, looking at its intent and also looking at what it is modelled on in the Linear Parks Act, and I do not think in this case it is modelled on that clause or similar clauses.

Mr TELFER: I am not responding to the question but reflecting on that question itself. On my reading of it, the acquisition of an allocation of land is not that complicated within this act and, also, there is no obligation for any level of compensation, whereas within other acts there is that requirement to be able to do so. Although you reflect that this might be the hardest piece of legislation to require it, this is a way for the ownership capacity to be transferred into the trust without a level of compensation to a council.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I am trying not to be a bit frustrated, but if you look at clause 45 it deals with the Land Acquisition Act. It is important that we go clause by clause. You do not say, 'Well, you could do this fanciful scenario' when a later clause would prevent that. Those other acts that you talk about have exactly the same reference to the Land Acquisition Act. If you want to discuss clause 45 at clause 45, let's do that, but it is hard to in committee stage—and I am thankful for the bipartisanship, and I understand the legitimate concerns, but we have built into this bill safeguards to prevent adventurous ministers, if you like, from exceeding commonsense initiatives.

Clause passed.

Clause 9.

Mr TELFER: This clause specifies the roads aspect in particular. Could the powers of this bill be used to build or even maintain a road in the trust parkland and require that obligation for councils without the agreement of the council? You talk about the business plan aspect, which we will get to in a bit. Does it provide that obligation on councils to have to cover infrastructure costs in a linear park? This is about roads, but it is also probably legitimate when talking about stormwater infrastructure or bridges within a park or whatever it might be. On my reading of it, that extra obligation is baked into this legislation.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Again, it is from the Linear Parks Act, so it is almost clause for clause and word for word but then adjusted for the trust. It is so that the trust can undertake roadworks and maintain them. That is why the clause is there. I want to assure the member that state governments have to work with councils on parks—they have to work with them all the time. This is another level of working with them, no doubt about it, but the provision here is in the Linear Parks Act which allows essentially councils to do the roadworks. In this instance, it will be the trust doing the roadworks.

Clause passed.

Clause 10.

Mr TELFER: I have just a quick question on this clause, specifically clause 10(4), where it says:

Land may be included in trust parklands (and placed under the care, control and management of a statutory trust) even if the land has been dedicated under another Act or law for a purpose and despite that purpose.

This is one about which I would not mind an explanation. Would it include university lands or airport lands or the Waite Trust even, theoretically?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It could not include airport lands, because the airport lands are owned by the commonwealth and we have no planning control over them at all.

Mr Telfer: That's Adelaide Airport.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: No, it is nearly every airport I think. Anyway, we can check that. We can have a debate about airports, but certainly the airports in Adelaide—Parafield and Adelaide Airport—and I think all the other airports were privatised under the same act. So even if they were council owned they would still retain very similar powers.

Basically that clause is there if a minister, sometime in the future, wanted to establish a trust over a linear park, for instance, or an established park. That would be if a minister decided, at some point in the future, to establish a trust over a linear park. That is there to enable this legislation to allow that to occur.

Mr TELFER: The other aspect here in clause 10(5) is the revocation of community land. The Local Government Act obviously contains very prescriptive requirements for the revocation of community land, and there has been some public discourse around the state about some of that action or the proposals. Can community land be transferred to the trust parklands without the mandatory requirement to consult with local communities, as councils have to do within their legislative requirements under the Local Government Act?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Yes, that is exactly right. Essentially, the processes under this act override the community revocation process, which, as you point out, is controversial and often long. It is a difficult process for councils; I have seen them go through it. However, the protections in this act, and creating a parklands under this act and having the previous clause which requires both houses of parliament to accede to any sale, essentially puts a high level protection arrangement around the parklands. So it comes out of the community pool and it goes into the parklands pool and into the trust and it is then protected by this act as opposed to the other one.

Clause passed.

Clauses 11 to 13 passed.

Clause 14.

Mr TELFER: We have touched a little bit on the functions and the seemingly wide scope that has been provided within this. In particular, it provides:

(a) to administer and develop the Northern Parklands in accordance with its long-term strategic and annual business plans—

(i) as a sporting, cultural and recreational complex of State-wide significance;

We heard some of the contributions in the second reading speech. Could the Northern Parklands Trust use powers under the bill as presented to build an international-scale sporting facility, a museum or a major hotel with an associated golf course within the parameters of the trust functions as set out here—tourist attraction and resort, etc.? The parameters here are fairly wideranging. Can you reflect on that and on the specifics in particular?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: First of all, these clauses have been modelled on the West Beach Trust, which, as I said before—

Mr Telfer interjecting:

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Bear with me. You are right—that is a limited area—but the West Beach Trust punches well above their weight. I should put on record my affection for the West Beach Trust, because they are an easy organisation for ministers. They do not ask for terribly much money and they are a great asset to the state. It is actually a terrific model, and so we basically modelled this clause on what they do.

That said, the trust still has to have a long-term strategic plan. It still has to have an annual business plan and it still has to go through the normal planning controls and planning system. It cannot just roll up and build something, and obviously they also have to operate within budgets and the like. There would not be the capacity to go off on some act of adventurism, I do not think.

But could they run a caravan park? Could they run some profit-making entity that helps to fund other aspects of the Northern Parklands? Yes, and indeed, we want the trust to do that. We want the trust to run, as the West Beach Trust does, sensible arrangements, sensible entities to actually add value to the Northern Parklands. That said, it is not just a commercial activity. There is a whole range of other things that they need to do and, as I said before, they would have a strategic plan, an annual business plan and the objects of the act to abide by.

Mr TELFER: There is also, upon my reading of this aspect, the capacity for them to outsource those commercial activities under a lease arrangement. Subclause (3) provides:

…the Northern Parklands Trust must not grant a lease or licence over the Northern Parklands, or a part of the Northern Parklands, for a term exceeding 20 years without the approval of the Minister.

It could be up to 20 years that they can just, at the discretion of the Northern Parklands Trust, lease over some or all of the parklands area, as designated within the legislation, to a commercial entity, and also the provision is here between 20 and 50 years for a lease—so up to 50 years—purely with the approval of a minister.

So there could be an aspirational commercial operation within the Northern Parklands area. Maybe for a period of 50 years the Northern Parklands Trust will lease out an area of their Northern Parklands for the development of a world-class golf course or high-rise hotel, if the business case fits those investors. Then, absolutely, for a term exceeding 50 years there are additional provisions and parameters that are required for a minister. Up to 20 years, purely at the discretion of the trust and between 20 and 50 years, purely at the discretion of the minister.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The trust has a power of up to 20 years, as you point out. That is the same as the West Beach Trust. And that, I guess, is one of the reasons why the trust is at the direction of the minister, too, in that regard. That 20-year period actually stops a lot of investment because it is too short. The West Beach Trust has those powers. I do not think that the Northern Parklands Trust will operate them any differently from the West Beach Trust; that is, they will only do it if it is in the interests of the trust.

The second thing is: is 20 years long enough if you are dealing with big capital investments? Well, probably not. We have picked 50 years but only with the agreement with the minister. Yes, they can do these things but we have had a long experience with the West Beach Trust in this regard with 20-year leases. There are areas that have been leased down at West Beach Trust and I am sure the member for Heysen has had briefings about this on one occasion or another.

Having to create commercial entities to fund the other facilities, inherent in that is having to make these judgments about value and worth. The trust will be best placed to do that for leases up to 20 years and for longer than that, at the approval of the minister.

Mr TELFER: Reflecting on your comparisons between the West Beach Trust and the Northern Parklands Trust, obviously the West Beach Trust is, I think, around about, from my memory in local government times, 130 hectares, give or take off the top my head, and we are talking about a significantly larger—

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: We could look it up.

Mr TELFER: I am sure we could find it pretty easily. It is a significant landholding here. The restrictions of the existing parameters of the West Beach Trust land obligations obviously do restrict the potential commercial operations within that footprint. A 1,000-hectare site ranging across a pretty significant swathe does open up the potential for a variety of different potential commercial operations that could be run for 20 to 50 years, or even the associated stormwater infrastructure or whatever it might be. Is there capacity for there to be commercial operations within the footprint of the Northern Parklands legislation? Does that line up with the perspective of the government that you are putting out that this is all about providing public amenity to community to build that community structure around?

We reflect on some of the speeches that were made and the necessity for there to be publicly accessible available land. If you are saying there is scope within this legislation for the trust to decide to lease out to commercial operators or an otherwise significant swathe or all of the Parklands, is that not a bit back to front with what the public perspective is of what this legislation is trying to achieve?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The West Beach Trust is actually a very significant piece of land and very well located. In that respect it is illustrative that, albeit smaller, it is still a substantial park, substantial land, and what would be seen to be very high-value land because of its proximity to the beach. It runs a very successful caravan park that has very successful occupancy which helps to fund all the other functions of the park. The golf course there is, again, very successful post COVID, so that is a good thing.

I envisage the Northern Parklands Trust operating in exactly the same way, but I would imagine that the Northern Parklands Trust would utilise less of its land for commercial activities. That said, there is a strategic plan which has to come to the minister, and there is an annual business plan that has to come to the minister, and I doubt any minister would agree to the commercialisation of the whole of the Northern Parklands as, obviously, that would be a contradiction in terms.

The reason for this ability is to run the park. It is to provide facilities that make profit so that you can run the rest of the park, or assist the rest of the park, and take the pressure off ratepayers and take the pressure off, if you like, sporting clubs and the range. This is all about a sensible ability for both the trust and the minister to provide centres which you can get significant investment into and draw significant profit from so that you can do all the other functions of the park, which no doubt we will talk about later.

Clause passed.

Clause 15.

Mr TELFER: This clause is obviously pretty significant. In the reading of it, it seems to give the Northern Parklands Trust enormous powers, really, when it comes to the publishing of its annual plan: powers to expand the scope of its own power, plans to increase the amount of land that it controls, to increase the number of councils that it charges and to impose new property taxes, essentially. Do you have any other examples of legislation where such broad powers have been granted to a statutory authority?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It is modelled on an act that you would no doubt be familiar with, the Landscape South Australia Act. With the mechanism we use, again, we have tried to be consistent with other acts. You cannot build such a big, significant set of parklands without public investment. Public investment always comes from somewhere, as we know.

What we are trying to do in the first instance is to use significant amounts of government land—and that should be noted. This is land that we could have just put on the market and sold, done the normal open space requirement and that would have been job done. But we have deliberately used government land that was bought in the seventies, two years after I was born or thereabouts. We have used that land, and we are obviously looking at some of the council portions, and then what we will do is use open space and infrastructure contributions from the rezoning of Kudla, which will create significant value for landowners and developers.

What we are simply going to do is use some of that money to establish a more significant Northern Parklands. This allows the trust to sustain that because we do not want to make a big investment at the start and then have it all fall away. The easy thing to do would have been to vest this back to council, too. We could have just done a linear park and vested it back to council, and then it would be all of Gawler council's problems, all of Playford council's problems. They would have paid the whole lot and they would still—

Mr Telfer interjecting:

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: No, but the effect would have been the same. With such long linear parks, which stretch over a couple of council boundaries and which are of state significance, we think it is best to have a trust manage them. Obviously, you have to establish them and then you have to be able to fund them. The landscape levy, that has been modelled out of that act, allows the mechanism to do that in a transparent and known way—because we have done it in other parts of the state—that will be familiar to those in local government. In that respect, it is a stable and known initiative.

Mr TELFER: Does this clause set out the requirements for the trust to consult with the council before imposing any charges? Does it require the trust to look at the financial sustainability perhaps of a council or its ratepayers before imposing charges? It talks about clearly showing requirements of contributions from constituent councils, but what mechanisms are in place for councils to perhaps raise concerns about the level of costs that are being required of them to contribute to the trust?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Subclause 5(b) and (c).

Mr TELFER: I was looking at that particular aspect earlier, but it does not require the trust to take it into consideration. It talks about taking steps to consult with each constituent council in accordance with any requirements of the minister, but to require them to actually adapt to any of the aspects. You speak about paragraphs (b) and (c) and the requirement at the end of the consultation to 'prepare a report to the Minister on the outcome of those processes in that consultation'. If there is a minister or a trust that wants to have a certain outcome for a certain level of levy to be raised, it does not fill me with a lot of confidence that the concerns and perspectives of the ratepayers of particular councils will be appropriately adhered to.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: In clause 15, subclauses (9), (10) and (11) outline the mechanism of this house to oversee the application of this levy. I made a slight mistake before when I said the other house as well, but that relates to another part of the act, so I will correct that—it is what happens when we jump ahead. In terms of that, what greater protection could one have than this assembly and the ability for the opposition to ask questions, debate and bring scrutiny to those things, in the same way council rates are set now? The honourable member would have had the joy of that process. This will have, if anything, a higher level of scrutiny because it comes here.

Mr TELFER: A higher level of scrutiny but based on a lesser knowledge of the intricacies of the finances. You did make the point that, within the aspects to follow, the subclauses empower the House of Assembly but not the Legislative Council to disallow a prescribed levy proposal.

I am curious on this, in particular. We know the intricacies of the work between the houses. Why, within this legislation, is the Legislative Council denied the important power to be able to disallow the exercise of very broad administrative and taxation powers and rather vest that within the House of Assembly? As we could often consider, if there is a perspective of a minister, the minister will always have the power of the numbers in the House of Assembly. Although you talk about the vigour of a process that is followed, the minister will always have the numbers here but not necessarily in the other place. Why not include either house within this part of the legislation in particular?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Again, I have to admit my plagiarism of other acts. This comes exactly from the Landscape South Australia Act 2019. It is very similar; in fact, it is exactly the same process with exactly the same provisions.

Mr TELFER: Just reflecting then, minister, on the effect of clause 15(13) if we look at passing a resolution. If the House of Assembly disallows a levy that levy will have to be paid by councils anyway. It is a bit of a camel of a bill you have been describing to me: a bit from the Landscapes Board, a bit from the West Beach Trust, a bit from Linear Park and a bit from the wisdom of the minister, or otherwise. Is clause 15(13) really just highlighting that the power of the house to disallow the levy is a bit of an illusion?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: There is a clear provision: if you disallow then the prescribed levy ceases to have effect. Then there is clause 15(13)(b), which obviously allows the business plan to provide for an increase to the amount being paid, adjusted for CPI. So there is a strong provision there which, as I said before, is modelled on the Landscape South Australia Act.

I would not say I am putting a camel together here. I would say that what we are doing is taking a range of legislative instruments and building a Ferrari. If those opposite were in government they would at some point, no doubt, get to do sections of this great park—and why wouldn't you? It would be a great shared project together.

As I said before, you have to be able to fund the park, establish and fund it, and the mechanisms under this act are all known mechanisms from other acts. That should give some faith to the member that there are safeguards and provisions within it.

Mr TEAGUE: At clause 15, but on the theme we have addressed in relation to the constituent councils in circumstances where, for example, subclause (4) is permitting—or more than that, requiring—that the annual business plan is the place where you find the requirements for contributions from constituent councils, and in numerous provisions throughout the balance of the clause relating to obligations on constituent councils, I come back to the definition of constituent council, which is wholly and solely to be found by it having been described as such or specified to be a constituent council in the annual business plan.

I am just wondering about the intent of the statutory structure there, because there is nothing in clause 15 that says, 'And another key purpose of the annual business plan is to provide a mechanism by which the trust can deliberate and bestow upon a council: guess what? Lucky you, you are a constituent council now and therefore you are up for things like contributions to levies and so on.' But for all that to do any work, presumably that is all in contemplation and that is where you would find it. You would have the trust deliberating, perhaps there has been some land added, there is another council that might be involved, and yet clause 15 is silent about what, if any, deliberation is to be attendant upon a council deriving that status and therefore all the obligations that will flow from it.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: We are back to subclause (5)(b): if a council was made a constituent council under subclause (5)(b), you can take it that there would be steps to consult and at the conclusion of the processes, as subclause (5)(c) reads on:

…prepare a report to the minister on the outcome of those processes and that consultation.

I understand the member's apprehension. Because it is disallowable as there is a minister there and there is a disallowance ability for this chamber, that is enough control to prevent adventurism in regard to 'hypothetically speaking we name some council in some other part of the state.' I understand the scenario, but it is my guess that even if it was proposed it would be unlikely to be successful.

Mr TEAGUE: Sorry, but subclause (5)(b) might be the central means. If all we have is (5)(b), then the difficulty is that by the time you are at (5)(b) the trust is proposing payments by constituent councils but it is not providing the means by which a council becomes a constituent council. It is proposing arrangements under which a constituent council is going to be called on to make a contribution.

It is a bit like saying to someone, 'I have just deemed you a member of this organisation and now I'm going to tell you all about the contribution that you are going to have to make, and in those circumstances I'm going to take steps to consult with you.' But it is like it misses a step and we are left relying on subclause (5)(b), much in the same way as we seem to be missing a step on the face of the whole bill as to where we get the constituent councils from in the first place.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I guess a key obligation of when the rubber hits the road in terms of becoming a constituent council is when you are obliged to pay the levy, which is when the consultation is. The thing that I suppose would give some comfort to the opposition is (8), (9) and (10), but (8) in particular. If you are a minister, we all understand what happens the moment a council is consulted: they arrive at the minister's door if they feel they are aggrieved in any way.

Mr Teague: Is that right? Is that the first they will hear of it?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: In circumstances where subclause (5)(b) occurs, that is when the consultation occurs. That is the point at which it would be of relevance to them too. As I said before, subclauses (8), (9) and (10) are very strong provisions to prevent the scenario where councils are roped in in a way that is unfair or unjust.

Mr TEAGUE: I appreciate the answer, and it might be of benefit for the public record and for those people, including those in the Local Government Association—responsible officers and so on—who are looking to navigate the practicalities of this. The point is not so much the practicalities of safeguards and negotiation about what is going to be imposed on whom but how this is going to happen in the first place, especially given the definition of a constituent council.

You would sort of think that there might be some body of subsection within this clause that says, 'If ever the trust considers adding a constituent council, it would go through the following steps, etc.' Yes, subclause (8) says the minister has to approve the annual business plan. So if the minister does not like the sound of a business plan that says, 'By the way, new constituent councils X, Y and Z'—there are subclauses (8), (9) and (10), sure—there is just not a primary process by which you become a constituent council that I can see on the face of the clause and therefore limited, if any, guidance for the proper process by which the trust is expected to go about determining an additional constituent council.

Again, bear in mind what has gone before about the intent being that Playford and Gawler are the two. Playford and Gawler might be left at a bit of a loss and say, 'Hang on, we think next-cab-off-the-rank council ought to be a constituent council. Do we just proceed with a (5)(b) consultation with them and then refer to them being constituent in our business plan now as sort of an ipso facto situation?' Or is this dialogue in committee the furthest that goes and otherwise it is subclause (5)(b) and let it all go along?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: I think the point at which you become a constituent council is the point at which you pay levies. You will not be a constituent council unless you pay a levy. The point at which, if you are in local government, this becomes real is the payment of a levy, so subclause (5)(b) provides that consultation. Subclause (5)(c) requires a report to be prepared to the minister for the outcome of those processes, and in subclause (8) the business plan requires the approval of the minister. All those provisions mean that there is adequate consultation and adequate approval mechanisms to make sure that it would not be an issue in practice, I do not think.

Mr TELFER: Do you envision, minister, the prescribed levy proposal between constituent councils would be the same, or is there going to be the potential that a Town of Gawler, who has a bigger buy-in to the park area, may be required to contribute a larger amount, as opposed to the City of Playford?

You spoke about it being based on the landscape board levy in particular. The difference with the landscape board levy is that baked into the legislation there are protections around limiting the increase to CPI, whereas within this proposal there is not any sort of additional protection. Although one aspect of it may be comparable, there are those additional protections that are not in this piece of legislation.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: You have jumped forward to clause 16, and the answer is clauses 16(2) and 16(4), which deal with both those issues.

Clause passed.

Clause 16.

Mr TEAGUE: We are here at part 4 and the Northern Parklands levy: clauses 16 to 20. I might do my best to ask a couple of questions that are likely to have some relevance across the balance of part 4. Perhaps in the broad, and bearing in mind that we now know that the constituent councils are Gawler and Playford, and that might be the case for the foreseeable future, and I think the contributions by those constituent councils are likely, if not inevitably, to sound as a specific addition to the rates charged to ratepayers in those two council areas, is the minister satisfied that arrangements are in place, first of all for those councils to divide between themselves such imposition of additional costs, and that ratepayers are sufficiently aware and satisfied as to the merits of that and content to pay those additional costs that councils are going to be passing on?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: In clause 15, there is actually a provision for the publication of the business plan and whatever contribution, so that specifically allows for public participation in that, and the second thing is the consultation that was done on the Greater Adelaide Regional Plan.

We did a huge amount of work on the Greater Adelaide Regional Plan. People understand the establishment of parks is part and parcel of the development. In this case, you have to remember that Kudla, which is going from a very, very low population base to over 10,000 homes, is going to generate a huge number of (a) ratepayers, but (b) it is also a huge number of open-space contributions as well. While these provisions are there for, if you like, sustainment, establishment of the park will be done out of the process of the rezoning as well. So there are obligations in the rezoning process and huge uplift for landowners and we are seeing evidence of that already out there.

Mr Teague interjecting:

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Well, it is a good thing. As the chair said, there was disinvestment in this land for 25 to 30 years, so it is a good thing. But as part of that code amendment process—and the other member talked about stormwater—stormwater will be paid for out of infrastructure schemes. The government has been quite clear that we intend to apply infrastructure schemes to public infrastructure that needs to be put in place and not leave it solely for councils to decide. We have seen this in Mount Barker, everybody talks about Mount Barker, but it is much worse in Angle Vale, I can tell you.

So we do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past, and we want to make sure there is an interlocking set of mechanisms that make sure that when you create a suburb you create facilities for a suburb. My experience with residents/ratepayers is that, as long as they know that the money they are paying is going to a real outcome, they might grizzle about it on the edges but they are happy to pay for it.

Mr TEAGUE: Just this further question then, which is in three parts. That is forward-looking, but we do not hear anything there about, 'No, I can give the ratepayers that assurance because they are already on notice that this is the size and shape of it.' It sounds like, no, that is to be seen but the merits are all there, so it will stack up down the track for them.

I guess there are three concerns. One is that it is a bit late by the time you see it in the business plan, because that is down the track if it is first seen there. Secondly, at least for the time being, the what might be front-loaded costs of the establishment of the park are likely to be borne by relatively fewer residents if the costs are annualised, which they are going to need to be to some extent. You have future growth of the local area to spread that burden, but at the outset if there is to be a contribution that the debt is then passed on to ratepayers, you have that smaller number at the beginning growing to a larger number down the track, but greater costs at the beginning that might pan out over time.

The third aspect of that is that as presently advised we are not to know whether those contributions are effectively all of the costs, or whether the state is going to be chipping in at the outset and/or continuing to chip in. Presumably we are going to find that out in the business plan as well, but can the minister perhaps address whether or not there is any equity balancer for current residents and/or indication of sharing by the state in terms of any of those costs at least before the business plan gets published?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: If you look at other stages of the bill, it talks specifically about three GRO plans. The first plan is basically related to council land and government land. It is likely that the first stages of the establishment of the Northern Parklands will be done on government land and that land is basically north of Main North Road up to the hill. We already hold that land and the land adjacent to it, so it is land adjacent for the parklands and then land adjacent to it.

Once we resolve some of the water and sewer questions—and they are, as with all these things, a substantial question—effectively the development agreement that will be done by Renewal SA for the sale of that land for housing will fund the first stages of the Northern Parklands. People talked about the South Gawler footy club. At the moment the South Gawler footy club is on a bit of council land that is prime land for development. The relocation of that club will come with a contribution no doubt from council, so that will occur.

So the first stages of the parklands actually will be far more traditional in terms of park creation, the open space requirements out of the sale of the land for housing, and then the second GRO plan plots how we will get from that land down to the river. As I said, Gawler council has already been buying up sections of the river to provide for a linear park, but just very slowly.

Again, when we get into that second GRO phase, we are likely to be doing concurrently, or parallel with it, the code amendment—and the honourable member has been through this process because he was a planning minister—which sets down all the infrastructure charges and open space requirements. Some of that open space requirement will be used to create the Northern Parklands to create it as contiguous, to fund the acquisition of, or developers and landowners will join together and say, 'We will provide this section so we can develop the other parts of our land', and that will develop as the code amendment process occurs.

In actual fact, the first stages of this—and I understand members are concerned about the council levy aspect of it—will be funded either by government developing its land or through the code amendment process and the infrastructure requirements that are around the development of land as part of that. That is why, if you like, the establishment will be done that way. This aspect of the levy is all about sustainment in the long term, because I do not want to establish a beautiful park and then have it fall away.

By nature, that will allow the trust to be appointed and to set up its first business plans, and its annual plans, and they have to be published. There will be a pretty regular rhythm, and I am sure people in Gawler and Playford keep an eye on these things. They are very cost conscious, so I am 100 per cent sure that this process, in a practical way, will operate in a very sensible way to create and sustain one of the great parks.

Mr TELFER: I seek clarification on a few of the points that you made in answer to the previous clause. The first one is around the obligation of the contribution by councils. This clause speaks about specifying the amount to be contributed by constituent councils. It will take into account all those different aspects that the councils are required to provide to assist. Subclause (2) states:

Liability for the amount to be contributed by constituent councils for the Northern Parklands region will be shared between them according to a scheme set out in the Northern Parklands Trust's annual business plan.

It does not say 'shared equally', so my assumption is that there is scope within this part of the act for there to be an unequal obligation that is decided, as I was putting before, between the contributing constituent councils. There could be a greater or lesser obligation, depending on what the trust decides is appropriate. Is that correct?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Yes, that is correct. It is the trust with the approval of the minister. If you look at the way the parklands is constructed, the majority of this is in Gawler and Kudla, which is the Gawler council area, and then there is a large allotment of land in the Playford council as well. Ultimately, the river will become a link between Gawler and Angle Vale and everything that is developed alongside of it.

One could have just created a linear park and be done with it, and then all of the cost falls on the council. What we are attempting to do, though, is to set up the trust, because West Beach Trust works so well, because it is a big park and there is a shared boundary. In the end, the aim is to have councils as partners, not as opponents or anything like that. That is why we put the councils on the board. It is a balanced board, and we anticipate that this will be acts of cooperation as opposed to anything else.

Mr TELFER: The other aspect I was inquiring about in the previous clause was around the capacity to restrict the increase to CPI, and you pointed to those clauses on page 13. On page 14, subclause (5) states:

The Minister may allow the Northern Parklands Trust to require the constituent councils for the Northern Parklands region to pay more than the amount that would otherwise be payable…for a particular financial year…

Does subclause (5) basically give power to the minister to say it is fine to increase over and above CPI because you could justify it?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Subclause (5)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) all give context to that ability, and again you fall back on the minister must approve and the House of Assembly must also not disallow. So, yes, there is flexibility there, but subclause (5)(a) talks about long-term infrastructure; (b) talks about a natural or environmental disaster, which happens on the Gawler River from time to time; (c) talks about an increase in the size; and (d) talks about substantial new or replacing sporting, cultural or recreation facilities.

Mr TELFER: What about paragraph (f)?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Yes, paragraph (f), too, and paragraph (e)(i) and (ii). No-one is trying to get around it. You can go above CPI but there are conditions applied, and the ultimate condition is you have to publish a plan and it has to come here ultimately. That is sensible and no different to the setting of rates or any other charge around the place.

Mr TELFER: I pointed out paragraph (f) to you while I was sitting down because it provides:

(f) other circumstances exist such that the benefits in allowing the Trust to impose more than the amount that would otherwise be payable under subsection 3(a) in the financial year outweigh the fact that additional costs are to be imposed on the relevant community in that financial year.

This is obviously all in the eye of the beholder. You could have a situation where a minister says, 'Well, I think the benefits outweigh the additional costs, so happy days. I'm going to allow you to increase it by more than CPI.' This is the difference between the legislation that you referred to with the Landscape Board and this as has been put in this legislation.

You spoke about the significant investment that the government are going to be making especially in the capital contribution at the front end. Clause 16, which we are looking at at the moment, talks about contributions by constituent councils in what I am assuming is considered operational expenses. Subclause (1) provides:

The constituent council for the Northern Parklands region are responsible to make a contribution towards the costs of the Northern Parklands Trust performing its functions under this Act…

And it goes on. Will the constituent councils be the only contributors to the operations of the Northern Parklands Trust, or do you envision there to be an ongoing contribution from the state government to the operating costs of the Northern Parklands Trust?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: The whole purpose of the way the bill is constructed is to create a financially sustainable model over the long term. One of the virtues of the West Beach Trust is they do not generally ask for contributions from the state government. They have recently received one grant from the Planning and Development Fund to clean up a water course, but that is a rare occasion. Whereas if you look at other parks, including the Adelaide Parklands and the Linear Park, most especially the Coast Park, both Liberal and Labor governments have spent $50 million on the Coast Park—which is a good thing—but it gives you an idea of the sorts of contributions that can go on over a decade or so into these substantial parks.

What we are trying to do is get the ball rolling undoubtedly on government-held land, held by Renewal SA. It is no different from what we are doing in Playford Alive, for instance, or in Noarlunga, where as we develop we make contributions to open space.

The second thing we would do is utilise the government land, council land. We then go into the development phase, which is where we utilise developer fees and the whole rationale is to create a sustainable park, a sustainable model that does not put endless demands or requirements from state government. I cannot predict what a future government might do, but obviously our aim is to create a financially sustainable model.

Clause passed.

Clauses 17 and 18 passed.

Clause 19.

Mr TELFER: Clause 19, minister, speaks about the imposition of the levy by councils and provides that a constituent council must impose the Northern Parklands levy on rateable land, which obviously is a new tax on property owners. What were the government's policy considerations in deciding to impose this new additional tax on this particular part of South Australia? We often dance around the promise, pre election, of no new taxes, but this is an additional tax burden that has been imposed. What were the considerations by the government when trying to work out the scope and the structure for this additional levy which is being imposed?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It is largely as I have already said, and as I said before, one could, if one were so minded, just use the Linear Parks Act, put it all on Gawler council—job done. That could be done, but what we are trying to do here, and the reason why we have used relevant sections of acts, is we want to set up a financially sustainable model for open space. It is new. This is a Northern Parklands Trust that is deliberately created to provide for financial sustainability.

To set it up in the initial stages, we are using government land to get started, and the second stage is part of the redevelopment of Kudla, which is the best placed land for redevelopment in the state bar none, absolutely—close to public infrastructure, close to public transport, public roads on the main sewer line, not far from water. It is much cheaper to get water there, although no provision of potable water is cheap.

We are developing a whole new suburb, but what we want to also do is create a new model for delivering parks and that is one that is financially sustainable. We are setting up a trust, but everybody understands, every person in this room understands—you have been mayor; you understand that no park is—

Mr Telfer: You, sir, indeed.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: You, sir, certainly understand. He has been a mayor too—a double mayor. Everybody understands where their rates go: your rates go for parks, your rates go for collection of rubbish. So, it is the same thing again. What we are talking about here is a modest levy, which has plenty of protections around it to sustain the Northern Parklands as a Northern Parklands Trust, and it is a trust for the public good, for the provision of open space for the northern suburbs.

Mr TELFER: You speak of a modest levy, minister. What do you envision the levy amount would be if you are to call it modest?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It is too early to be commenting on an exact figure.

Mr Telfer: You said 'modest' that is all.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: Just hear me out, though. First of all we have to do the first two GRO plans, and second of all we have to do a master plan for the Northern Parklands. Obviously, that requires a great deal of public consultation. Part of that public consultation will be to ask: what do people want? It will be guided by the public, and we all understand that process. It is one that you have to do genuinely and go and talk to the community. It will also be dependent on, if you like, the Kudla code amendment, and the associated infrastructure schemes around that as well.

It might well be that the levy, if any—the Northern Parklands Trust does not have to charge a levy. It could take in-kind contributions from the relevant councils in terms of their blue-collar workforce. All this provides for is a levy to be charged if it is needed.

Mr TELFER: The reason I ask is that you speak about 'modest' and you are making a presupposition. It does also say within this clause that it 'must impose a levy' rather than what you just said—'must' as in subclause (1). Was there consideration given for the state government to be the one to actually a collect a levy, say, the likes of the emergency services levy, for instance, rather than imposing that obligation on the councils? As I said in my contribution speech in the second reading there are additional costs which always seem to come with the imposition of the local government sector to be collecting a levy on behalf of the state government.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: You say they 'must' impose a levy, but clause 19(1) is only if they put it in the annual business plan. It is important, though, because the trust puts out their annual business plan, they do not have to put a levy in it, they can choose to and, if they do, this is the way it works from there. You need to actually read—we have had a couple of circumstances where the honourable member has said, 'What about this?' and then we find out it is in other sections of the act—

Mr Telfer: This is the process of the committee stage.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: No, and the same with this. The Northern Parklands Trust has to put it in their annual plan and their annual plan has to be published, then this process kicks off, and it has to be approved by the minister, and it can be disallowed by the House of Assembly. What we are doing is establishing a Northern Parklands Trust and we are establishing the Northern Parklands. There is a process for investment, government and developer contributions, and if the trust decides, and if they publish a plan, then a levy can be applied, but there are safeguards around that levy as well about CPI—

Mr Telfer: I have a feeling a levy will be imposed.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: You have feelings about a whole range of things, but you often ignore—

Mr Telfer: I am happy to put money on it.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: No, you often do this: you pick out one section and you run off with a fanciful notion. You need to put this in an appropriate context because what we are trying to do is set up—

Mr Telfer: We have found a whole bit where it does not work.

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: —a sustainable model to provide high-quality parklands in the northern suburbs.

Mr TEAGUE: I think that answer is perhaps of some assistance to the committee in that I think there are a couple of sensible step questions that have been asked about what the mandatory imposition of a new tax is that is then, rather than being directly imposed a la emergency services levy or something else coming directly from the state, set down the line via the contributing councils. But, curiously, and I am on board with the bulk of what the minister was saying before he started going after the member for Flinders—

Mr Telfer: Unfairly.

Mr TEAGUE: Unfairly, I think. We are there embracing what the intent of all this is going to be, because you cannot possibly envisage the contributing councils—and let's keep it vanilla flavoured—Gawler and Playford doing their annual business plans and saying, 'Oh, guess what? Our annual business plan is going to contain no relevant amounts that might attract the application of clause 19(1); therefore, no levy. The business plan is great and no levy is to be imposed on those councils; therefore, there is nothing to be mandatorily passed on and we are all hunky-dory.' That is not going to happen.

The minister's previous answer has just indicated that that is not the plan. The whole idea is to establish a structure that is sustainable via this very imposition of a levy. But in all of those circumstances why is the mandatory obligation there in clause 19(1) to impose a levy, in addition to whatever consideration might be the subject of arriving at the annual business plan? If it is not really just a tax that is passed directly down the line with that contribution, why is it not left to the discretion of those councils as to how they might deal with the recovery of those costs?

The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION: It is worthwhile talking about what happens at the moment with the establishment of open space in the suburbs. The developer will put it in, create it and then vest back to council, then ultimately ratepayers pay for that park in their rates. That is what happens at the moment. In this case, because we are setting up the Northern Parklands Trust, the Northern Parklands Trust will be doing the work alongside councils to establish, maintain and build the park, so we have put in this power to be able to recover the costs of running the park. The levy is just based on the most efficient mechanism that we could find, which is the Landscape South Australia Act 2019.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

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