HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-08-21 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

North Adelaide Golf Course

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (15:02): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs about the North Adelaide Golf Course redevelopment.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: The government's YourSAy online newsletter last Wednesday called for feedback on the cultural heritage and financial impact of digging up the existing golf courses for Premier Peter Malinauskas' $45 million Caddyshack development for LIV Golf. For this tokenistic effort the minister gave a week's notice. His decision on a starting date for the works is due today, except that responses would only be taken from people who identify as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, eliminating everyone else in the state from having any input. The consultation paperwork asks various questions. Perhaps the quirkiest is: will the project provide you with any direct or indirect benefits; for example, cultural, financial or personal? The obvious answer for Indigenous respondents would be no.

A 2023 report by noted anthropologist Associate Professor Neale Draper, for the Adelaide City Council's proposed minigolf project on a much smaller footprint of land, warns that this is a significant cultural heritage site sacred to the Kaurna, with the likelihood of many remains and artefacts being disturbed.

Senior South Australian of the Year, Uncle Charlie Jackson, a regional member of the Voice, told me that neither he nor fellow regional Voice members were consulted by the government on the redevelopment or told that the remains of possibly hundreds of ancestors would be disturbed, desecrated and their sacred site bulldozed. Nor had they been briefed on the Premier's rushed legislation to snatch 20 per cent of our Parklands for the use of squillionaire LIV golfers. My questions to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs are:

1. Why wasn't the full membership of the Voice—all the regions—consulted about the project, and/or briefed, and given an opportunity to assess and discuss the rushed legislation before it was tabled in parliament?

2. Was the Voice area covering Kaurna land informed of the proposed redevelopment that would disturb their ancestors' remains before the Premier made his announcement at the LIV Golf tournament in April, or has the minister and the Premier met since then with them and other Voice members?

3. Why has the minister and his government deliberately discriminated against non-Indigenous persons, including Adelaide residents, for their feedback regardless of any legislative obligation?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (15:05): I thank the honourable member for his question. What the honourable member is referring to is an application that's made pursuant to the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 under section 23, an application for authorisation to damage or disturb Aboriginal heritage. Section 13 of that act governs the consultation process. I think it's section 13(1)(d), (e) and (f) that talk about those who are to be consulted with.

I think the honourable member has confused himself in relation to the application of the Aboriginal Heritage Act. What the Aboriginal Heritage Act does is talk about consultation with the South Australian Aboriginal Heritage Committee, traditional owners and other Aboriginal persons who have a particular interest, in that matter. The process that's underway is specifically an Aboriginal heritage consultation process under the Aboriginal Heritage Act. In relation to his questions as to why wasn't everyone, including non-Aboriginal people, consulted, the reason is it was about Aboriginal heritage and these are the processes that the Aboriginal Heritage Act provides.

I think the honourable member has confused himself and thinks that there may have been one day of consultation. I am happy to unconfuse the honourable member. There were an initial four weeks of consultation, including a public meeting, in relation to this particular application. At the request of traditional owners, that was extended by a further three weeks—which is beyond the normal consultation period for such applications—to a total of seven weeks. From the best of my memory, that closes today.

In relation to consultation with local Voice bodies, the honourable member specifically asked: was the local Voice body that covers the Kaurna area consulted in relation to this? I am pleased to inform the honourable member, yes, they were. There was a specific meeting held with the Central Region Local Voice to discuss this, and to allow input and feedback from them specifically, as well as the session that has been held more broadly for any interested people, particularly Kaurna people, as well as the ability to put in submissions during that seven-week period.

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