2 April 2025

Motions

NORTH ADELAIDE GOLF COURSE

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:33): I move:

That there be laid upon the table of this council, within two sitting weeks of the passing of this resolution, by the Leader of the Government, the business case and any related documents regarding the proposed redevelopment of the North Adelaide Golf Course.

On Sunday 16 February 2025, the Malinauskas government announced, standing alongside One Nation and the Hon. Connie Bonaros, that the state had secured the rights to continue hosting the LIV Golf tournament until 2031. The Premier also announced that the North Adelaide Golf Course would be redesigned by former professional golfer and LIV Golf founding commissioner Greg Norman and that the tournament would be relocated there in 2028.

I understand from media reports that the Hon. Connie Bonaros and the Hon. Sarah Game have pledged to support any backup legislation that might be required to enable the redevelopment of the site. I have asked questions in this place about what the backup legislation might look like or, indeed, what legislative changes might be required to achieve this redevelopment. I still do not know what legislative change the government has in its contemplation and, indeed, I reiterate my calls for them to release any draft legislation that they are considering so that members of the community can form a view.

During the announcement, the Premier stated that the government had not reached a final figure on the cost of the North Adelaide upgrade and said the configuration of the new course was still being decided. It was reported in The Advertiser on 1 March that a redevelopment proposal for the North Adelaide Golf Course developed back in 2018 by the council had been put online, and the plan costed a potential redevelopment at tens of millions of dollars. The planned development proposed the removal of trees to redesign holes.

South Australia's first Christian mission for Aboriginal people and a school to teach Kaurna language was established in the late 1830s, and is located at the current par 3 course. I understand from media reports that the initial plans placed a minigolf course, which was made public, over the two sacred sites. Kaurna elder Aunty Lynette Crocker has labelled the redevelopment proposal as 'outlandish' and said that there should have been consultation with the Kaurna community prior to the public announcement.

The Adelaide City Council, which both owns and manages the North Adelaide Golf Course, has been calling on the state government to sign a long-term lease for the course and pay for all of the costs associated with redevelopment whilst continuing to have oversight. Indeed, Adelaide Lord Mayor, Dr Jane Lomax-Smith, has stated:

Importantly, we want income streams and we're mindful very often when the government takes activities we lose an income stream…We don't get any benefit from car racing, any benefit from Adelaide Oval or the aquatic centre.

Many in the community are concerned about the secrecy around this proposal and have a number of questions around what the development might look like. Indeed, I attended a public meeting hosted by the Adelaide Park Lands Association on the weekend where serious questions were asked about this redevelopment. How many trees will be lost? Will there be guaranteed public access as part of this new development?

The Greens' position on LIV Golf is well known. Indeed, my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks has spoken at length in this place about LIV Golf and the odious human rights record of the Saudi government. That was a view also shared by the previous opposition leader as well, who was also a vocal critic of LIV Golf plans. But this motion speaks to another issue, and that is the business case. What is the business case for this proposal? How much government money will potentially be sought for this proposal? Are there any documents associated with that? This motion calls on the Malinauskas government to make that public.

We know that the Malinauskas government has form when it comes to secret business cases. Indeed, this is a government that promised $500 million for a university merger on the basis of a confidential business case. The government offered up the money and, according to the Premier's own admission, he had not even seen the business case, so they have form when it comes to signing on sight unseen, but we in this place need to do our due diligence.

This motion is calling for any business case in relation to the redevelopment to be made public, and any of the associated documents to be made public, so that the people of South Australia have an opportunity to form a view on this proposal, so that we can have an informed debate. I know the government might have their backup plan in some members of the crossbench, but it is really important that we as a parliament do our due diligence.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.

5 March 2025

Bills

PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE (FAST-FOOD RESTAURANTS NEAR SCHOOLS) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:20): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:21): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I rise to speak on the Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Fast Food Restaurants near Schools) Amendment Bill. The food we eat plays an important role in our health and wellbeing. Good nutrition contributes to quality of life, it helps maintain healthy body weight, it protects against infection, and it reduces the risk of chronic conditions and premature death. Chronic conditions, often linked to a poor diet, are the major cause of ill-health in Australia.

According to Preventive Health SA, more than one in four children—that is 27.5 per cent—in South Australia are overweight or obese. This is in part due to the fact that one-third of our kids' daily energy each day comes from junk food.

The last comprehensive survey of diet in children and adolescents occurred in the National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey, which found that children aged four to 13 years of age fall short of the recommended daily serve of vegetables, meat and alternatives, and dairy products and alternatives. Children aged 14 to 18 years of age fall short of meeting the recommended daily serve for all five food groups, including fruit.

The survey found that just one in 10 Australian children eat enough vegetables—just one in 10. Meanwhile, 38 per cent of children aged four to eight, 40 per cent of children aged nine to 13, and 41 per cent of children aged 14 to 18 are getting their energy from discretionary foods: that is, foods that are not needed to meet nutrition requirements and that generally tend to be high in kilojoules, saturated fat, added sugar, added salt and alcohol.

The Australian Dietary Guidelines recommend that discretionary foods should only be consumed occasionally and in small amounts, and for most people zero to three serves a day is suitable, depending on their age, their height and their level of activity. The intake of sodium is also well above the suggested adequate intake for all age groups. The guidelines also recommend limiting saturated fat intake, and for all children approximately 14 per cent of their energy intake was from saturated fats.

We also know that living with being overweight or with obesity can have a major impact on a person's life. It can affect a person's health and wellbeing, including their mental health, and their social and economic activities throughout life. Obesity increases the risk of preventive chronic diseases, including cardiovascular diseases, type II diabetes, some musculoskeletal conditions, and numerous forms of cancer. As the level of excess weight increases so too does the risk of developing these conditions.

In addition, being overweight can hamper the ability to control or manage chronic health problems. Dietary behaviours tend to track into adulthood, so children who are exposed to these food environments are more likely to develop unhealthy eating patterns.

There is, of course, a financial incentive for addressing obesity in both adults and children. In 2018, obesity cost the Australian economy an estimated $11.8 billion. This included $5.4 billion in direct costs including health care, and $6.4 billion in indirect costs including lost productivity such as absenteeism, unemployment and early retirement. If no action is taken to reduce obesity, the cost is estimated to increase to $87.7 billion by 2032. This is what this bill is seeking to address.

The bill that I am introducing today prohibits junk food businesses from being established within 400 metres of schools and it lists a series of prescribed fast-food restaurants that would be included within the remit of this legislation. We know that, and certainly I have done some consultation with a number of schools around this, fast-food restaurants in close proximity to schools can create lots of adverse outcomes for the school community.

There is obviously the impact on health and wellbeing, and I have talked a little bit about how serious childhood obesity is and why we want to encourage healthy eating patterns among children because we take those patterns with us into adulthood, but also I have heard that having fast-food restaurants in close proximity to schools can contribute to inappropriate behaviour within the school environment, with kids consuming high-fat, high-sugar food potentially in their lunch break, coming into the classroom and that might make them more likely to act up, and also means they are going to be less attentive within the school environment. So this bill is seeking to tackle that.

A study conducted by a research team from Columbia, Berkley and the London School of Economics and Political Science linked obesity levels in school children to the proximity of fast-food restaurants to schools. It found that siting a fast-food outlet right next to a school produced a 5.2 per cent increase in obesity among students. Furthermore, a UniSA study published in the Public Health Nutrition journal found that schools in lower socioeconomic areas are almost 10 times more likely to have fast-food outlets built nearby than schools that are in higher socioeconomic areas.

There are a number of schools within our state that are located within 1.5 kilometres of fast-food outlets, but this bill targets those fast-food businesses that pop up within 400 metres of a school. Examples across the state include Christies Beach High School, which is 150 metres from a Hungry Jacks; Salisbury Primary School, which is 150 metres from Hungry Jacks and 200 metres from McDonald's; Ingle Farm Primary School, which is 300 metres from Hungry Jacks; and Playford International College, which is 300 metres from both KFC and Hungry Jacks.

Current zoning in Adelaide makes it almost impossible to stop fast-food restaurants from opening close to schools. Despite that limitation within our planning regime, a number of local councils have been urging the state government to act. Charles Sturt council has previously lobbied the state government to ban fast-food outlets near schools, and Marion council has previously targeted junk food advertising near schools in their area.

It is worth noting that this is also a hot button issue in many communities around the state. In 2021, the Peregrine Corporation lodged a development application with the Adelaide Hills Council to construct a 24-hour On the Run petrol station, complete with a fast-food restaurant, just 400 metres away from Heathfield High School. The council's assessment panel rejected the application in August 2023, but an appeal has been lodged by the corporation with the Environment, Resources and Development Court, where I understand the matter still sits.

Heathfield residents are very much opposed to this development and have organised and mobilised to defeat this proposal. They are not concerned about the idea of having a petrol station in their community, and my bill makes it clear that these petrol stations can still remain, their concern is around businesses that are selling junk food to their kids.

In Strathalbyn, residents are also up in arms and vehemently opposing a proposed fast-food development on their East Terrace, which is just 300 metres away from not one but three schools: Tyndale Christian School, Eastern Fleurieu R-12 School and Eastern Fleurieu R-12 School 7-12 campus. Again, it is a live issue in a number of communities, and again I know that they are petitioning the planning minister for action, but there is nothing within our current planning laws to say that it is inappropriate to have fast-food restaurants in such close proximity to schools.

The bill does not ban all food near schools. It is important to highlight that for this council. It also makes it clear that the prohibition only applies when the dominant purpose of a business or a building is the selling of fast food or highly processed food. Therefore that would exclude food courts, for instance, that might be part of a broader shopping centre.

The bill amends the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 to prohibit the following businesses from opening branches within 400 metres of an existing school. Businesses that are prescribed in the legislation include AMPM, Ampol Foodary, Carl's Jr, Coles Express, Domino's Pizza, Hungry Jack's, KFC, Krispy Kreme, McDonald's—

An honourable member: You're making me hungry.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: And me thirsty—Nando's, Oporto, OTR, Pizza Hut, Quickstop, Red Rooster, Wendy's Milk Bar and X Convenience but also, quite critically, any other food business added by the minister by regulation. So I have prescribed some businesses we think are of particular concern on the basis that children might also be exposed to significant advertising by these businesses on their way to and from school, but if the minister becomes aware of another business that they consider appropriate for inclusion, the bill gives them the mechanism to be able to do that.

It is important to note that the bill does not prevent the operation of a roadside service station within 400 metres of a school provided that the roadside service station does not sell food, including beverages, for consumption on or off the premises. The bill will also prevent any of the aforementioned businesses from renewing a lease should the premises be located within 400 metres of an existing school. Once the lease expires, under this bill the business would not be able to renew its lease. The maximum penalty for breaching this rule is $20,000.

Clause 135C in the bill states that development authorisation must not be granted for a proposed development involving a change in the use of land within 400 metres of a school to a use primarily for the purposes of a fast-food restaurant. As I indicated earlier, this clause would still allow for the approval of applications for development of new complexes within 400 metres of a school where the primary purpose is not to provide fast food. An example of this is a shopping centre whose primary purpose is retail but might contain some food offerings in a food court.

I think this is an important point to illustrate, because when I announced plans to move down this path late last year the planning minister came out and opposed the bill, and he did so on the basis that it would shut down food courts. As I have indicated, that is certainly not going to be the cause of this bill.

Bans on fast-food restaurants and takeaways near existing schools have been successfully introduced throughout England and Wales. By 2017, 35 of the 325 councils in England had adopted management zones designed to curb proliferation of new takeaways around schools. These include cities like Leeds, Bristol, Newcastle and the City of London.

The sky has not fallen down in those places, and, indeed, this is a reform that I think will be welcomed by many parents. I know today that members of parliament have had a presentation on some of the risks associated with sugar, in particular for young people, and I would encourage them to consider this bill within that context.

Evidence from the United Kingdom demonstrates that these changes have resulted in a decrease in the number of planning applications received and an increase in the percentage that were rejected from fast-food restaurants. The City of Manchester implemented similar restrictions on hot food takeaways near schools, which limited the proliferation of fast-food outlets in areas to no more than 10 per cent of all non-residential ground floor frontages in district and local centres. This is something that is getting results overseas. If this legislation were supported, South Australia would become the first place in the country to place this kind of prohibition on fast-food restaurants by schools.

I know the Malinauskas government is passionate about promoting healthy communities. I know that the Premier in particular has a passion for sport and promoting healthy and active lifestyles. I would expect that the government will embrace this reform as something that will improve broader community health and wellbeing and something that would be welcomed by many parents. I commend the bill and indicate that I plan to bring it to a vote at some stage, so I encourage members to engage with the proposal in coming months.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.

19 February 2025

Bills

HERITAGE PLACES (GREAT AUSTRALIAN BIGHT) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:00): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Heritage Places Act 1993 and to make related amendment to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:01): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Australia is known for its beautiful and unique natural landscapes. From the Snowy Mountains, the Tablelands, the Great Ocean Road to the Red Centre, we really do have it all. One of these iconic Australian landscapes is the Great Australian Bight. It is where the desert meets the sea on the Yerkala Mirning country, and I want to acknowledge that First Nations people have cared for that land and sea country for over 65,000 years.

Containing one of the most pristine ocean environments left on earth and the longest continual sea cliffs—some 120 metres high—the Bight is a critical habitat for countless species and it holds sacred whale dreaming stories for the Mirning people. It is estimated that 85 per cent of the species that call the Great Australian Bight home are found nowhere else on earth. The Bight is a vital carving and gathering area for endangered southern right whales who gather there in winter, and it can offer incredible whale watching from June to October. Once hunted to the brink of extinction, the whales are protected and their numbers are increasing.

Australian sea lions, also once hunted to the verge of extinction, find refuge in the Bight. Eighty per cent of the population live in the Bight. They dive for fish, squid, rock lobster and small sharks and rays. They rest and raise their young on the flat rocks that line the coast. These sea lions will swim up to five days with no rest to get to the Great Australian Bight. Leafy sea dragons shelter in kelp forests of the Great Southern Reef and camouflage as drifting seaweed. There are 36 species of dolphins and whales that can be found in the Bight. Imagine seeing a whole pod of dolphins playing in the waves or up to a hundred whales at once.

Along the coast, there is ancient rock art and caves that are sacred places for First Nations people. The Bight sustains wild fisheries and aquaculture industries that are worth around $440 million per year and a regional tourism industry worth $1.2 billion per year. But this is all under threat from oil exploration. The Great Australian Bight Alliance has noted that:

The threats posed by opening the Bight to oil exploration are unacceptable. Not only is there potential for a catastrophic oil spill, the poorly understood effects of seismic testing, strike risk and noise pollution from drilling and boat traffic, and increased pollution have the potential to fundamentally disrupt this unique marine environment.

Industrialisation in the Bight is putting all that beauty at risk. There has been modelling done to show the potential impacts of an oil spill. I would encourage members to find this map for themselves on the Great Australian Bight Alliance's website. It shows the potential for an oil spill to contaminate the entire coast of South Australia, southern Western Australia, and reaching as far as Phillip Island in Victoria and the western coast of Tasmania. Of course, the biggest risk is the coastline along the Bight, including the iconic Bunda Cliffs.

Imagine almost every single beach in South Australia covered in oil. The impacts are not only felt by the unique ecosystems along these coasts but also right across our economy. It would be catastrophic for small coastal towns that rely on the Bight for their tourism, and this is what we are risking if we allow oil drilling in the Bight, which is why we need to protect the Bight in whatever ways we can.

There has been a long-running campaign for the Great Australian Bight to be put forward for consideration for World Heritage listing, and the Greens have been proud to be part of that campaign for many years now. Back when drilling on the Great Australian Bight was in prospect during my time in the federal parliament, I worked with Senator Nick Xenophon to establish a parliamentary inquiry into drilling in the Bight so that we could highlight the risks associated with that.

Earlier this month in the federal parliament, my federal colleague Senator Sarah Hanson-Young introduced a bill that would require the federal environment minister to nominate the Bight for consideration for World Heritage protection. This would protect this South Australian icon from oil and gas drilling forever. More than two-thirds of South Australians oppose drilling in the Bight, including the traditional owners.

I understand the South Australian government have previously indicated their support to the federal government for the Bight being submitted for World Heritage listing. I welcome that, but this is an opportunity for the Malinauskas government to put their money where their mouth is. We need to see state listing, we need to see national listing and then of course we need to see world listing of this iconic site.

Members will know that I am a strong advocate for adding iconic spaces such as this on to the heritage list. I have another bill before parliament that would add the Adelaide Parklands to the State Heritage Register. This was passed some time ago by this parliament. It was supported by the Labor Party when they were in opposition. When they found themselves back in government, they welched on that commitment, and I urge them to back listing for the Adelaide Parklands and of course the Great Australian Bight.

The bill I am introducing today would see the areas of the Bight that fall under state jurisdiction listed as a state heritage area. While the federal government continues to drag its heels for World Heritage listing, this bill offers the protection that we can have at a state level and would give the state government an opportunity to really show their support for the Bight. What a wonderful thing it would be if we saw Premier Malinauskas listing the Bight in South Australia, if we saw Prime Minister Albanese—because God help us all if Peter Dutton ever finds his way into The Lodge in terms of what that means for the environment. It is my hope that we never see the Hon. Peter Dutton getting anywhere near The Lodge as he would be a disaster for our environment and our economy.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: It is my hope that what we see is Prime Minister Albanese and Premier Malinauskas working together to list the Great Australian Bight and to ensure that it gets the protection it deserves.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.

19 February 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:24): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing on the topic of LIV Golf and the Adelaide Parklands.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Yesterday, I asked the minister about the proposal to move LIV Golf to the North Adelaide Golf Course within the Parklands. At this stage, there is no publicly available information on the scope of the proposal or potential changes that might be required to legislation impacting on the Parklands, nor is there any information on how this plan will impact the community and the local council. In her response to my question, the minister suggested I, and I quote, knock on the Premier's door and have a conversation about the plans. I indicated that I would, of course, revisit the issue. My questions to the Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing therefore are:

1. Has the minister now had an opportunity to have a briefing from the Premier on this proposal for the redevelopment of the golf course on the Parklands?

2. Can the minister provide more detail on what is envisaged? In particular, will there be permanent fencing around the course; how many trees will be removed; will the fee structure remain the same for the golf course, or will those using the golf course be forced to pay a higher fee; and if the minister hasn't sought a briefing from the Premier, will she seek a briefing from the Hon. Connie Bonaros or the Hon. Sarah Game, because they seem to know all about it?

The Hon. C. Bonaros interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (Minister for Emergency Services and Correctional Services, Minister for Autism, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (15:25): I will be disappointed if we don't finish question time the same way tomorrow.

The Hon. C. Bonaros interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: As I said yesterday, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to be responding on behalf of any honourable member in this chamber about conversations that they may or may not be having. As I stated yesterday, LIV Golf is a significant major event in South Australia, one that brings many into our community and has great benefit for not only our local businesses but for future rising sporting stars to be able to be a part of something.

I know the Premier has had conversations with the council. I know there have been indications that there could be legislative requirement changes, but that is also not a certainty. This is very early in the development stages—very, very early. It was only just on the weekend that this commitment was made, so it is early times. I really do encourage—I am happy to organise a briefing with myself and to get more information about this for the honourable member, if that is what he would so desire.

18 February 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:28): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing on the topic of LIV Golf and the Adelaide Parklands.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: On Sunday, the Premier, the Hon. Peter Malinauskas, announced plans to redevelop the North Adelaide Golf Course as part of a deal to secure LIV Golf's future in Adelaide. In making the announcement, the Premier indicated his desire to work with the Adelaide City Council in advancing any redevelopment, but he also indicated that backup legislation was an option that he could pursue. The Hon. Connie Bonaros and the Hon. Sarah Game were both quoted in the Premier's media release and have stated their intention to provide support for any legislation. My question to the Minister for Recreation and Sport therefore is:

1. Has the minister been briefed on any potential backup legislation required to redevelop the golf course?

2. Can she confirm whether legislation will in fact be required?

3. Will the minister table any draft bill in this chamber this week so that all members of the parliament have an opportunity to see it, or is this just another secret One Nation deal?

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (Minister for Emergency Services and Correctional Services, Minister for Autism, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (15:29): I thank the honourable member for his question. Obviously, decisions made by other members in this chamber are their decisions and their conversations to be had.

LIV Golf is an incredible event that brings many to our community from across the world, as the member knows. I think the Premier made it clear in his public comments that he is working with the community, with the local council, and that his door is open. I encourage the honourable member to knock on that door and go and have that conversation with the Premier.

30 October 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:39): I move:

That this council—

1. Notes that since 2014, the former Franklin Street bus station, known as The Joinery, has been a unique space for South Australians to gather and connect;

2. Acknowledges that The Joinery is currently used by groups such as the Conservation Council SA, the Adelaide Community Bike Workshop, the Adelaide Sustainability Centre, the Common Ground community garden, the Modern Money Lab, the Wilderness Society SA, SAGE and several smaller community groups that see the space as their home;

3. Recognises the state government have announced the redevelopment of the site to deliver 392 apartments, including 35 per cent affordable housing for rent and purchase; and

4. Calls on the Malinauskas government to work with community groups to find a suitable alternative site to continue their activities.

In moving this motion I should disclose that the Greens are also an organisation that use The Joinery for some of our meetings and activities, and of course I am a member of the Greens. I want to put on the public record that our party organisation uses this meeting space as well from time to time.

Community spaces like The Joinery are vital to thriving, active, connected communities. People need somewhere to gather, to share ideas, and to develop innovations for the future. The Joinery has been a vital community space for over 10 years and is much loved by community groups. The site, previously the Adelaide Bus Terminal, was taken over by the Conservation Council in 2014, and it became a place to connect and create.

The space hosts rooms of all sizes and function spaces to cater for different community needs. There is a bike workshop, a community garden, an exhibition area and a cafe. Put it together, and it is the perfect space for communities to get together. I first became aware of The Joinery's activities during my time on the Adelaide City Council back in 2014, and it really did develop a reputation as a beloved community space.

The hosts of The Joinery, the Conservation Council SA, have allowed the space to be utilised by many different groups. These include the Adelaide Community Bike Workshop, the Adelaide Sustainability Centre, the Common Ground community garden, the Modern Money Lab, the Sustainable Prosperity Action Group and the Wilderness Society.

Beyond the regulars who use The Joinery, the space is also used by 300 different community groups. These include the monthly South Australian Grassroots Ecosystem evenings (SAGE). This is where people can come together, share a meal, learn about new ideas and create projects. Regularly these events are attended by between 50 and 100 people, and SAGE uses the entire Joinery space to conduct their workshops and sessions.

Recently, we learned of Renewal SA’s plan to turn this old bus depot into a development with apartments, a hotel and retail spaces. The Greens always welcome more housing, and I want to congratulate the government on making a 35 per cent allocation for affordable housing in the development. I think that is a really significant thing, and the government should be commended for doing that.

The Joinery is in a vital location in terms of access to community amenity. It is well serviced by public transport. So it is a very good location for affordable housing. I just want to make it very clear that I make no criticism of the government for making this space available for affordable housing, particularly given the scale of the housing crisis we face.

What this means, of course, is now that the government is making that space available for this housing, which, as I say, is a high priority at the moment, the question then must be for the government: where else are they going to find to accommodate these groups? I think that is where the government needs to now step up and do some work.

We understand that there have been conversations with community groups that there may be spaces in the new development made available for public use; however, these groups will only be able to use the space if they are charged a commercial hourly rate, and a commercial hourly rent would be prohibitive for a lot of community spaces.

I used to work in the community sector and many years ago there was a community space, the Torrens Building, which operated to the benefit of community organisations. I worked for the Youth Affairs Council; there was Amnesty based there, I believe; environmental organisations; I think SACOSS also had an office there for a time. That was a really good community space.

Unfortunately, the Rann Labor government, for reasons unknown to me, thought a better use of that key civic and community space would be to turn it into a private university. I think that was a very short-sighted and disappointing decision that the then Rann government made. I believe it was the Rann government. I do acknowledge the work of my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks. I believe she was quite vocal on that at the time. It was outrageous to see the loss of that community space.

The Joinery has stepped in and filled that gap in many ways, in terms of being an open access space for community organisations. The government now needs to step up and find another location. There is a lot of vacant space in the CBD that they could turn to. Over the last few decades, we have seen community controlled spaces disappear. These spaces are vital parts of our community. They allow people to get together and to connect face to face. They reduce social isolation and they give people more agency in their lives.

It is important that such spaces are fit for purpose, free, easy to organise and not based on an hourly rent system, which is prohibitive for community organisations. These spaces need to be reconfigurable so that they can suit different community needs, and groups must have a level of agency in their management.

In what is an increasingly isolated world, where people mostly connect through their screens, it is so important that we provide spaces in our cities for real-world interaction and organising. This motion calls on the Malinauskas government to find alternative locations for these groups to connect and continue their activities. These activities promote wellbeing, they build relationships and they help people to develop ideas.

It is vital that this new location suits the needs of the groups that will be affected by the closure of The Joinery. What we are really calling for the government to do is to engage in negotiations with these organisations in good faith, so that a solution can be found. I feel confident that a solution can be found. I feel confident that the government can find a pathway through here, but they need to work in unison with the impacted organisations and find something that is going to really suit their needs.

26 September 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:12): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before directing a question without notice to the minister representing the Minister for Planning on the topic of the Duke of York Hotel.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Yesterday, it was announced that the historic Duke of York Hotel will be closed and gutted to build a 33-storey student accommodation tower. The plans will retain only a majority of the facade in the redevelopment. The Duke of York is a local heritage place and hosts regular comedy nights, DJs and live music—sounds very similar to a scenario we have dealt with before in this parliament.

Just this month, the Governor assented to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Designated Live Music Venues and Protection of Crown and Anchor Hotel) Amendment Bill, which aims to protect designated live music venues. My questions to the minister representing the Minister for Planning therefore are:

1. Will the minister designate the Duke of York Hotel a live music venue under the amendments that were recently made to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act?

2. What is the minister doing to retain the heritage value of this building?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (15:13): I am happy to refer those questions to the Minister for Planning in the other place and bring back a response.

In reply to the Hon. R.A. SIMMS (26 September 2024).

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries):

The Minister for Planning has advised:

• That he will take advice from the Department for Housing and Urban Development on what venues should be designated as live music venues under the new provisions of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016.
• In determining what venues should be designated as live music venues, the following will be considered:
  • The extent to which the venue is used as a live music venue;
  • Whether there is likely to be residential development within 60 metres of the venue;
  • Any relevant zoning that applies to the venue in the Planning and Design Code, which could include:
  • consideration of whether existing code policy in relation to noise attenuation is already sufficient; and
  • whether a venue is located within a zone envisaged for entertainment;
  • Whether the venue is a place of state or local heritage;
  • The existing development approval and any relevant conditions attached to it; and
  • Any other approvals or licences (such as a liquor licence under the Liquor Licensing Act 1997) the venue has.
• He will consult with relevant stakeholders and hotel owners of venues proposed to be designated before designating any venues as live music venues.
• The Duke of York Hotel (hotel) is listed as a place of local heritage in the Planning and Design Code. This means that any demolition, destruction or removal may only occur if the portion to be demolished, destroyed or removed does not contribute to the heritage values of the hotel itself.
• It would be a matter for the South Australian Heritage Council as to whether the hotel is worthy of any further protection as a place of state heritage under the Heritage Places Act 1993.

12 September 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:20): I rise to speak in favour of the motion from my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks. This proposal for a parliamentary inquiry into live music comes after the debate about the Crown and Anchor. It has really exposed some of the challenges that our live music venues face. As I indicated at the time when we were dealing with that debate, one of the big challenges, of course, has been planning laws and the lack of protection for our heritage buildings—and I am really pleased the parliament has dealt with that—but there are lots of other challenges that live music faces in our state. One need to only look at the closure of venues that we have seen in recent years.

Those challenges were magnified during COVID, but we have seen the closure of The Producers on Grenfell Street; the Tivoli on Pirie Street; Enigma, which closed after operating for nearly 25 years; and the King's Head, once the stomping ground for the original line-up of The Masters Apprentices, which rehearsed in the pub's back shed, has been closed down. The Wright Street Hotel has also been put on the chopping block, and that has closed down. The Edinburgh Castle on Currie Street—I have some good memories of that hotel back when it was a gay venue in the early 2000s. I used to go there a bit then. It has closed, it has reopened a few times, but, sadly, it has also fallen by the wayside and it closed in 2018, and it had been licensed since 1837. And then, of course, The Austral, which has faced challenges through planning.

I acknowledge that, as a result of the bill that passed the parliament the other day, there will be protection for some of those remaining live music venues. Some of our iconic venues potentially could get protection—that will be a decision the minister will make in terms of those that meet the criteria that he establishes—but that could theoretically ensure we do not have the problems that have been faced by pubs like The Austral, for instance, where they had a development pop up next to them and, in effect, that meant that their business model was no longer viable.

There are other challenges that live music venues face and, indeed, the arts community face more broadly in our state. The need for more government funding is one challenge, but I know the Hon. Tammy Franks has spoken previously about some of the peculiarities that exist in liquor licensing laws, for instance, and the impact that can have on business operations. This is a really worthwhile committee, and I am very pleased to hear that it has broad support across the parliament.

I very much look forward to hearing about the issues that come to light and having an opportunity for the parliament to look at the recommendations and see what can be done to ensure that we make Adelaide, and our state, a place that really celebrates live music and the arts well into the future.

10 September 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:06): I rise to speak in favour of this bill, and it is worth briefly visiting how we found ourselves here.

Back in May it was reported that Wee Hur Holdings Ltd had applied for planning consent for the partial demolition of the Crown and Anchor Hotel to make way for the construction of multilevel student accommodation. At that time the Greens were one of the first groups to come out in opposing this redevelopment, not because we did not want to see more student accommodation in the city—of course we want to see more student accommodation—but because our view was that we did not need to bulldoze or radically alter one of our iconic pubs in order to accommodate that kind of development.

There are already a lot of vacant sites in the CBD that could be activated to make way for more student accommodation, so we never accepted the argument that a private developer should be able to acquire that site and, in effect, get rid of the pub. It does not make sense. Cities are, after all, all about balance, and we need to have live music venues, we need to have iconic pubs in our city, as well as more student accommodation.

What followed from that time was a huge community grassroots campaign that has saved that South Australian icon from destruction. Over the course of several months over 15,000 people signed a petition calling on the state government to save the Cranker, and a record 1,328 submissions were made to the State Commission Assessment Panel—that is more than double those that have been received in any previous public consultation for development.

At two rallies, on 28 April and 18 August, thousands of South Australians took to the streets to demand that the state government save their pub. I want to take this opportunity to praise all of those have been campaigning on this issue, and to recognise their great work in activating the community. In particular, I acknowledge the work of Evan Morony, Patrick Maher and all the other members of the Save the Cranker committee for their tireless work. It has been a privilege to engage with them over the last few months.

This is an example of what we can do when the parliament works in unity with the community. The Greens are very proud to have stood with the community every step of the way, raising this issue at every level of government. We raised it in Town Hall, we raised it here in the state parliament, and this was also discussed on the floor of the federal Senate.

So the Greens are very proud of the work that we have done to fight to save this iconic pub. I also want to acknowledge the work of other members of parliament. In particular, I acknowledge the work of the Hon. Michelle Lensink, who has done a lot of work on this issue, engaging around this one—as she does on many important issues. We share our love of camp.

From the start, the Greens and the community were told by the state government that there was simply nothing that could be done. The government came out of the start and said, 'There's nothing we can do on this. It's not possible. We have a rules-based system.' Well, there is an old saying we have in the Greens: 'If you don't like the rules, you change them.' That is what we are doing today.

Indeed, when I brought a motion to this place calling on the Malinauskas government to oppose any partial demolition or adaptive reuse of the Crown and Anchor, the reply of the government was clear: they have no ability to intervene in the decision-making process. Hey presto, less than three months later we now have a bill before us that will save the Cranker and give other live music venues the protection they deserve. This is precisely what the Greens were calling for.

At that time we were told it could not be done: 'We have a rules-based system. We can't do anything, we can't intervene.' Well, thanks to people power, finally we have seen a change in position of the government. The power of community activism is on display here in the parliament today. I have always believed that it is the parliament that makes the law but it is the community that drives change. That is what we have seen here, and we do welcome the fact that the government has finally listened to the community.

It is important to note that the Cranker is just the latest in a string of iconic buildings and live music venues that have been targeted by developers. Over the last decades, we have seen the Producers on Grenfell Street and Pirie Street's Tivoli close their doors, and other venues like the Austral no longer host live music. Their loss has dealt a heavy blow to Adelaide's proud music history and tradition, and this bill will finally give the Cranker and the city's most iconic remaining live music venues the improved protections that they deserve. Acting President, I acknowledge your work in advocating for a committee on live music, which we look forward to seeing getting off the ground in due course because that is an important next step.

This bill provides that the Crown and Anchor cannot be demolished. Its height cannot be increased through the addition of more storeys, and a change in use of the land cannot occur without the concurrence of the Minister for Planning after a community consultation process of not less than four weeks. It also enhances protections for other live music venues in the Adelaide CBD by designating it as a live music venue area and specifying that new residential developments within 60 metres of a venue must include noise attenuation measures to reduce the potential for complaints. We welcome those provisions. This is precisely the kind of intervention that the Greens have been calling for, and so we welcome that.

We will also be moving to amend the bill so that the provisions of the Heritage Places (Protection of State Heritage Places) Amendment Bill that passed the other place several weeks ago will apply to the Crown and Anchor. This was a Greens private members' bill, which was to increase the penalties that applied for demolition by neglect. That is the practice where you see an owner of a property allowing it to fall into disrepair. Because the penalties were previously so low, there was really nothing to compel the developer to take action to ensure that these properties were being held to an appropriate standard, and they could therefore be bulldozed.

The Greens worked with the Malinauskas government to close that loophole. We passed a private members' bill in the parliament during the last sitting. This suite of amendments that I will be moving will insert those provisions into the way in which the Cranker is managed in the future. That will ensure of course that, if there is any change of ownership or if the developer decides in the future that they are not going to take action to keep that building up to an appropriate standard, the heritage minister can intervene, slap them with fines and take action. I do acknowledge, as the Hon. Michelle Lensink has mentioned in her comments, her and I have spoken about this and I welcome the Liberals' support for that and appreciate that.

The Cranker has been saved, but without further reforms to our planning and heritage laws South Australia's iconic places will remain at risk of being lost forever. I agree with my colleagues that this demonstrates the flaws in our planning system. If the planning system was actually working and meeting community expectations, you would not need to see legislative intervention like this. This really is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the flaws in our state's planning laws and heritage laws. It is clear that our heritage protection laws, which are focused on built form aesthetics, do not extend protections to ongoing use or the broader cultural and social value of these buildings. The result is that heritage places which are of huge social and cultural significance to our community could be bought by developers and gutted, with only the facade remaining.

What this debate has exposed is that heritage is about much more than just bricks and mortar, it is about the heart and soul of our state, our city and our community. The government must now move to amend our heritage laws to reflect this. It must also strengthen the role of people in our planning system and give communities more of a say in planning the cities that they want to live in. I do not agree with the views of the Property Council that it is not for advocates, politicians and local councillors to be involved in these decisions and that these decisions should simply be made by unelected officials. It is the role of parliament and council, as the people's representatives, to actually give effect to the views of the people and ensure that we have a planning system that suits their needs.

We really need to revise the thresholds in the planning, development and infrastructure regulations that push planning assessments of medium-size developments from council assessment plans to the State Commission Assessment Panel. At present, the threshold is just $10 million for developments in the City of Adelaide, which means that the council is stripped of its role in most development proposals. That is why I think there is such a discomfort with so many of the decisions that are being made, because the community is not having an appropriate say.

The Greens have also proposed a community right to buy, which is modelled on similar legislation that has worked well in the United Kingdom. This would enable local councils, community organisations and charities to be able to nominate land or buildings that are of community value for inclusion on a register which would be managed by the Minister for Planning. Once listed, a building or a piece of land would become an asset of community value and remain on the register for five years. During that time, the owner would have to apply to the minister should they wish to change its use or to sell the building, and the community would have a right to express interest as a potential buyer during an eight-week period.

The minister would consider applications from councils, community organisations and charities and if an expression of interest is approved, a 12-month moratorium is put on the asset to enable the community group or council to raise funds for the offer. This would provide a lifeline to our iconic pubs and stop the endless decline of live music venues and SA's cherished places. The Greens are going to continue to push for that, as well as other changes to our planning laws.

I agree with the comments made by the Hon. Michelle Lensink and the Hon. Connie Bonaros that this bill does set a precedent. If the state government has the power to save the Cranker, then it has the power to fix our state's heritage and planning laws, too, and the Greens will continue to stand with the community in fighting for a heritage and planning regime that serves the interests of the community rather than developers. I certainly put the government on notice that next time there is a development proposal that totally offends community sentiment, the Greens will come back knocking once again for this parliament to intervene because we now know that when there is a will, there is a way.

I think this should actually send a shiver down the spine of all those developers in our state who are seeking to impose inappropriate development on our city, because with people power we can intervene and we can strike a better balance in our state's planning laws. I welcome the government's intervention in this instance, and I will have a bit more to say in the committee stage and a few questions of the government.

1 May 2024

Motions

CROWN AND ANCHOR HOTEL

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon R.A. Simms:

That this council—

1. Notes that Singapore-based developer Wee Hur Holdings Ltd has made an application for partial demolition and adaptive reuse of the site of the Crown and Anchor Hotel, which was first licensed in 1853 and has been a cornerstone of Adelaide’s live music scene for over three decades.

2. Acknowledges an online petition signed by over 15,000 people opposing any attempts at demolition or change in the use of the Crown and Anchor Hotel.

3. Recognises that Adelaide is a designated UNESCO City of Music for the vibrancy of the city’s music culture, including its live music venues.

4. Calls on the Malinauskas government to:

(a) oppose any partial demolition or adaptive reuse of the Crown and Anchor Hotel;

(b) make a submission to the State Commission Assessment Panel indicating that position; and

(c) move to amend state heritage laws to ensure that cultural and social value is considered in the development assessment of heritage sites like the Crown and Anchor Hotel.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON (17:25): moved an amendment to the motion:

Leave out paragraph 4 and insert new paragraphs as follows:

4. Encourages any member in this place to make a submission to the State Commission Assessment Panel by 11.59pm on Friday 10 May 2024 to enable them to make an informed decision when the application is considered.

5. Notes that the Planning and Design Code under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 can designate a place as a place of local heritage value and local councils may seek to initiate amendments to the Planning and Design Code to designate a place as a place of local heritage value and that the Crown and Anchor was designated as a local heritage place on 1 November 2001.

6. Notes that on 24 April 2024 the Heritage Council received a nomination from a member of the public to make the Crown and Anchor a State Heritage Place and that the council is also anticipating a second nomination imminently.

7. Notes that on 26 April 2024 the Crown and Anchor Hotel was provisionally entered on the state Heritage Register as a State Heritage Place by the Chair of the Heritage Council under section 17 (2)(b) of the Heritage Places Act 1993 which is essentially a determination that a place should be protected while an assessment of its heritage significance is carried out and that an assessment will now be carried out with a decision to be made on the validity of the nomination at a future meeting of council likely in early September.

8. Notes the criteria to list a place as a State Heritage Place is contained within the Heritage Places Act 1993—this means that any future considerations to amend the criteria would be a matter for the Minister for Climate, Environment and Water as the minister responsible for the Heritage Places Act 1993 and that the act already includes a specific criteria centred around a place having a strong cultural or spiritual association for the community or a group within it.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:45): I want to thank all members who have spoken on this motion: the Hon. Mr Hanson, the Hon. Michelle Lensink, the Hon. Tammy Franks, and the Hon. Frank Pangallo. I also want to put on record my thanks to the Crown and Anchor campaign, the Cranker campaign, for the amazing work that they have done in mobilising so many people in our community on this issue. This motion is not the end of this campaign; in fact, it is just the beginning. It is just the beginning of a new movement that is campaigning to reform our planning laws in South Australia and ensure that we have a planning system that actually listens to the views of the community rather than being captive to the interests of developers.

It is clear that there is momentum to fix South Australia's broken planning system and to actually listen to the views of the community. I am disappointed that paragraph 4 of this motion is being struck out, because the government's amendments take all of the verbs out of the motion. The motion actually called on the government to form a position opposing this redevelopment of the Crown and Anchor, and it called on the government to support the social and cultural elements of heritage as well, and to ensure that that was appropriately recognised through our planning laws.

I am disappointed that the Liberal Party seems to have changed its position on that. It seems to be a case of saying one thing on the steps of Parliament House on Sunday and doing something a bit different here in the parliament, and that is a shame. I fear that there may be some members here who are capitulating to the views of the Property Council, and that is a shame, because if the Property Council had their way, then our planning laws would not be about people at all. It is a bit like those uni chiefs who talk about unis being great places if not for the students.

The Property Council seems to think that our cities would be great places to live if not for the people who are actually in them. They seem to think that our planning system should not involve any emotion, should not actually consider the views of the residents and the community. Well, our cities are not simply soulless concrete jungles. They are about people—that is what they are about—and the community should have a say in planning the neighbourhoods in which we live. These decisions should not be outsourced to unelected committees, committees of so-called experts. These decisions should be made by communities and involve their local councils.

I do just want to say that one of the deep flaws in our planning system and our heritage laws that has been exposed here is the fact that we have a planning regime and a heritage regime that is really shallow in terms of the protection that it provides to our iconic buildings. It is simply not acceptable that a developer can protect the facade and gut the interior of our iconic buildings. We need to change our planning laws so that that cannot continue to happen. We need to change our planning laws to ensure that a venue like the Crown and Anchor cannot be converted into a soulless building.

This is not the end of this campaign; it is simply the campaign moving into another phase. If this motion gets up in an amended form tonight, that will be a good outcome for all those who have been out there rallying and campaigning, because it demonstrates that the parliament takes this matter seriously. But there is still a lot more work to do, and I want to make it very clear that the Greens stand shoulder to shoulder with all those people in our community who want to see a planning system that actually works for people and not developers. I indicate that we will not be supporting the amendments, but we will support, of course, the substantive motion should the amendments be successful.

The council divided on the amendment:

Ayes 17

Noes 3

Majority 14

AYES

NOES

Amendment thus carried; motion as amended carried.