House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Marble Hill MARBLE HILL Ms SIMMONS House of Assembly Morialta MARBLE HILL Ms SIMMONS (Morialta) (14:27): My question is to the Minister for Environment and Conservation. Will the minister outline to the house the state of negotiations surrounding the sale of Marble Hill in the electorate of Morialta? The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL House of Assembly Cheltenham Minister for Environment and Conservation Minister for Early Childhood Development Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation Minister Assisting the Premier in Cabinet Business and Public Sector Management MARBLE HILL The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for Early Childhood Development, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister Assisting the Premier in Cabinet Business and Public Sector Management) (14:28): The planned sale of Marble Hill is on track and negotiations are continuing with Dr Patricia Bishop and Edwin Michell, two South Australians who have put up their hands to restore this old ruin. Let us be very clear: it is a ruin and has been since it was largely destroyed in the 1955 bushfires. No government of either persuasion has been prepared to invest the money which would have restored this heritage building. That cost is estimated to be something in the order of $5 million to $10 million. Marble Hill has remained a ruin for all those years. We are very fortunate in South Australia to have in Edwin Michell and Dr Bishop people who are willing to spend their own money to restore this ruin and guarantee public access on an ongoing basis. They have entered into a heads of agreement that guarantees the restoration of this ruin in full cooperation with heritage experts from the Department for Environment and Heritage and it guarantees public access on seven days each year. It commits them to build, at their own expense, a small museum explaining to the visitors the heritage and history of the building. It guarantees that there can be no subdivision of the 22-hectare site. Most people would regard this as a win-win situation. Indeed, the former member for Mayo, Alexander Downer, did. On 20 May this year, he put out a media release saying 'Marble Hill restoration fantastic for the community'. It continues, 'Mr Michell and Dr Bishop's enthusiasm for our local history is simply inspiring.' But what do we get from those opposite? We get the Marble Hill Protection Bill, which has passed through the other house and I understand is destined here, but is not here yet. I will read from a letter I received from Dr Bishop and Mr Michell on this issue, two people whose only concern has ever been the history and heritage of Marble Hill. They have obviously found themselves in a rather unedifying battle with the opposition party, but I will read some of the extracts from their letter to the house so that members are absolutely clear that, if the bill were to proceed and to be passed, the plan to preserve Marble Hill would be lost. They say this: On May 16^th 2008 we signed a heads of agreement...The debate in the upper house on July 23 did not reflect our position and there appears to be an ongoing misunderstanding with some members of the Liberal Party. We wish to make it clear that if this bill were passed, we would withdraw our proposal and this opportunity to rebuild Marble Hill would be lost...We are not developers. We come from long-established South Australian families, with close connections to the Marble Hill region of the Adelaide Hills. We are active supporters of our local community and have a history of preserving heritage properties...We have sought no change of rules, no special deals, no taxpayers' money. For us, this will be an expensive but rewarding project to preserve a special site. They also say: The bill is concerned with politics rather than heritage preservation. It guarantees only— An honourable member interjecting: The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL House of Assembly The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I will tell you. The letter states: It guarantees only increased red tape and ongoing political interference. When we submitted our proposal to the minister in April 2007, we were concerned that inappropriate development could easily destroy the heritage values of Marble Hill, so we offered a plan consistent with the 1998 Danvers Report and the Burra Charter. They go on to say: We thought anyone who valued the heritage of our state would welcome our proposal and we have asked the Liberal leader for bipartisan support. Bipartisanship from this old Adelaide family. They go on to say this— Members interjecting: The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL House of Assembly The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: That is right. They go on to say this: We believe that our proposal should be judged on its merits as a heritage matter and we are dismayed that it has been politicised. These are honourable people who are seeking to do a good thing for this state and what we get from those opposite is some politics. I do not pretend to understand the politics of the Adelaide Hills or, indeed, of old Adelaide families, but it does seem that there has been a falling out here. I think that the best possible thing that could happen is for the Liberal Party to quickly get on and withdraw this bill, so that certainty can be restored to both Mr Michell and Dr Bishop and we can get on with preserving this wonderful piece of South Australian heritage.