A little-known office, $55k contracts and a growing political problem

analysis Uncomfortable questions over golf course upgrade show risks of Malinauskas’s gamble As the world-renowned Michelin Guide dished out its coveted stars to 11 South Australian venues on Wednesday night, you could see all the hallmarks of a Malinauskas government media moment coming together. National and international attention on SA, born from a gamble — or idea — that no other state has taken up yet, all behind a commercial-in-confidence contract. In that sense, paying Michelin to come over and judge SA's restaurants was cut from the same policy cloth as bringing Adelaide the inaugural AFL Gather Round, the upstart LIV Golf tour and the MotoGP. When asked in parliament last week how much taxpayers spent luring Michelin to SA, Premier Peter Malinauskas said he was "not going to be in the business of revealing to other jurisdictions what we are investing in to get ahead of them". He then offered this explanation of the government's policy approach: "If you want to achieve outcomes, if you are interested in getting forward in a dynamic environment, you've got to be willing to do things differently. "It doesn't mean we will get it right 100 per cent of the time, but it does mean we are going to give it a go." An earlier gamble There is perhaps no better example of this government doing things differently than its approach to LIV Golf and the associated $45 million redevelopment of the North Adelaide Golf Course. The premier gambled on the controversial Saudi-backed LIV vision before other states, attracting the tour to Adelaide in 2023 and holding several successful events at the Grange Golf Club. He then doubled down in February 2025, signing a six-year extension and announcing it would be brought to the city at an upgraded North Adelaide course in 2028 — something he characterised as a "calculated risk". Greg Norman was the CEO of LIV at the time. His golf course design firm was awarded the contract for the redesign, without an open tender. The direct approach sparked criticism back then, but some curious details emerged in parliament last week prompting renewed interest from the government's political opponents. A different kind of procurement According to a report published by the state's auditor-general, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet (DPC) initially awarded contracts to 14 specialist consultants to work on the golf course project, including Greg Norman's firm. All these contracts were valued at $55,000. That number also happens to be the threshold where any contract worth more prompts additional scrutiny under the department's procurement policies. According to the auditor-general, the department later entered 11 new contracts with the original consultants; this time, each one was valued over $55,000, and still not subject to that additional scrutiny, Why does all this matter? The auditor-general said there was a "risk that significant public sector investment decisions" were made without the "required analysis of costs, benefits, risks and value for money, reducing transparency and increasing the risk of inefficient use of public resources". The findings from the Audit Office, a government agency that does not have much of a public profile, prompted a flood of uncomfortable questions in parliament. Opposition leader Ashton Hurn asked the premier if the government had "deliberately structure[d]" the contracts at exactly $55,000 to avoid the additional procurement requirements. The premier replied that his responsibility was to "set the policy direction", and the "department then goes about executing that policy". "The delivery and the programs of that procurement are done by the agency," he said. "In many respects … those decisions are at arm's length from the political architecture of the government, the cabinet architecture of the government." He added that he had "received no advice from my agency" that they had "made those decisions deliberately in the way the leader of opposition has suggested", but he would take the question on notice. The need for speed The department, for its part, said it took the direct procurement approach because of the time pressure to upgrade the golf course, and the consultants it targeted had "unique" experience needed for the project. In a statement worthy of a place in the jargon hall of fame, it told the auditor-general: "While value-for-money assessment at project inception was limited by the conceptual nature of the project information at that point in time, the continued focus and achievement of value-for-money throughout project development has resulted in the final agreed contract sum being considerably less than the initial offers." In plain English, it appears the vagaries of the North Adelaide Golf Course project early on made it hard to judge if it was value for money, but the department managed to get a handle on it in the end. The Malinauskas government can argue it's necessary to take risks, push through unwieldy bureaucratic processes and seize opportunities that might otherwise pass the state by. It has, so far, been rewarded handsomely by the electorate for doing so. But the events in parliament last week have shown the potential for that strategy to come unstuck. The Audit Office's report added another layer to what has become an ongoing political problem over the North Adelaide course, its felling of 585 trees, and intrinsic connection to the LIV Golf tour which may never come back due to its financial struggles. It is not over yet either. The Liberal Party has flagged it will move a motion to compel the production of documents related to the $55,000 contracts. It is likely to pass the upper house with crossbench support. [Image text:] ADELAIDE SOUTH AUSTRALIA EGOLF ADELAIDE SOUTH AUSTRALIA LGOLE EVGOLF ADELAIDE SOUTH AUSTRALIA WGOLF ADELAIDE