Parklands Privatisation

Ms REDMOND (Heysen) (15:15): I am delighted to have the unexpected pleasure of the opportunity for a grievance this afternoon. It will come as no surprise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am going to grieve about privatising our Parklands around Adelaide. As a proud South Australian, I am aware that when you look, for instance, in the back of your diary (if anyone, like me, still keeps a little diary) you have maps of all the major cities, and included always in the map of Adelaide you see the lovely Parklands ringing our city.

Of course, they were originally designed by Colonel William Light, Surveyor-General way back in about 1837 I think originally. He did not quite get here—I think Kingston was actually meant to help him with the design, but he was a bit late getting here as well. Those Parklands that ring the city are to me an intrinsic signifier of what makes this city so precious and so special, because we are the only city that looks like that. All the others, having grown out of penal colonies (unlike this state of course), grew up rather haphazardly, whereas we have this wonderful planned city with broad boulevards and the Parklands surrounding it.

I am not some purist who thinks we should not utilise our Parklands. I actually think it is good to have playing fields, parks and all sorts of things happening on the Parklands. I make no objection to the fact that we have the oval and so on on the Parklands, and indeed over time we have had some other things—the railway station, for instance, being converted to the casino, but that is an active use of an existing building—so I am not a purist when it comes to the Parklands. I believe that the Parklands are there not just to be native grasses and trees ringing the city, but lovely areas that people really can go into and utilise.

But when I discovered that this government in fact is starting to privatise those Parklands, I became extremely concerned. When I say 'privatised', what I mean is this: the government is currently in the process of going through what is going to happen with the Parklands, particularly the area now occupied by the Royal Adelaide Hospital site, generally to be known as the old Royal Adelaide Hospital site. There have been all sorts of things on that whole site, bounded by Frome Road, North Terrace, the river and Hackney Road, but the old hospital going down to the new hospital is going to mean that there is a redevelopment opportunity.

There are some heritage buildings on the site, and there is the potential to put lands back to Parklands and indeed to the Botanic Gardens. In fact, I understand that the Premier just before the last election promised the Adelaide Parklands Authority that it would be substantially returned to Parklands, but instead of that, this government (now at stage 2 of the planning process) has four consortia, and those consortia are all proposing the sale of private apartments on that land.

They will have it hidden amongst other things. There will be lots of other things, no doubt—cafes, and there will be some space returned to the Botanic Gardens, I understand—but at the end of the day, there is to me an intrinsic difference between what has happened up until now with the Parklands and what the government is now proposing. In allowing private ownership, what they are doing is allowing a select few to have exclusive occupation to the exclusion of all others, and really, our Parklands up until now have been part of the public domain. Whether it is going to the Museum, the State Library, the Art Gallery, or whatever it might be, it has been public domain, and happily so.

As I say, I am not a purist who says it has to be all just native vegetation and no-one bothers to go there, but there is an intrinsic difference in the step that this government is about to take in allowing private ownership for a select few individuals. They will try to justify it in a couple of ways, I have no doubt. They will say first of all that it is the price of progress, that the only we can pay for the redevelopment of this site is to allow this private ownership of these things.

The other thing I think the government will say is: 'It's long-term lease, it's not sale,' but anyone who has heard the debates in this chamber over the last 20 years would know that, in reality, giving someone exclusive occupation, whether it is by a long-term lease or by actual ownership of the fee simple is the equivalent of private ownership. It does not matter what you call it, it is still private ownership. It is still allowing certain select individuals, a wealthy few in this state, to gain exclusive private ownership, to the exclusion of all members of the public, for a long, long period of time. Once you take the first step on that very slippery slope it is my belief that it will continue, and then our Parklands are genuinely at risk.