Motion: North Adelaide Golf Course

30 April 2025

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

NOES

PAIRS

Motion thus negatived.