HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-04-30 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Motions

North Adelaide Golf Course

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. R.A. Simms:

That there be laid upon the table of this council, within two sitting weeks of the passing of this resolution, by the Leader of the Government, the business case and any related documents regarding the proposed redevelopment of the North Adelaide Golf Course.

(Continued from 2 April 2025.)

The Hon. J.S. LEE (16:20): I rise today to support the motion put forward by the Hon. Robert Simms. As we know, on 16 February 2025, the state Labor government announced plans to redevelop the North Adelaide Golf Course in order to host the LIV Golf tournament there from as early as 2027.

In my former role as the shadow minister for tourism and hospitality, I heard from many stakeholders from the Tourism Industry Council of South Australia and the Australian Hotels Association of South Australia that the LIV Golf tournament has brought significant economic benefits to South Australia, boosted tourism and showcased our beautiful city on an international stage.

While I support the continued hosting of the LIV Golf tournament, I am concerned about the apparent lack of transparency surrounding this redevelopment. There has been no business case shared, no costings provided, and even the Adelaide City Council, as the owners and operators of the course, are calling for more information.

I remember the days when we were discussing the university mergers and there was a joint committee, and similar practices by the Labor government in terms of lack of transparency and accountability certainly raised lots of questions. This lack of transparency raises important questions about whether this redevelopment aligns with the best interests of the community and the state of South Australia.

The impact on the Adelaide City Council and its residents is significant and cannot be overlooked. This motion calls on the government to make public the business case and related documents, which we believe the public needs to know. I believe in a transparent, accountable government, a government that shares why decisions make sense for the state. I urge the government to demonstrate this transparency by releasing the necessary information.

The Adelaide City Council has emphasised the importance of maintaining public ownership and operation of the golf course, ensuring no permanent fencing and minimising the loss of significant trees. These are valid concerns that deserve to be addressed openly and transparently, particularly independently as well, and such a select committee would certainly hope to do that. We must ensure that any redevelopment respects the heritage and environmental significance of the site, including the sacred Kaurna sites. The committee deserves to be informed and consulted on such important matters.

Furthermore, the honourable member has raised important questions about the legislative changes that might be required to achieve this redevelopment. Despite asking for clarity, there has been no information provided on what these legislative changes might entail. It is crucial for the government to release any draft legislation they are considering so that members of the community and members of parliament can form views on behalf of the community.

Transparency in this process is essential to ensure that all stakeholders are aware of the potential impacts and can participate in the discussion. While I wholeheartedly support the continued hosting of the LIV Golf tournament and acknowledge the benefits that it brings to our state, I urge the government to uphold the principles of accountability and transparency and such a select committee will hopefully be able to get the business case published or given to members of parliament for consideration, along with any related documents for the North Adelaide Golf Course redevelopment. With those remarks, I support the motion.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:24): I rise to support the motion put before this place by my colleague the Hon. Robert Simms and commend him for pursuing this with what is known in the trade as an order for production of documents. An order for production of documents is something that has not often been debated in this particular council for the last few decades and was recently finally successfully passed in this council after many decades of such a parliamentary tool not having been implemented in South Australia.

It is something that actually is used quite often, particularly in parliaments such as in New South Wales, where South Australia has actually benefited from an order for production of documents revealing information in South Australia they had the right to know in terms of public interest. It is quite an extraordinary situation when other parliaments are doing our work for us, and I hope that today we will see another order for production of documents motion passed.

This one, of course, calls for the business case and other documents with regard to the North Adelaide Golf Course proposed redevelopment. Why is this of great interest to me? I have certainly been very critical of LIV Golf and, indeed, while LIV Golf has been dubbed as 'golf as you have never seen it', certainly critics of that particular issue, and I am one of them, say that it is because it sportswashes the human rights abuses of the Saudi regime and indeed the Public Investment Fund is bankrolling most of this.

It is quite an extraordinary situation where we are pumping public moneys at a great rate, a rate that we do not know the exact quantum of, into one of the wealthiest entities in the entire world. They do not need our money. They do need our reputation and, if we are to protect our reputation, the good people of South Australia and this parliament should ensure we have access to full documentation. That is why this is a simple transparency measure that should be supported regardless of your views on LIV Golf or indeed any of the events that may be of interest to this council or any of the issues that may be of interest to this council, whether it is the particular results that in question time today were not forthcoming with inquiries into fish deaths and kangaroo deaths or previously lead levels in bats in Port Pirie.

These pieces of information are the reason we have parliament and parliamentary tools such as an order for production of documents because currently we have a bit of a secret state going on. We do not get to know what information the government has. It is not forthcoming and transparent. Far too often, there are more questions than answers not just in question time in this place but ongoing and the secret state times have to end and this order for production of documents can be the next step in that journey.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD (16:27): I rise as the lead speaker for the opposition to briefly speak in support of this motion brought forward by the Hon. Robert Simms MLC. Let's be clear: this is not a motion about whether LIV Golf should come to North Adelaide; it is simply about transparency. It is about making sure South Australians see the business case behind the potential multimillion dollar redevelopment of the Parklands and to address those valid concerns raised by the Hon. Rob Simms and the other honourable members who have spoken previously today.

We know LIV Golf generates a significant economic return—some $70 million last year alone. That is certainly not nothing. Now we have the government looking to the North Adelaide Golf Course for a potential expansion and possibly extending the event past 2031. Again, some would argue that is good for the state; however, what we have not seen is any detail on what this redevelopment will cost taxpayers—no documents, no business case, no public explanation, no addressing the valid concerns that have been raised.

At a time when we have families that are doing it tough, the very least this government could do is produce these documents as the Hon. Rob Simms' motion requests. We do owe it to the public to scrutinise this proposal properly and that starts with full disclosure. I commend the motion to the chamber.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (16:29): I rise to say that I am supporting the motion of the Hon. Robert Simms. Let me say at the beginning that I support the LIV Golf tournament. I think it has been great for South Australia, because of the benefits that it has brought our state, not to mention the branding of South Australia on a global scale. To see that tournament and the excitement and crowds that it generated, and the entertainment that was provided, I think is a good thing for the state, albeit I know members of the Grange Golf Club have been very unhappy with the tournament because they claim that they have not seen many benefits as a result of it being staged there.

But then lo and behold, the Premier makes an astounding announcement on the final day of the tournament that they intend to redevelop the North Adelaide Golf Course, and standing alongside him were two members in this place who clearly indicated their support for legislation that we have not even seen yet. We do not even know the details of what is going to be proposed at North Adelaide and how it is going to impact the residents in North Adelaide.

We do not know how it is going to impact on taxpayers or the Adelaide City Council, which, of course, are the ones that look over the golf course and have to maintain it. We got no detail from the Premier except it is going to happen. 'The legislation is going to go through because I have two crossbenchers in the Legislative Council who are going to support it.' We have not seen any evidence of any legislation to know what is going on. This is why it is important that the honourable member, Robert Simms, wants to see a full disclosure of documents, so that we know what is being proposed here, and how it is going to impact all the affected stakeholders.

I am just going to go back to some of the comments the Premier was making at the time about what was going to happen at the North Adelaide Golf Course. I play golf. I am not a good golfer, but I certainly play at North Adelaide, both the North Course and South Course, and I know that many people enjoy that facility, not just for the sake of playing golf in the centre of the city but also the affordability of playing golf in the centre of Adelaide. Few golf courses in the world have that location, so it is no wonder it has been targeted for a major tournament.

The cost of playing 18 holes of golf on the South Course I think on a weekend is about $65, which is quite reasonable. On the North Course, which is not in as good a shape as the South Course, it costs you about $40. There are a lot of people who enjoy that golf course, and you often see it packed with players on weekends. That is all going to change. That will change with this proposal, but we do not know much detail, except the fact that I understand the government managed to get its hands on a master plan that had been put forward to the Adelaide City Council some years ago.

I must point out that, while I was watching the Premier make that announcement, I saw that the Lord Mayor of Adelaide seemed to be somewhat confused or perplexed at what was going on, even though she has lent her support to it, and I can understand that. But I am sure that the Adelaide City Council and the Mayor would have had questions about what was going on, what their role was going to be in the development of this golf course, and also how it was going to be maintained and who was going to pay for it. There are a lot of questions about this golf course.

Just going back to affordability, the Premier was making comments like, 'What a great place this will be for young golfers who will be able to walk the same fairways and play on the same greens as the stars that play in LIV Golf.' Well, will they? If they will, if they can, at what cost? For what is going to be proposed here, you have to spend a lot of money. You have to develop a PGA golf course, a world-standard golf course similar to those that we see in big events that are played around the world.

You are going to have to fence that off. You are not going to have a golf course of that calibre and allow people to freely walk across it. We know that there is a lot of antagonism towards the Saudis in the community, and others have expressed their concerns about Saudi Arabia and its petrodollars and also the fact that it has made its fortunes from fossil fuels, and you have people in the community who may well target that golf course and cause damage to the fairways or the greens.

So it is quite disingenuous of the Premier to say, 'Everyone is going to be able to go on this golf course. Have a look. It's going to be fantastic. Young kids can play on there. They are going to enjoy this.' Well, it is not going to be that easy. There will be restrictions, and it will come at a cost. I want to know how much it will cost for the general public to be able to play on that golf course, because it would not be anything under $150, maybe even $200, for a round of 18. If you go to many of the other golf courses around Adelaide that the public have access to, some of those that I play at, it is $120, $130, $150, maybe a bit more.

So we need some transparency here. We need to know just what this is all about. I will be interested to know what kind of a deal the Premier cut to ensure that he was going to fulfil this field of dreams in having his golf course established by 2027. He has obviously done a lot of fast talking to ensure that all this was going to happen.

I will just go back to this: how can members in this place agree to pass legislation without even seeing a word, without even seeing a draft, before doing so? I do not know. I think a lot of people would be perplexed that that deal has gone through already without even seeing legislation. As I said, I have no objections to LIV Golf, no objections to the move from Grange to North Adelaide, but we need to know what this deal is all about. We need to know what is at stake here and how it is going to be developed.

I want to point out: I do not know how much money taxpayers are going to be putting into this project, but members who follow golf and the financial dealings in sport of the Saudis may well be aware that that they are spending hundreds of millions of dollars in developing a golf resort near Riyadh, which will be run I believe by The Trump Organization. They are putting in a lot of money there, and I just want to know: are they are putting any money into this project?

In closing, I am fully supporting this motion. I am all about disclosure, full disclosure. We did not see that with the university merger. We have not seen that there and in other things. The Premier seems to think that if he gets a couple of crossbenchers onside, he can bulldoze his agenda through the place. I think the taxpayers of South Australia have a right, and he has an obligation, as does his government, to make full disclosures. We need to see what is being proposed here. You cannot hide behind cabinet confidentiality, or in confidence contracts that have been done, at all. We are talking about significant taxpayer investment here.

If the Premier wants to beat his breast about how good this tournament is, along with the Gather Round—and congratulations on the Gather Round as well, where they spent $50 million on the Lyndoch Oval—as I pointed out during Gather Round, only a few months ago I was in the Davenport community that did not have the same privilege of their kids being able to play on a football ground, which has been abandoned for something like 20 years.

I paid a visit to Davenport with elder Tiger McKenzie, and I was appalled at the lack of facilities there for the youth of the Davenport community—which is only a couple of kilometres from Port Augusta. The oval has not been used for 20 years, and Tiger McKenzie told me the reason for that was because the government, both federal and state governments, had turned off funding for the water supply. Up until then, 20 years ago, it was a magnet for Aboriginal communities around the state. They would often go there for tournaments and play fixtures against each other in both football and cricket.

However, you should see this place for the last 20 years: it is totally desolate. I could not find one blade of green grass there; there was nothing but rocks, scrub, prickles. The dressing rooms were totally trashed. It was just an absolute embarrassment. I was also saddened to learn that the swimming pool in Davenport is empty and has not been filled for some time. So the youth in Davenport have nowhere to kick a footy around, and we know that Aboriginal kids love their sport and particularly enjoy kicking a footy around; they have no recreational activity in that place. It is no wonder that they migrate into Port Augusta itself—and we have seen the wave of crime there—because there is nothing to engage those kids in the Davenport community.

There you see the total contrast in this government's priorities: $50 million at Lyndoch having this fantastic oval—yes, fantastic; tick the boxes—but there at Davenport Community there is no football ground whatsoever. It is an embarrassment. As Tiger McKenzie said to me—and you can view what he said to me on social media—'I invite the Premier and the Aboriginal Affairs Minister, Kyam Maher, to come up here and have a look, see what we have got here.'

Anyway, going back to the North Adelaide Golf Course and the proposal, it is important that the people of South Australia are informed; they certainly have a right to know just how their money is being spent, rather than it being hidden behind cabinet confidentiality and other clauses that the Premier may come up with. I wholeheartedly support the honourable member's motion.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (16:43): I rise very briefly to speak to this motion. I will digress from commenting on matters just expressed that are factually inaccurate, other than to say that everyone has expressed—and I know the Lord Mayor remains very committed to this—that legislation simply will not be required, and that if and when that legislation is required, we will deal with it. That has been stated time and time again.

The Lord Mayor herself, publicly and in conversations I have had with her personally—and I have taken it upon myself to have those conversations—is steadfast in her commitment not only to disclose documents, including plans when decisions have been reached, but to get this through the first and preferred option, which is the council option.

Reference has obviously been made to legislation, which none of us have seen, and to apparent deals that have been done, which I certainly have not been a party to. I will say that the member may not give me any credit, but I know that the Premier certainly knows me well enough to know that I do not sign blank checks: not for him, not for anyone else, not on this and not on anything else.

The commitment that I will give to the mover in a moment will follow the comments that I make. In relation to this motion, again, I have looked very carefully at the wording. I have said that I will not support it at this stage, but not for the reasons that the member may assume. I have of course sought advice from the government, and indeed from those who I have been having discussions with, and I think it is fair to say that things are still in the very early stages of planning.

Based on the conversations I have had, I do not think the government itself could possibly know what is going to be included and what is not going to be included in those final plans, what is in and what is out in terms of the proposals, what may be happening and what may be the subject of discussions and what may not eventuate. The tabling would in effect require tabling before the government, or indeed the council, have landed on something that is ready for consultation or scrutiny. My understanding is that those discussions are still in the infancy stage. It is certainly my expectation that when that stage is reached—and indeed the government has made those commitments and the council has indicated the same—they will release those plans and documents relating to work that is occurring.

The motion itself calls for tabling within two weeks. As I said, I have taken it upon myself to follow this up and say, 'Are you likely to be ready in two weeks to have anything to release publicly?' The answer at this stage to me has been no. I would have thought it appropriate for anybody who is looking at this motion to go and ask those questions and say, 'What is an appropriate timeframe? Is two weeks appropriate?' It is not my job to go and do the job of the mover or anyone else in this place, but it certainly is my job to go and inform myself. I have done that. Given that it is calling for the production of those documents within two weeks, the view seems to be that that is premature—that, simply, the government and council are not at that stage.

However, I have made it crystal clear that when the government and indeed the council are in a position to have documents ready for release that are not premature and have already taken into account what might happen, what might not happen, what may be in and what may be out, that it is my firm expectation—and, indeed, I believe the government and council's intent—to disclose those documents. That is the advice I have clarified and that is the advice I intend to go with today.

For the sake of the mover, if it gives him any sense of hope in terms of where this goes in the future, I have also made it very clear that if the Premier or indeed the council were to fail to reach those commitments in terms of disclosing those documents within the appropriate timeframes that they have deemed when they are ready to do so, then I will support a subsequent motion calling for the release. But I do not think that we are at that stage yet, and the advice that I have had is that we are not at that stage yet.

We are at a very early stage, and when I say 'we' I mean all of us. They are not discussions that are taking place with me. The council is in an early stage of its work. The government is in an early stage of its work. To release documents—I do not know what they would release, for one. I think that, in short, sums up the discussions that I have had to date. I simply do not know at this stage that they have anything of value to release publicly, but certainly, when they do, I have made it crystal clear that it is my intention that they would do just that. The response to me from all involved has been that it is their intention to do precisely that.

Again, the member may come back here after a period of time and say, 'I have now had conversations with the government and the council, and they say that in one month or two months or three months those documents will be complete.' If they are not disclosed publicly, then bring another motion before this place, but a two-week timeframe from the time of the passage of this is premature, based on the advice I have had. It is on that basis and that basis alone that I will not be supporting this motion.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON (16:50): I will briefly tee off on behalf of the government. The government—it is not going to shock anyone, obviously—opposes the motion.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: I know, I know, but we are only on the front nine, the Hon. Mr Simms. Work has only just begun, and design and planning for the North Adelaide Golf Course is still in its early stages. As with all public works where there is an amount applied to construction of work totalling more than or $15 million, a report will be prepared for the parliament's Public Works Committee. That report, I am reliably informed, will provide specific information on the government's planned construction, including its purpose, its design, its appearance, how it will be built, its estimated costs, the trees, if there is a train involved. As such, the establishment of this committee, we say, is unnecessary and diverts resources that could be better used for other priorities of this parliament.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:51): It is worth clarifying that I am not proposing there be any committee on top of what has already been undertaken. I am suggesting that there be a production of documents and that the government reveal any business case and related documents regarding the proposed redevelopment of the North Adelaide Golf Course.

I must say the comments of the Hon. Connie Bonaros have heightened my concerns somewhat, because it appears to me from what the honourable member has said that there is not actually a business case that the government has considered. If that is the case, then I am very concerned that the government is pledging potentially millions and millions of dollars of taxpayer money for a significant redevelopment project when no business case has been seen. Does a business case even exist?

I should not be that surprised, because the Malinauskas government has form in that regard. I remember us having a discussion about this very issue in the context of $500 million—half a billion dollars—being put on the table for a university merger when the government had not even seen the business case at that time. In this instance, it seems we have secret backup legislation that no-one here is privy to, and we have a secret business case, or a non-existent business case, that is being used to underpin potentially an investment of millions and millions of dollars of taxpayer money.

This is not about whether or not we support LIV Golf. I am not supportive of LIV Golf, the Hon. Tammy Franks is not supportive of LIV Golf, but I recognise that other members have different views. This is a simple transparency measure. It is about saying, 'If you are putting a huge amount of taxpayer money on the table, then surely the taxpayer has a right to know what is the business case. Does it stack up?' I am not asking the government to do any work that has not already been done, but I am getting the significant impression from the comments that have already been made that there is not actually a business case that underpins this investment, and that is very concerning.

I respect the Hon. Connie Bonaros and the work she does in this place, but I am disappointed that she and the Hon. Sarah Game are acting as a Praetorian Guard for the government when it comes to this proposal. It is not the role of crossbenchers to cloak this sort of information from public view. The public has a right to access this information and all members of parliament have a right to see any potential legislation that may be required. Despite my requests of the government, I am yet to find out whether or not there is any backup legislation in the works, what that looks like and what precisely is in scope.

I think all of us in this place have a right to access that information and, more importantly, our constituents—the people we represent—have a right to access that information. After all, with respect to a business case, it is their money that is going to be invested in this project. I remind members that I will be calling a division on this matter so that their views can be clearly documented and made available to the public.

The council divided on the motion:

Ayes 7

Noes 8

Majority 1

AYES

Centofanti, N.J. Franks, T.A. Hood, D.G.E.
Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. Pangallo, F.
Simms, R.A. (teller)

NOES

Bonaros, C. Bourke, E.S. El Dannawi, M.
Hanson, J.E. (teller) Hunter, I.K. Maher, K.J.
Scriven, C.M. Wortley, R.P.

PAIRS

Henderson, L.A. Martin, R.B. Hood, B.R.
Ngo, T.T. Girolamo, H.M. Game, S.L.

Motion thus negatived.

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