1 May 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:49): 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 the North Adelaide Golf Club.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Yesterday, in parliament, the government and some members of the crossbench voted in unison to block the release of any business case associated with the redevelopment of the North Adelaide Golf Course. During the debate it was unclear whether a business case even exists. It is also unclear how much taxpayer money will be spent on the project and any potential implications for the City of Adelaide. My question to the Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing therefore is:

1. Is the minister aware of any business case associated with the redevelopment of the North Adelaide Golf Course?
2. Has she seen it?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (Minister for Emergency Services and Correctional Services, Minister for Autism, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (14:50): I thank the member for his question. As we have stated before, there is a lot to achieve in this space. We need to make sure that LIV Golf has the opportunity to become an incredible event, one that we know is very popular already in South Australia and one that has the opportunity to continue to grow, and to not only provide support to the many people that are now falling in love with golf and seeing it as a sport that they want to participate in but also to support local businesses. There is a long way to go. It is very early on in the discussions and one that we look forward to continuing.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:51): Supplementary: as part of these discussions has the minister or anyone in the government entertained the idea of foreign investment?

The PRESIDENT: Minister, you talked about the discussions. I guess I can allow that.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (Minister for Emergency Services and Correctional Services, Minister for Autism, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (14:51): As I said, there are discussions continuing, and I am sure many people will continue to have the right discussions and be able to provide more information when it is available.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:52): Supplementary: I ask:

1. Can I deduce from the minister's response to the original question that she has not seen the business case?
2. If she hasn't seen it, why hasn't she?
3. Isn't she the minister with responsibility for this project?
4. Why has the government committed so much money when they haven't even seen a business case?

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Simms, what the minister did not mention was 'business case' at all.

30 April 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (18:29): I move to amend paragraph 3 as follows:

Leave out 'vacant Lot 26' and insert 'decommissioned Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) site'

The reason for the amendment is to make it expressly clear which parcel of land the motion is referring to. It is no surprise, of course, that I am supportive of the motion that my colleague is putting forward. It is disappointing that there has not been a solution found to this parcel of land. I hope that, should this motion pass the upper house, it will put a bit of a rocket under the Labor government and encourage them to take action.

In terms of the points made by the Hon. Michelle Lensink, I do know Dr Anna Finizio. I have had the opportunity to meet her on many occasions. She is indeed a very impressive and accomplished person. Of course, preference decisions are made by party organisations, and they are made not necessarily with regard just to individual candidates who are standing, although I do know Cressida O'Hanlon and know her to be a formidable and impressive person also.

Preference decisions are also made with regard to the policy platforms of the respective political parties. If one looks at the policy platform that the Liberals have advanced here in our state and at the national level, there are significant points of difference with the Greens, so it would hardly be surprising that preference decisions have lined up in the way that they have. Certainly, I support the motion that the Hon. Tammy Franks is putting forward and urge the government to finally do something with respect to this green space.

30 April 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:51): It is worth clarifying that I am not proposing there be any committee on top of what has already been undertaken. I am suggesting that there be a production of documents and that the government reveal any business case and related documents regarding the proposed redevelopment of the North Adelaide Golf Course.

I must say the comments of the Hon. Connie Bonaros have heightened my concerns somewhat, because it appears to me from what the honourable member has said that there is not actually a business case that the government has considered. If that is the case, then I am very concerned that the government is pledging potentially millions and millions of dollars of taxpayer money for a significant redevelopment project when no business case has been seen. Does a business case even exist?

I should not be that surprised, because the Malinauskas government has form in that regard. I remember us having a discussion about this very issue in the context of $500 million—half a billion dollars—being put on the table for a university merger when the government had not even seen the business case at that time. In this instance, it seems we have secret backup legislation that no-one here is privy to, and we have a secret business case, or a non-existent business case, that is being used to underpin potentially an investment of millions and millions of dollars of taxpayer money.

This is not about whether or not we support LIV Golf. I am not supportive of LIV Golf, the Hon. Tammy Franks is not supportive of LIV Golf, but I recognise that other members have different views. This is a simple transparency measure. It is about saying, 'If you are putting a huge amount of taxpayer money on the table, then surely the taxpayer has a right to know what is the business case. Does it stack up?' I am not asking the government to do any work that has not already been done, but I am getting the significant impression from the comments that have already been made that there is not actually a business case that underpins this investment, and that is very concerning.

I respect the Hon. Connie Bonaros and the work she does in this place, but I am disappointed that she and the Hon. Sarah Game are acting as a Praetorian Guard for the government when it comes to this proposal. It is not the role of crossbenchers to cloak this sort of information from public view. The public has a right to access this information and all members of parliament have a right to see any potential legislation that may be required. Despite my requests of the government, I am yet to find out whether or not there is any backup legislation in the works, what that looks like and what precisely is in scope.

I think all of us in this place have a right to access that information and, more importantly, our constituents—the people we represent—have a right to access that information. After all, with respect to a business case, it is their money that is going to be invested in this project. I remind members that I will be calling a division on this matter so that their views can be clearly documented and made available to the public.

The council divided on the motion:

Ayes 7

Noes 8

Majority 1

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Motion thus negatived.

29 April 2025

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:56): I rise to speak on the State Development Coordination and Facilitation Bill 2025 on behalf of the Greens. I listened with interest to the speeches of my colleagues the Hon. Michelle Lensink and the Hon. Jing Lee, and I suspect I am going to be the odd one out here in indicating that the Greens are not supportive of this bill.

I am very concerned that this bill represents a significant change in the way in which we do things in South Australia, and it requires very careful scrutiny. Obviously, we are going to undertake a committee process shortly but I am very, very concerned that we run the risk of handing the Malinauskas government a blank cheque and an opportunity to override existing laws and protections here in our state.

That is concerning for our democracy, and it is coming at a time when I think a lot of South Australians are very concerned about the way in which governments of both persuasions—Labor and Liberal—are disregarding their views when it comes to their embrace of the United States and their very dangerous foreign policy.

I hear the Hon. Michelle Lensink groaning. This is a view that I think most people in the South Australian community share; this is a significant issue in Australia at the moment. The Trump presidency poses a real risk to Australia, and I think people right across the state are concerned about the nature of our relationship with the Trump administration. This is an issue that has been playing out over in Canada just today.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: With respect, the bill specifically references AUKUS, and that is one of the key elements that the Greens are concerned about. AUKUS involves a collaboration between the United States and our country, and I think it is legitimate to talk about the risks of that relationship when it comes to our security.

The bill establishes the Coordinator-General's Office, and I understand that where there is a project of state significance the bill allows the newly established Coordinator-General's Office to perform a series of functions or assessment processes that currently sit within other acts of parliament. This is a broad set of powers that are being proposed.

We understand that the government has undertaken consultation in the development of the bill, both open and targeted. However, while some concerns have been raised in the consultation stage and have been addressed, there are others that have not been sufficiently tackled by the government. One of these significant issues that has been raised with the Greens is the concentration of power to four unelected officials who will make up the Coordinator-General's Office.

The primary principle established in the bill, that the Coordinator-General's Office must consider the economic, environmental and social aspects of the project, is meritorious. We of course support that being included. However, there is not sufficient guidance being provided to the Coordinator-General's Office in terms of how that assessment is made. One of the fundamental concerns that we have, which I flagged in my introductory remarks, is the relationship between this bill and AUKUS.

The intention, as stated by the government very clearly, is to undertake projects of state significance, including increasing the supply of housing that is desperately needed for the state. Of course we support that, but I do not accept the government's premise that one of the major barriers to housing development in South Australia is a lack of fast-track approvals. Surely the major issue, when it comes to housing development in our state, is the lack of capacity to actually get the work done and the lack of investment from the South Australian government and the federal government in terms of public housing. That is the major barrier, not necessarily land release and certainly not necessarily red tape.

It is clear that the Coordinator-General's Office will be tasked with various AUKUS projects. Indeed, the bill makes it clear that one of the members of this office must have expertise when it comes to AUKUS. The Greens have been very clear that we do not support this dud deal. It is a dud deal for our nation and it is a dud deal for the people of South Australia. It trashes our reputation as a clean, green state and it makes our country less safe by putting us in the eye of the storm by tying our foreign policy interests and our defence interests to the delusional nutcase, Donald Trump. We do not believe that this is an equal partnership, we do not believe that we will ever see any benefit that will flow from this dud deal, and we have serious concerns about the toxic nuclear waste storage and transport that is associated with this deal.

I should say that this bill will also allow the government to, in effect, sweep in and find sites for nuclear waste and to potentially impose those on communities against their wishes. I recognise that the Malinauskas government and the Tarzia opposition are locked into supporting AUKUS. They are a unity ticket on this reform. But that is not the view of the community. For instance, the Port Adelaide Community Opposing AUKUS group have been advocating a long time into this project, and the residents of that area are directly impacted by the project in a number of ways.

There has been a lack of consultation and transparency from both state and federal governments when it comes to the implications of the AUKUS deal for that community. They have concerns about their health and their local environment. They have concerns about the potential impacts of any accidents that may happen in relation to nuclear waste.

It is interesting: when people talk about nuclear waste it is very easy to talk about it in the abstract, but no-one wants it in their backyard. There is a reason why the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, has not visited one potential nuclear waste site during the federal election. He knows that people do not want nuclear waste in their backyard and for good reasons—because the health and the environmental risks are well documented and well known.

Here in South Australia, we pride ourselves on being a clean, green state, yet we have signed up to a deal that allows nuclear waste to be stored amongst our suburbs. The concerns of the community are valid, and we do not want to see the state government ignoring their views. We know that we cannot rely on a Trump administration to treat us equitably in any deal moving forward. Trump did not even know what AUKUS was when he was asked about it.

The atrocious public policy decisions being made by the Trump administration in the US should be making us question the state and federal government's dedication to AUKUS and our defence strategy in general. We know that South Australia is not set to start building submarines until 2030 or 2040, and in the meantime it is clear that there are going to be significant shifts in global politics that will impact on this deal.

The Greens will be moving amendments to the bill to ensure that this new Coordinator-General's Office's powers cannot be used for the doomed AUKUS project. Furthermore, we want to give assurances to the people of South Australia, and in particular the impacted community around Osborne, that these powers will not be used to establish nuclear waste sites, and so our amendments make that expressly clear.

This is a test for the Labor and Liberal parties. They will say that this is not about nuclear waste. If that is the case, they will support the Greens' amendments to make this very clear to the people of South Australia. I suspect, however, that what we will see is the unity ticket of Labor and the Liberals voting together to give this new office the power to fast-track finding these nuclear waste sites.

The Greens are also concerned that this bill is bad news for the environment. The Conservation Council made a submission to an earlier draft of the bill and it states:

The environment sector does not support the delegation of decision-making functions without clear safeguards to ensure the existing integrity of environmental approval processes are upheld rather than subverted.

This bill enables the Coordinator-General's Office to call in the functions of, or to undertake approvals under, a series of important acts: the Native Vegetation Act, the Environment Protection Act, the Coast Protection Act, the Heritage Places Act and the pastoral lands act. Parliament took great care in crafting these pieces of legislation. We should also exercise our due diligence when a government comes along with a plan to hand those powers over to another office without the same level of ministerial oversight, without the same level of knowledge or expertise that exists within those departments when administering those acts.

Our amendments seek to remove those acts from the remit of this bill, as we believe these are important standalone legislative instruments that should have their unique status preserved. In particular, we recognise that these acts are fundamental to environmental protection. That is why we have identified them for discrete treatment.

We are also concerned about the potential implications for work health and safety. As a result, we will be seeking to remove the ability to call in the functions of the Work Health and Safety Act. We see no reason why the Coordinator-General needs to bring these functions into their remit. The Work Health and Safety Act is a vital piece of legislation for keeping workers safe. Why do we need to transfer the powers of that act over to unelected officials?

I understand, of course, that the government will claim that these concerns will be addressed by the fact that parliament can disallow some parts of the bill. We will be asking questions in the committee stage about exactly which provisions of the legislation will be disallowable, as we have received some contradictory advice about how this will work in practice.

We also have concerns about the composition of the Coordinator-General's Office. As I mentioned before, the Greens do not want to see these powers being used for AUKUS, and therefore we will seek to change the composition of the council to ensure that there is diversity of expertise. Our amendments will remove a requirement that there is expertise in AUKUS and instead ensure that a member of the First Nations Voice is included, a person with expertise in climate change and a person with expertise in planning.

If indeed this bill is to enable development, let's make sure that there is somebody at the table with planning expertise. If the government is serious in its commitments to addressing climate and engaging with First Nations people as part of our planning, then it should also make a commitment to ensuring that these decision-makers in the Coordinator-General's Office have expertise in that regard. It is vital that these voices are included in these decisions, and this would go some way to addressing the concerns of members of the community who feel that they are being shut out of this process.

I am concerned that this bill is a power grab from the Malinauskas government, so that they can establish yet another office to fast-track key developments. This office will be able to take on the roles of important agencies to do the bidding of the government of the day, to prioritise the projects that they see fit, and it further reduces the level of public scrutiny and oversight over the provisions of the toxic AUKUS deal. This is the Malinauskas government bulldozing their way through our state, and the Greens are not supportive of this approach.

I do urge the opposition to think very carefully about their position on this bill. I understand that they are moving a number of amendments. As the Hon. Michelle Lensink acknowledged, we have only just seen those, but we will consider those and form a position on them during the committee stage. At first blush, many of the amendments that the opposition are proposing are sensible and do introduce some level of transparency, but they do not go anywhere near far enough in terms of addressing the myriad concerns that the Greens have with this legislation.

Might I also express some frustration at the way in which the Malinauskas government has approached this issue. This is something that should receive a high level of public scrutiny and a high level of public engagement. I accept the government has conducted a consultation piece; however, dealing with this in the parliament this week, which is on the eve of the federal election when all eyes are focused on national politics, does seem a little bit too clever from my perspective. It is being a bit too clever by half.

The government could have waited until another week, so that this could get the level of public and media scrutiny that it deserves. It is a significant change. It is one that the Greens believe the public should be engaged with, and it is one that this parliament should really give due scrutiny or due consideration of. We are moving a series of amendments. I urge members to support those, but ultimately our view is that this bill sets our state down a dangerous path.

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.