The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:31): I rise to indicate that I am supportive of this bill. There has been significant growth in the northern suburbs over the past few decades, and the people who live there deserve green open space that they can enjoy. Members will know that I have been a long-term advocate for the Adelaide Parklands.
Indeed, one of the things that makes the CBD unique is the fact that it is surrounded by parklands, and I do think it is a great shame that people in the northern suburbs are not given the same opportunity to enjoy open green space. I think this bill, which seeks to establish a Northern Parklands Trust, will go some way to remedying that. It is really a future-oriented proposal, and so I do commend the government for putting it forward.
Parklands and open green space have many benefits that support sustainable and liveable cities and suburbs and healthy and connected communities. They offer a space for people to be active, to socialise, to relax and to connect with one another. Green spaces are not only beneficial to people but also for our environment. They play an important role in biodiversity conservation by providing a habitat for a wide range of plant and animal species. They also help to moderate the urban heat island effect, where natural land cover is replaced by pavement, buildings and other heat-absorbing surfaces.
I note that the LGA has raised some concerns with this bill, specifically the ability of the state government to seek contributions from councils and their ratepayers without the consent of a local council and the possibility that the government may acquire council land without consent. I understand that in this instance the local councils that are impacted are supportive of the government's approach, but I am concerned about the potential for this to lay out a framework that could be used in other cases when councils may not be quite so keen to cooperate, and so I will be moving some amendments to address that.
The Greens are also concerned about the provisions which potentially enable the government to construct hotels and resorts on these new parklands. This has the potential to cause the privatisation of public green space that everybody should be able to enjoy. Over recent years, we have seen several land grabs that have threatened the Parklands and public space. Indeed, the Malinauskas government has a terrible track record in that regard. Let's not forget the Malinauskas government, when they were in opposition, rallied against the then Liberal government's plans for a sports arena on the Parklands. They opposed that and then, when they came to power themselves, undertook one of the most significant land grabs we have seen in terms of our public green space with bulldozing the police barracks for the hospital.
They have also, of course, green lighted another monstrosity on Parklands for the second Walker Tower and, as the Hon. Michelle Lensink touched on, have embarked on this new LIV Golf course redevelopment, much of which is shrouded in secrecy because it is subject to contractual arrangements that even the minister does not appear to be familiar with. Indeed, I asked the Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing questions about that during the committee stage of the bill, and the minister was not able to provide any guidance to this chamber around what is in or out of the contract.
So the Malinauskas government does not have a good track record. I do recognise the merits of this particular proposal, however, and I recognise the fact that the government have engaged constructively with me around this. I note that the Adelaide Parklands are not covered by this legislation and I think that is a really good thing. The Adelaide Parklands occupy unique status in South Australia and indeed I had raised that concern with the government and I am pleased to see that is not included within the bill.
Despite that, I will be moving some amendments, primarily to address the concerns that have been raised with me by the Local Government Association. My amendments will move to restrict trust purposes to genuine public open space and environmental outcomes and exclude potentially high-risk commercial developments, such as hotels and resorts.
The amendments will require any amended prescribed levy proposal to be advanced by the minister under the section to have the consent of those constituent councils. They will require the Northern Parklands Trust to obtain consent of the constituent councils before seeking any contribution from councils, which would lead to the imposition of a Northern Parklands region levy. In the absence of agreement from constituent councils under my amendments, the cost of the trust would be funded by the state.
My amendments would ensure any regulations made that would have the effect of enabling a statutory trust established after the commencement of the act to recover contributions from councils and ratepayers would do so via a process equivalent to that required to be undertaken by the Northern Parklands Trust. Such trusts may only recover contributions from councils with the consent of the council. The amendments will also prevent the acquisition of council land without consent.
I recognise that the government will also be moving an amendment to give some additional powers to both houses of parliament with respect to the business plans. I certainly welcome that, and I think that is an important transparency measure. I want to also apologise to members for the lateness of me circulating these amendments. It took a little bit of time for me to get these prepared, and so I understand I have only circulated them today. I do apologise for that, but I hope that members have still had time to give them some consideration.