17 November 2021

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I thank the Hon. Frank Pangallo for his support, and I express regret at the position of the Labor and Liberal parties. They often have stoushes in this place, but they always get back together again, particularly when it comes to taking over our public green space, and that is what we are seeing happening here tonight.

Make no mistake that what the Labor Party are doing here in opposing this bill is they are facilitating the government's plans to take over our public green space. They are facilitating the rezoning of the Parklands. They are opening the door not only to the sports arena, which they say they oppose, they are also opening the door to the other rezoning the government has proposed: cafes, shops, apartment towers, nightclubs, low level industry, because the government can do all of this without bringing the matter to parliament.

That is precisely what my bill was trying to address. It was trying to ensure this parliament has a say on changes that would fundamentally change the character of our Parklands and of our city's green space. Sadly, the Labor Party have totally missed an opportunity here to show some backbone, to stand up to the Liberals and to defend our Parklands from what is in effect a takeover from the development sector.

The idea of giving the Liberals the keys to develop our Parklands is like giving Count Dracula the keys to the blood bank. Once the development sector sink their teeth in they will change the character of our public space forever. I agree with the Labor Party on one thing: we do not need a multimillion dollar sports stadium. After all, if members of the South Australian community want to come along and watch an Olympic-style backflip they can come to this chamber and watch the Labor Party in action, because that is what we are seeing tonight: an embarrassing backflip, an appalling capitulation to this Liberal government.

The Treasurer has got me. Sneaky Simms has been exposed again, because he is right: I am no supporter of the planning regime that was set in place by the previous Labor government. I am no fan of the idea that we can see development on our public land—on our national heritage-listed Parklands—without even giving the parliament a say.

It is pathetic that the Labor Party have not joined with the Greens in supporting this and that they have not had the moral courage to stand with us and with the SA-Best party and others and say to the government, 'If you are wanting to rezone our public space, you have to come to this parliament and defend what you are doing.' As a result, tonight the sports arena is well and truly on the agenda. The minister can give the green light to that rezoning at any time, and not only that but the raft of other commercial development the government has in its sights.

The Treasurer can say, 'We don't plan to do anything on Pinky Flat.' Well, why on earth are they seeking a rezoning? If they do not want to do anything with that space, why are they trying to rezone it? They are trying to rezone it because they want to let the genie out of the bottle and give developers a chance to move into our Parklands. This is a really dark day for our public green space.

I will be calling a division on this matter so that all members of the community can see who stands with the community in defending our national heritage-listed Parklands and who stands with the big end of town and the development sector that want to exploit this public land.

27 October 2021

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: In summing up, I do want to thank the honourable members for their contributions. I thank the Hon. Ian Hunter and recognise his work as a former environment minister. I also thank the Hon. Connie Bonaros and the Hon. Michelle Lensink, Minister for Human Services. I recognise that all sides of politics have been committed to wanting to address the climate crisis here in South Australia.

Of course, from the Greens perspective there is more that can be done. We have been advocating very strongly to move away from gas and other fossil fuels and will continue to do that. I also recognise the role of the Greens in this place in terms of pushing for investment in solar energy and the work of my predecessor as well in that regard.

The fact that South Australia has done so much good work in this space does put us in stark contrast with the federal government. In summing up, I do have to recognise that when I put this motion forward that was before the federal government had announced their I-can't-believe-it's-not-a-policy policy of zero net emissions by 2050.

I pledge to cut out carbs and sugar by 2050. I will probably still be here in this chamber; you will be able to hold me to account for that promise. It shows how ludicrous it is to be making pledges 30 years into the never-never at a time of climate crisis when really what we need is leadership now. When asked to explain this new policy position, the Prime Minister said, and I quote from a column in News Limited:

We won't be lectured by others who do not understand Australia. The Australian Way is all about how you do it, and not if you do it. It's about getting it done.

I do not actually know what that means. A totally banal and meaningless statement from our Prime Minister that really sums up the Coalition government's position on climate change. They do not understand it, they do not want to do anything about it, most of them do not believe it, and it really is an appalling state of events to see the Prime Minister pedaling such a ridiculous policy at a federal level.

I do recognise the commitment of the Liberals in South Australia to supporting us hosting the COP. I think that would be a fantastic outcome. It is terrific to see all political parties supporting this and it would be a real opportunity I think to showcase South Australia's credentials as a leader on fighting the climate crisis, and also an opportunity to put even more pressure on the federal government to step up and to show the leadership that we know our planet desperately needs. With that, I put the motion.

27 October 2021

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: In summing-up, I want to thank the honourable members for their contribution to this debate. In particular, I thank the Hon. Emily Bourke from the Labor Party and the Hon. Frank Pangallo from SA-Best for speaking in support of this bill. Of course, I acknowledge the contribution of the Treasurer as well and the position of the government.

The arguments here have been well ventilated, but I do want to emphasise that this debate is about much more than the future of the Helen Mayo Park. It is about the future of our Parklands. If the government presses ahead with this rezoning and this arena on the Riverbank, we put the national heritage listing of our iconic Parklands at risk.

I also note, as the Hon. Frank Pangallo has done, the comments made by Kaurna elder Jeffrey Newchurch to the Adelaide City Council Reconciliation Committee, where he advised the committee that the proposed site for the entertainment arena was of cultural significance. This really needs to be taken into consideration.

Members will also be aware that last night the City Council, of which I was previously a member, voted to oppose this development. I recognise the presence of Councillor Keiran Snape in the gallery, who is someone who has been a strong advocate on the Parklands.

As I say, this is about more than just Helen Mayo Park. I fear there is the potential for this arena to be used as a Trojan Horse, something that could enable a raft of other developments on the Parklands. We know that this Liberal government has a much broader vision for the Parklands in its sites—cafes, restaurants, fixed structures, multistorey buildings, residential apartment towers.

The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: This commercialisation of our public green space—I am not sure why the Minister for Health is calling out. He sounds like he is as aghast as most South Australians are about the proposal, because this is actually part of the code amendment that has gone out for consultation. If we lose our Parklands, we can never get them back.

Earlier today, I introduced a private member's bill to deal with the other elements of this rezoning, ensuring that the parliament has its say on the proposed planning code amendments on the Parklands. If this motion succeeds today, it will send the government a very clear message: hands off our Parklands. I submit that if this motion were successful it would be untenable for the government to push ahead with this rezoning on Helen Mayo Park because to do so would flout the will of a house of this parliament.

Members interjecting

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Again, I hear the members of the government guffawing, but I think it is pretty reasonable to say that when you are talking about public space you consult with the parliament. With that, I put the motion.

27 October 2021

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Adelaide Park Lands) Amendment Bill seeks to amend the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act to ensure that any amendment to the Planning and Design Code that relates to development in the Adelaide Parklands must be approved by resolution of both houses of parliament.

This is a simple change but it is one that is vitally important. We know, of course, that the Parklands are currently subject to a code amendment process and that the state government has announced plans to rezone the Riverbank area. This rezoning would allow commercial development on the Parklands, including shops, cafes, a Riverbank arena and even high-rise towers, some of which are residential.

The government has been progressing this at lightning speed. This is the most significant change to the Parklands in decades, an enormous land grab from the state government, yet it has been progressing with just six weeks' consultation—totally inadequate. The consultation on the code amendment closes today and the community have been given a meagre six weeks to consider the implications of this. It is an outrage.

What happens on the Parklands has significant implications for all South Australians because this public green space belongs to us all. The Parklands are indeed the lungs of our city but they are also nationally heritage listed. Back in 2010, the then federal environment minister, the Hon. Peter Garrett, included the Adelaide Parklands and the city plan on the national heritage list. One of the concerns around what the state government is proposing here in terms of its code amendment is that commercial development on the Parklands could jeopardise our national heritage listing.

Indeed, many of the things being proposed here, like a Riverbank precinct, could significantly impact on the vista, in terms of the views from the Parklands, and significantly impact on the public enjoyment of that green space. As a result, our national heritage listing could be compromised. That would be disastrous in terms of the future of our Parklands, particularly when there has been a long-term campaign to see World Heritage listing for our iconic green space.

This land is also of cultural significance to the Kaurna people. Kaurna elder Jeffrey Newchurch recently advised the Adelaide City Council Reconciliation Committee—this was reported in TheAdvertiser—that the proposed site for the entertainment arena was of cultural significance. That has not been adequately considered by the government. The History Trust (correction: History Council) of South Australia has also sent an open letter to Premier Marshall, reported in CityMag today. In the letter, they state that:

The HCSA objects to the Government’s proposal to acquire land for Government purposes…and to rezone it for uses other than open space and community recreation facilities.

The HCSA strongly objects to each of these proposals that will decrease the area of the green belt encompassing the city.

There is mounting opposition to these radical rezoning plans: opposition from Aboriginal elders, opposition from the History Trust of South Australia, opposition from Parklands advocates, and opposition from the South Australian community more broadly—those who care about our public space and do not want to see it being commercialised and privatised in this way.

My concern is that if we go down this privatisation path, if we go down the path of commercialising our city's public green space, if we see cafes, restaurants, nightclubs, apartment towers and the like, we will never, ever get it back. The future of our Parklands, the lungs of our city, is really hanging in the balance.

Therefore, given such high stakes, it is vitally important that the parliament has a say. This should not be a decision that resides with the government of the day or indeed the minister. It should be a decision that resides with the whole parliament, and that is what my bill is seeking to achieve. It is simply inserting a requirement on the government of the day that if they are proposing a rezone of the Parklands that will not come into effect until there has been a resolution of both houses of parliament.

That is a vital safeguard. I think it is something that South Australians would welcome, and I hope that all parties will get on board and support it. It is my intention to bring this to a vote before the election so that this parliament has an opportunity to have a say on this important reform. I call on the Marshall government to pause their plans to privatise our public green space until the parliament has at least had an opportunity to consider it.

This is a land grab of historic proportions. It threatens the very future of our Parklands and let me say to the government that if they want to press ahead with this, they will not be able to do so without one hell of a fight from the Greens. We will be fighting them tooth and nail. We will be fighting for the right of the parliament to have a say and for the concerns of the South Australian community to be heard. A six-week consultation period is an absolute disgrace. This parliament needs to have its say on this code amendment, and that is what this bill would do.

27 October 2021

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the minister representing the Minister for Planning, the Treasurer, on the topic of Adelaide Parklands rezoning.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: The government is currently pursuing code amendments on the Parklands, enabling commercial buildings such as cafes and restaurants on both sides of the Riverbank. The government has stated that it does not intend to develop on Pinky Flat. My question therefore to the Treasurer is: if the government is not intending to develop on Pinky Flat, why on earth is it pursuing this code amendment?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (14:51): I am happy to refer the honourable member's question to the minister and bring back a reply, but in part, as I understand it, after consultation the minister retains the power to make changes or amendments based on the feedback. I think the member has clearly stated, evidently, the minister's and/or the government's position in relation to Pinky Flat, so I will refer the member's question to the minister, but stay tuned.

9 February 2022

Additional answer received

In reply to the Hon. R.A. SIMMS (27 October 2021).

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer): The Attorney-General has advised:

The Adelaide Park Lands Management Strategy (APLMS) identifies the need to support the activation of the Parklands by upgrading and enhancing existing buildings and structures responsive to their park setting.

The APLMS also seeks to create a network of activity hubs, create places and attractions that set the Parklands apart and promote the Parklands as a visitor and tourist destination.

The changes to the Adelaide Parklands zone seeks to meet the objectives of the APLMS through the proposed Riverbank subzone.

It is important to note that any development would require a decision of the City of Adelaide as this precinct is vested under their care and control.

22 September 2021

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

That this council—

1. Notes that the site proposed by the state government for a ‘Riverbank Arena’, Helen Mayo Park (Park 27), is designated Parklands under the Adelaide Park Lands Act 2005;
2. Notes that the Adelaide Parklands and city layout are listed on the national heritage register and parts of the proposed site fall within the area of the listing;
3. Notes that the proposed development of the site could impact adversely on the heritage values of the Parklands; and
4. Opposes the state government developing Helen Mayo Park on the basis that this represents a further erosion of the Parklands that is inconsistent with its status as a nationally heritage listed site.

The motion that I am speaking to today relates to the future of the Riverbank. Members will be aware that the state government has recently announced plans for a so-called Riverbank arena. Of course, as is often the case with projects such as this, the site that they have chosen is on our city's public green space, the Parklands, because this is free land and tends to be land that governments highlight for development.

That is a great shame because of course this is the land that belongs to all South Australians in common. But the land that has been chosen here is Helen Mayo Park, or Park 27 under the Adelaide Park Lands Act, and it is named after one of South Australia's most famous women, Helen Mayo, who was a pioneer in medicine and health education. I wonder what she would think of the Premier's plan to obliterate the park that had been named in her honour.

This is yet another project that has been earmarked for Park 27 over the last few years. It has already lost many hectares of public green space. There is now police, medical facilities, university buildings—the sky is the limit in terms of the developments that we see on that site. Indeed, a few years ago, it was the focus of potential development with a helipad. Members may recall the plans of the leader of the Town Hall arm of the Liberal Party, Team Adelaide, Houssam Abiad, who proposed that that site host a helipad for joy rides for the mega rich. Now, the state government are viewing this site and plan to use it for yet another development, this time, as I say, the so-called Riverbank arena.

It is not just the Greens that are concerned about the potential for this development to erode the Parklands and to damage our green space, the Adelaide Park Lands Authority has expressed concerns and on 25 March it sought an urgent meeting with Adelaide Venue Management Corporation. It says in a report, which I will read for your interest:

Noting that the Park Lands already hosts Adelaide Oval, Tennis Centre, two hotels, approximately 200 ha of licensed playing fields, a hospital, the Thebarton Police Barracks and the Road Safety Centre as well as other public infrastructure, the Authority is concerned about the impact of further built form on the publicly-accessible open space provided by the Adelaide Park Lands.

The Adelaide Parklands are on the National Heritage List register. This occurred back in 2008 under the leadership of the then environment minister Peter Garrett at a federal level. That national heritage listing means that the character of the Parklands should be protected for the public good. I am very concerned that this listing is going to be jeopardised if this Riverbank arena proceeds.

Those concerns were heightened when I read a report that was made available to the Adelaide Park Lands Authority from Lara Daddow, the Acting Associate Director, Park Lands, Policy and Sustainability at the City of Adelaide, and that looks at the implications of the Riverbank arena and what that means for the Adelaide Parklands.

I will read the relevant sections into Hansard. The report notes that under section 4 of the Adelaide Park Lands Act, there are seven statutory principles, which are person or body responsible for the care, control and management of any part of the Adelaide Parklands must have regard for and seek to apply. Of particular relevance here are the following—and, again, I will read them on to the public record:

• 33.1 The land comprising the Adelaide Park Lands should, as far as is reasonably appropriate, correspond to the general intentions of Colonel William Light in establishing the first Plan of Adelaide in 1837.
• 33.2 The Adelaide Park Lands should be held for the public benefit of the people of South Australia, and should be generally available to them [to use and enjoy]…
• 33.3 The Adelaide Park Lands reflect and support a diverse range of environmental, cultural, recreational and social values and activities that should be protected and enhanced.
• 33.4 The Adelaide Park Lands provide a defining feature to the City of Adelaide and contribute to the economic and social well-being of the City in a manner that should be recognised and enhanced.
• 33.5 The contribution that the Adelaide Park Lands make to the natural heritage of the Adelaide Plains should be recognised, and consideration given to the extent to which initiatives involving the Park Lands can improve the biodiversity and sustainability of the Adelaide Plains.
• 33.6 The State Government, State agencies and authorities, and the Adelaide City Council, should actively seek to co-operate and collaborate with each other in order to protect and enhance the Adelaide Park Lands.
• 33.7 The interests of the South Australian community in ensuring the preservation of the Adelaide Park Lands are to be recognised, and activities that may affect the Park Lands should be consistent with maintaining or enhancing the environmental, cultural, recreational and social heritage status of the Park Lands for the benefit of the State.

In this report, it is further noted that the Adelaide Parklands and the city layout is listed on the national heritage register and that the boundaries of the proposed site for the Riverbank arena—that is, the Helen Mayo Park—overlap with those that are included within the national heritage register. What are the implications of this? The report notes, and again I quote:

Development on adjacent sites to land within the area of the National Heritage Listing, can still impact on the values of a National Heritage Listed site itself, for instance if the development impeded views into or of the Nationally Heritage Listed site.

And:

Together, or individually [in conjunction with the other projects], these projects could constitute actions under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity and Conservation Act…which impact the National Heritage Listing Values for the Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout.

It is noted further that:

Any construction on…Helen Mayo Park [or some of the other areas that have been earmarked for development by the state government] could be seen as actions which contribute to the cumulative erosion of Park Lands or possibly impact on the views/vistas across and into the Park Lands.

Further, it is noted that:

The Federal Government (Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment) has previously expressed concern about such cumulative erosions of the Adelaide Park Lands and these projects may constitute what is termed a 'controlled action' under the EPBC Act.

The State Government (as proponents) [of the project] will need to refer these…to the Federal Government.

In other words, what this report is highlighting is that if the state government is going to seize this public land and turn it into a Riverbank arena, that could jeopardise the status of the national listing of our Adelaide Parklands. That would be a disaster because we know that the Adelaide Parklands are some of the most unique parklands in the world. They are the lungs of our city and Adelaide is unique in being surrounded by a green belt such as this.

It has been recognised by the federal government through its inclusion on the National Heritage List and that unique character has been recognised by proponents in South Australia. We are waiting for the state government to provide associated recognition and inclusion on the state heritage list. There is also a campaign for this to be world heritage listed, so it would be disastrous if the national heritage listing were to be compromised in this way.

In terms of speaking to the benefits of the Parklands and their protection as green space, I do want to draw your attention to something that really the designers of our city knew all too well, and that is that there is a strong link between the physical and mental health and wellbeing of a community and their ability to freely access and enjoy green spaces.

A German study found the presence of parks helped prompt and facilitate greater social interaction as well as enhancing community satisfaction as a result of their aesthetic value. Access to green spaces has also been recorded to have a positive effect on those suffering from anxiety, depression and mood disorders. I think all of us would agree during the last few years where we have spent more time at home, particularly last year when many of us were working from home, having access to public green space has been vital for community health and wellbeing.

Before concluding my remarks, I want to make a few comments about the plans the Liberals have announced to redevelop the River Torrens under rezoning of the Riverbank Precinct. To accompany this Riverbank arena, it has been outlined—and I read this in The Advertiser a little earlier today—that the Riverbank Precinct rezoning will enable private bars, cafes, shops and tourist ventures to operate on both sides of the River Torrens. Apparently, departmental officers have outlined to the city council that the waterfront precinct between the Torrens Weir and Kintore Avenue will now provide opportunities for small, low-scale shops, cafes, and community, cultural and tourism activities located adjacent to the River Torrens.

So aside from all the existing developments that we have on the public space, we are going to see a Riverbank arena, or a sports stadium, as some have referred to it as, and then a series of shops, cafes and restaurants. So McDonald's on the Parklands alongside the Riverbank? This is a very dangerous precedent that is being established here in terms of commercialisation of our public space. If we go down that path, if we let the genie out of the bottle and allow commercial development on the Parklands in this way on our Riverbank, we will never be able to put the genie back in the bottle. We will never be able to undo it.

I fear that we will trash our unique Adelaide Parklands and we will lose their unique character. That is why I have moved this motion today and why the Greens are calling on all parties to join us in standing up for our unique Parklands and standing up for their unique status on the national heritage register by opposing this plan for a land grab by the state government.

8th September 2021

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I rise to speak on the government's #GoToTown campaign, which was announced last week. In the Premier's own words:

South Australians are being invited to get behind the many businesses which help make Adelaide the most liveable city in Australia. Whether it’s date night, mate’s night, a lazy morning or a family weekend, your city needs you to #GoToTown.

As part of this initiative there is a series of events and activities that are being organised as part of a FOMO program, and the City of Adelaide is also offering free car parking at selected UParks and discounted parking at Wilson Parking for FOMO Fridays.

Of course, we in the Greens welcome any initiatives that are going to encourage more people to come into the city and that will support local businesses, particularly during this economic crisis, but what is really, profoundly disappointing is the focus once again from the City of Adelaide—the city council—and the state government on car travel as the only form of travel that is being incentivised and encouraged. Why on earth has the state government not considered putting on free public transport to bring more people into the city, to encourage more people to attend these events?

It makes sense for the government to say, 'Let's put the resources in to provide free bus services,' for instance, 'so that people are more likely to stay in town, have a few drinks at local restaurants and pubs and can get home safely.' Instead, we have seen a continuation of the car-centric vision that has really defined this government. We know, of course, that they have failed to roll out any more bikeways or indeed invest in cycling infrastructure at all.

It is not just me or the Greens that are making these comments. I think it is instructive to hear from the experts here. I quote from an article in CityMag and a lecturer from Flinders University in urban geography and urban and regional planning, Gerti Szili, who told CityMag that although the CBD suffered immensely in the wake of COVID-19 and recent restrictions:

'I’m not really convinced that offering free parking is the way to [bring people back].'

They’ve tried this in other cities in Australia and certainly overseas, and I don’t think it’s actually proven to bring revenue that’s been lost back to the city.'

She also says the move flouts the City of Adelaide's own ambitious plan to become one of the world's first carbon neutral cities.

'We know that emissions from transport are one of the biggest contributors to GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions,' Szili says.

'So to meet the targets that the council had set for themselves, I don’t think it’s a particularly smart idea to encourage people to drive to the city and then take up that free parking offer.'

It is not just Dr Szili who says this. The urban and regional planning senior lecturer at the University of Adelaide, Andrew Allan, also expressed cynicism about the plan. He says he is surprised that the council thinks that it will work:

'I don’t know if it’s going to make a huge difference. Doubling of patronage is not likely,' he says.

I can only agree with those sentiments. This initiative is costing the council around $300,000 in lost revenue, according to those media reports. Imagine what the city council could have done, or the state government for that matter, if they had put that money into pop-up bikeways during the pandemic in terms of trying to encourage more visitation to the city. You have Berlin, you have Paris, you have Sydney and Melbourne—so many cities around the world and in our own nation that have invested in pop-up cycling infrastructure as a way of encouraging healthy communities and as a way of encouraging clean and green transport.

What has the City of Adelaide done? It has knocked back money from the state government to roll out a separated bikeway, the east-west bikeway. Why has it done so? I can only assume that has been at the behest of the factional leader Alex Hyde, who works for Nicolle Flint and is a senior figure in the Liberal Party's right-wing faction. I can only assume that the climate scepticism of Nicolle Flint and the hard right of the Liberal Party has poisoned the well in Town Hall and also led them down the folly of rejecting sensible policy.

This Go to Town campaign is a missed opportunity. I do not mean to go to town on the idea, but it is a missed opportunity and more money could have been put into alternatives.

10 June 2021

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I just want to very briefly speak in favour of these amendments. I think this has been an example of what this house of parliament does very well—that is, reviewing and improving government legislation. From the perspective of the Greens, we welcome some of the transparency measures that have been included in the bill, obviously those relating to disclosure of donations but also the undertaking that has been given by the government around the disclosure of political party memberships. We welcome that that is going to be done through regulation.

I want to recognise the work of all the players here. Obviously, my predecessor Mark Parnell worked on this bill, and I want to acknowledge his contribution. In particular, I want to acknowledge the work of the Hon. Emily Bourke, with whom I had the opportunity to work on this reform; the Hon. Mr Frank Pangallo; and, of course, the work of the government in the other place as well.

I am sure many people will be relieved to see this legislation finally come to pass. I recognise the work and patience of the LGA and their long-term advocacy on this and look forward to a new local government regime.