The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (11:54): I rise to speak on the North Adelaide Public Golf Course Bill on behalf of the Greens and to indicate that I will be opposing this bill. My objections to the bill are twofold. I believe that this is wrong on both principle and on process. As has been noted by previous speakers, this bill is about securing a long-term future for LIV Golf in Adelaide. Indeed, when the government announced this redevelopment plan back in February, it made clear that this was part of a deal to keep LIV here until at least 2030.
As a matter of principle, the Greens have been clear that we do not support LIV Golf. That position is informed by the history of this enterprise and its links with the Saudi government which has a deplorable human rights record. Indeed, the previous speaker touched on some of this, but I think it is important to revisit some of the history because it is linked, of course, to this proposal.
In 2021, Greg Norman announced a new golf series to rival the PGA. This venture, which has come to be known as LIV Golf, was backed by the Public Investment Fund, the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia. The PIF is amongst the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world with estimated assets of over $750 billion, and is controlled by Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman, the country's de facto ruler.
When LIV debuted back in 2022, its tournaments were the richest in golf history, I understand, with regular season events boasting purses of $25 million, and LIV's prize money was on top of the appearance fees and signing guarantees that were provided to individual players. Documents obtained by TheNew York Times have shown that the Saudi officials know their golf foray may have limited financial payoff. The Times has reported that McKinsey and Company, who are consultants privately advising, told the wealth fund that a golf course could be earning revenues of at least $1.4 billion a year by the end of the decade, or be losing hundreds of millions of dollars.
So why did the Saudi Public Investment Fund make this investment? Saudi Arabia, which has one of the worst human rights records of any nation in the world, is among the authoritarian states that have turned towards investing in sports to direct attention away from their tarnished reputation. This tactic, which the previous speaker acknowledged as well, is referred to as sportswashing. Sarath Ganji, the Director of the Autocracy and Global Sports Initiative explains that, and I quote:
Big governments, and big corporations included, use sports-related content and the media stories tied to sports, in order to alter the information that reached their target audiences. Saudi Arabia can use the media cycle of good sports stories in the United States to push out all those negative stories.
Saudi Arabia is consistently ranked among the worst of the worst in Freedom House's annual survey of political and civil rights and has many negative stories that it would want to drive out of the media. It is, indeed, one of the most prolific executioner's in the world, and 2024 saw a massive rise in the number of executions that were carried out.
The Berlin-based European Saudi Organisation for Human Rights tracked the executions of 345 people, up from 172 in 2023. It says that this equates to one execution every 25 hours. One execution every 25 hours, and the Malinauskas government is tarnishing our state's reputation by associating us with such blatant sportswashing.
Women and girls in Saudi Arabia remain subject to discrimination in law and in practice. The male guardianship system, for instance, was enshrined into law back in 2022, and this means that women must have a male legal guardian, and they cannot choose who this is.
Saudi Arabian authorities have arbitrarily detained Ethiopian migrants for up to 18 months in inhumane conditions, and tortured and ill-treated them before forcibly returning them to Ethiopia. They were held in overcrowded cells with inadequate access to food, water, sanitation and health care in two detention centres prior to their deportation, which has caused deaths.
Let's consider their record on LGBTI rights. LGBTIQ+ rights are not legally recognised or protected in Saudi Arabia, and these are even labelled as extremist ideas. The country's legal system prohibits LGBTI relationships, public displays of affection and gender expression, with severe societal stigma, discrimination and legal repercussions for LGBTI individuals, which includes imprisonment, fines or even the death penalty.
The Saudi and the UAE-led military coalition have committed serious human rights abuses in their military campaign against the Houthi armed group in Yemen. This has included unlawful air strikes that have killed and wounded thousands of civilians.
Protests and demonstrations are illegal in Saudi Arabia, and people who attempt to exercise their rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly are subject to arrest, prosecution and imprisonment. Indeed, many human rights activists who have been released from unfair imprisonment face further punishment including travel bans.
The Associated Press has written that the merger of the PGA Tour and LIV Golf has marked a turnaround for the authoritarian regime in Saudi Arabia, as the regime had been isolated for years over its human rights abuses. Although the wealth fund has insisted it was nothing more than an investor in LIV, a federal judge in the United States said she has concluded the fund was in fact 'the moving force behind the founding, funding, oversight and operation of LIV'.
Rather than simply wash away the human rights record of Saudi Arabia, the emergence of LIV Golf has instead put them under the microscope. Several groups have protested LIV's first US tournament in Oregon, including the families of 9/11 victims who wanted to highlight the Saudi government's alleged role in the terrorist attacks. US Senator Ron Wyden also criticised the event as Saudi sportswashing and stated that, 'No matter how much they cough up, they're not going to be able to wash away' their reputation.
Senator Wyden, who chairs the US Senate's finance committee, has since announced that he has opened up an investigation into the PGA Tour's planned merger with LIV Golf, stating that:
U.S. officials need to consider whether a deal will give the Saudi regime improper control or access to U.S. real estate.
Regarding the Saudi public investment fund's special tax treatment in the United States, Senator Wyden has said:
It's widely understood that the Saudis rip Americans off at the pump and funnel their oil profits into various efforts to launder the reputation of their violent authoritarian regime, but at a minimum, there's no good reason to help them along with a taxpayer subsidy.
LIV should not be getting special treatment in South Australia from the Malinauskas government—and they are being given special treatment by the government. The government is reaching a deal with Greg Norman designs and asking them to design this golf course, but LIV Golf will have the final say on whether this meets their demands and whether or not they indeed wish to commit to having LIV in Adelaide going forward.
I know the government will claim this is not about politics. They will say this is about sport and that sport should sit at arms-length. But we know, of course, that sport and politics are always linked. In recent years, there was a strong campaign against Qatar hosting the World Cup on the basis of its human rights record, and in the 1960s and 1970s South Africa was expelled from many international sporting federations, including the IOC, on the basis of their racist apartheid policies.
It is legitimate for parliament to discuss these links when considering this proposal, and the Greens urge the government to think again about this dirty association—this immoral association—with LIV Golf. This bill is also wrong on process. Back in February, when the government announced its plan to redevelop the golf course, the Greens asked some questions: what is the business case? What is the proposed plan for the site? What is the nature of any so-called backup legislation?
One of the most curious things about the announcement that came from the government at that time was that two crossbenchers stood with the Premier and said that they would support backup legislation. They gave a precommitment to support this legislation, sight unseen. We have asked, as members of the crossbench, to see that legislation. I have asked repeatedly in this chamber for the government to make it publicly available and to start public consultation, yet we did not see any legislation until last week.
We have also asked about the level of public access and we have asked how many trees will be lost. We asked all of these questions and they fell on deaf ears in the Malinauskas government. Lo and behold, you can imagine my surprise when last week an announcement was made and legislation passed through the other place at lightning speed, and now it has come before us today. Like other honourable members, I have been clamouring to get my head around the detail of this. I did not have a briefing from the government on the bill until yesterday morning. It is very difficult to deal with a bill of this complexity within such a short timeframe.
It is not just the members of parliament who the government is treating with contempt; it is treating the broader South Australian community with disdain. There has been woefully inadequate consultation on this bill. Rather than indicating that the bill was a fait accompli and passing it through the lower house last week, the government should have released it for public consultation months ago, when this idea was first put on the table.
Many people have asked me what this means for the Adelaide City Council. This bill takes away the council's oversight of parts of the Parklands in the designated area of the project site. While the bill does require some consultation with the city council while the project is being carried out, serious questions remain and, after all, discretion is given to the planning minister about the nature of this consultation. Will it be undertaken in good faith? Will it change the government's mind? What form will it take? Will this simply be a quick phone call to the Lord Mayor or maybe a post on Facebook, or something posted on the dead end that is YourSAy?
Early signs from the government are not encouraging. After all, the Premier chose to introduce this bill and ram it through the lower house while the Lord Mayor was overseas, and it is clear that this government is not interested in any dissent, especially from the City of Adelaide. It is very disappointing the way in which the Adelaide City Council has been treated.
As members will know, I have some history with the council, having been an elected member there myself. It is my observation that the council was attempting to negotiate with the government in good faith, and it seemed totally inappropriate to ride roughshod over the council and announce that they had the numbers in the parliament to get this done, rather than continuing to progress with those negotiations with the city council, which is in effect the custodian of the Parklands and has been paying for the upgrade of the North Adelaide Golf Course for many years.
The Adelaide Parklands Association rightly points out that no community consultation was undertaken before the bill was introduced into parliament, so how on earth can we trust the government to do any meaningful consultation after this bill is passed? More broadly, I am very concerned about the broad powers that are being given to the government here and the lack of guardrails for the minister.
The first warning sign in this bill comes at clause 4(1), which states, 'This Act has effect despite any other Act or law of the State.' As noted by the Hon. Michelle Lensink, such a clause is always a good indicator that a bill requires careful scrutiny. It is worth remembering that, when we considered the bill that allowed the government to take over our Parklands for the Women's and Children's Hospital, a map was included at schedule 1 of the legislation to ensure the parliament considered the actual footprint in prospect before voting on any proposal. This time, however, the Malinauskas government is asking us to give them land on a platter; the bill allows for a map to be gazetted later. What has the government got to hide? Why is it not including the map in the legislation that we are considering today?
Parliament has been asked to consider this legislation when we have not even seen the plans. The usual checks and balances that exist within our planning system are being jettisoned. For instance, consider clause 5 of the bill. This makes it clear that the project site is much broader than the existing North Adelaide Golf Course or John E Brown Park. The minister can take in any other areas of the Parklands he considers necessary or desirable to do so.
Clause 11(2) makes it clear that any development proposal for the purposes of the project will be deemed to satisfy the development under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act. In other words, any plan that is put forward by the government will get the green light, and the usual public consultation requirements simply will not apply. This, coming from a government that insists that it has a rules-based planning system. What a joke! When it came to standing up against the Walker Corporation taking over our plaza, the government said, 'Oh, we can't do anything, our hands are tied, we have a merit-based planning system,' yet when they want to fast-track a development, we know that they can step in, and that is precisely what they are doing in this instance.
As has been remarked today in correspondence received from Elbert Brooks of the North Adelaide Society, he warns that this bill makes the minister an omnipresent master of the Parklands, that the state government is taking over at its parliamentary and ministerial whim. It is a case of the government giving itself huge, sweeping powers over our public green space. The government really is being given a blank cheque here.
The golf course is being designed by private enterprise, Greg Norman Golf Course Design. As I indicated earlier, my understanding of the agreement with LIV Golf is that if LIV do not like the design they do not even have to honour the agreement to have the tournament here. What can we expect from this plan? Again, we have not seen it and we do not know what is in it, but if the history of Greg Norman Golf Course Design is anything to go by, accommodation could be a big component.
Indeed, luxury accommodation is a key feature of almost half of the golf courses designed by Greg Norman. Of the 104 golf courses designed by Norman across the globe—my office did some research on this—we found that 51 have some form of accommodation, nine have residential housing and 42 have hotels. Some of those hotels include a Trump International Golf Links and Hotel in Ireland—God forbid. There is also a Trump housing development as part of the Greg Norman designed golf course in Charlottesville in the US.
The government has baulked at the suggestion that hotels are even in contemplation here, and I raised this issue on ABC radio during the week. The minister indicated, and I quote from his remarks: 'These are just straw man amendments', he said, and that yes, of course he would rule this out. It is my hope that the government, then, will take some action on this.
I have been having some conversations with the government around this issue, and I have my own amendment, which will make it very clear that there would be no accommodation on the Parklands. I understand that the government may be developing an amendment as well to look at this question, and I hope they do that. It is very important that we shut down the potential for accommodation being part of this plan. We have had a long-term principle in South Australia that the Parklands are not for housing, they are not for hotels, not for penthouses or condos, and we need to make it very clear that privatisation of our public space should not stand.
The Malinauskas government, of course, seems to think that we should all just accept them at their word when it comes to this redevelopment; nothing to see here, it is just a redevelopment of a golf course, do not worry about it. Well, let us consider their record, let us consider the Labor Party's record. I do not look at what comes out of their mouths: I look at what they do with their feet, I look at how they vote.
When the Labor Party was in opposition they joined with the Greens in opposing a sports arena on the Parklands, and they were highly critical of the former Liberal government's plans for a development along the riverbank. Well, where has that commitment gone now they are in government? Now it seems they are enthused about a sporting facility of their own. In opposition they supported my private members' bill to finally add the Adelaide Parklands to the State Heritage Register. They supported it in opposition but, just a few months later when I reintroduced it into this chamber and brought it to a vote, the Labor Party opposed it. Why? We know why: it is because they had their sights set on the Parklands.
They were happy to say one thing in opposition and they did something very different once they found themselves back in government. That bill has passed the upper house, and it sits in the lower house waiting for the Labor Party to finally make it law.
They opposed my private members' bill to prevent the rezoning of the Parklands without approval of both houses of parliament; they swept in to demolish the Police Barracks and to seize the Parklands for the Women's and Children's Hospital; they are rolling out the red carpet for the Walker Corporation in their takeover of our public space on Festival Plaza—and all the while they were presenting themselves as warriors for the Parklands during the last state election campaign. This is Labor hypocrisy of the highest order. They are absolutely shameless. They have more front than John Martins.
This bill seeks to give this government yet another blank cheque over the Adelaide Parklands, and giving Labor more power over the Parklands is like giving Count Dracula the keys to the blood bank. They see the Parklands as a land bank, and they are going to continue to sink their teeth into them.
Let's also consider some of the infrastructure involved here. The bill states that the North Adelaide Golf Course must not have permanent fencing around the perimeter so that the public can still enjoy the public park. However, this does not apply where the minister determines that fencing or barriers are required for safety or security of property or otherwise for a good purpose. I understand, of course, that fencing may be required in certain situations relating to safety or protection of property; however, the phrase 'otherwise for a good purpose' is very broad. This could, of course, result in large parts of the golf course being permanently fenced off in the future, and so I will be moving amendments that remove this clause to ensure the minister cannot just set up permanent fencing on a whim.
I am also concerned about the lack of protections for the environment. During the declared period for the event, the provisions of the Environment Protection Act will not apply. This is concerning. Why does the government deem it necessary for that act to be overridden? We may inquire into that in the committee stage, and I am very keen to understand what scenarios the government is trying to address. I also have an amendment that will seek to insert the provisions of the Native Vegetation Act into this legislation to ensure that the government is not simply destroying some of our native flora and fauna.
As indicated earlier, I am not supportive of this bill. I do recognise, though, that it is very likely to pass the second reading stage on the basis of the precommitment that has been given by some of the crossbench. But the Greens will be moving a series of amendments, and I will talk you through those now.
My first amendments relate to clarifying the scope of the project. My amendment to clause 3 makes it clear that this project will not include any form of accommodation, including housing or hotels. My amendment to clause 9 further strengthens the consultation protocol in relation to the carrying out of the project by removing the minister's prerogative to consult only on the matters that they see fit, and so any protocol with the council would need to be agreed on mutually agreed terms, rather than the minister just consulting as they like.
My amendment at clause 13 imposes a greater obligation on the minister in relation to significant trees, ensuring that the minister must use their best endeavours to ensure that regulated trees are not removed in carrying out the project. Under my amendment, significant trees can only be removed if the minister determines that the carrying out of the project would be significantly impaired if trees were not removed.
Additionally, under my amendments, the minister would be required to ensure that for every regulated tree removed, no less than three new trees—saplings of at least one metre in height or mature trees—are planted. That is an important point, because simply chopping down trees and throwing a few seeds in the ground is not going to address the loss of trees. It takes a long time for trees to reach appropriate maturation, and so this amendment tries to address that.
My amendment at clause 18 would remove the provision that gives the minister the power to erect fencing or barriers when they are satisfied it is necessary or desirable. My amendment at clause 22 would make it clear the minister can only erect temporary fencing with the approval of the council. My amendment to clause 19 limits the duration of any special event, and this is an important point as well. The existing provision gives the minister broad powers to undertake works that they see fit, temporarily close roads, and circumvent a range of existing laws.
I do not think it is fair to the residents and ratepayers of the City of Adelaide in particular but, more broadly, people in the city who rely on those roads and who might be significantly inconvenienced, that this level of imposition on the public amenity could continue for months and months and months on end. My amendment makes it clear that the minister can only do that for a maximum of three months in any 12-month period, and I think that is reasonable.
I also note the amendments that the Hon. Michelle Lensink has filed on behalf of the opposition. She has spoken about those. I believe that those amendments are complementary to the Greens' amendments and they do, I think, curtail some of the significant powers that are being vested in the hands of the minister, so I indicate that I will be supporting those amendments. I, in particular, support the idea that the act should contain objects that explicitly set out directions for the redevelopment of the site. When we are talking about public land that belongs to all South Australians, we should have maximum transparency around what is involved.
The Greens will be opposing this Labor land grab, and I urge other members to do the same, but if this bill progresses to the committee stage, I urge members of the crossbench in particular to have an open mind to amendments and to listen to the arguments put forward in the hope that we might be able to strengthen some of the protections for our environment, and to support or create greater transparency.
Might I also say, just in closing, that I do think this will be a big issue heading into the next state election. I imagine Lucy Hood MP in the other place will not be very happy to see the Parklands back on the agenda in this way heading into the state election. We in the Greens will be working hard to remind voters of Labor's record, of the fact that they say one thing in opposition but when they are in government—when it really counts—they do not follow through, they do not deliver and they capitulate to developers. It is inappropriate, and the Greens will be calling it out. I will certainly be asking a lot of questions at committee stage about this bill, and I urge members to vote against this draconian legislation.