Bills

Heritage Places (Protection of Heritage Places) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 5 May 2021.)

Dr CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:12): I rise to speak on this bill and indicate that I am the lead speaker on our side of parliament on this bill. I will start by saying that we do not yet have a final position on how we will vote for this bill. I anticipate that, before the completion of the committee stage, we will have a position; however, if we do not, should it get through, we will be very happy to have a further position in the Legislative Council.

I also indicate that, although we do not have a settled position, I am at present contemplating amendments, which of course I will seek to discuss with the mover of this legislation well before going into the committee stage. As I said, if that becomes impossible, if it should get through, we would seek to have those amendments discussed once we reach the Legislative Council.

However, all of that is by way of giving context to the issues that we recognise as being very significant and of great interest that sit in the bill and in the motivation behind this bill by the member for Waite. I believe that the member for Waite is responding to a concern that has been building in the community about the way in which state heritage is treated.

That concern has become a little bit more acute in the context of the design code and the way in which there is some ambiguity about the treatment of state heritage in the design code and that lack of clarity, and indeed complexity that sits in the design code, that makes it very difficult for people who are, in the ordinary course of events, interested in state heritage that is close to them, rather than being experts in all state heritage, to understand what level of protection exists: what can and cannot be done with state heritage according to the design code. It has increased the temperature a little in community concerns about the general treatment of state heritage places in South Australia.

On top of that have been a few pretty high-profile state heritage matters and, without in any way wishing to speak for the member for Waite, I suspect that one of them in particular has prompted his attention to the fate of state heritage and therefore has prompted the preparation of this bill and the advancement of the provisions within it. That one, of course, is the Waite Gatehouse.

As I understand it, the Waite Gatehouse is now going to be dismantled and reassembled; it is going to be moved. That is a form of protecting and preserving the spirit of the Waite Gatehouse. For some time, the Waite Gatehouse was under the threat of demolition. A decision had been made that it would be demolished because it was too expensive to do either a different road treatment in order to keep it in situ or a movement of it, which has now been agreed to. I suspect that issue, which I know has brought out many people in the community, has led to a concern that perhaps parliament ought to be involved should anything as significant as that be proposed for a state heritage site.

I know people who are not only members of the Liberal Party but family members of very senior Liberals who have been out protesting and getting signatures, so it does not surprise me that the member for Waite would have seen the threat to the Waite Gatehouse as a reason to start paying more attention to the fate of heritage in this state.

There are a couple of other state heritage issues that have arisen in the last three years that I think also warrant careful consideration of the proposition by the member for Waite in this bill. One of those was in my electorate, Shed 26, the last of the sawtooth sheds around Inner Harbour. It had been expected by me and my community that that shed would be protected in the new development, which is a very welcomed development by Cedar Woods around the Glanville railway station.

It was in the designs that had been released, in the artist's impressions, what that development would look like, and there was an expectation that there would be an arrangement between the state government and the developers that that shed could be reactivated, revitalised and contribute to that development. It has happened in many places. I have been to Tasmania to look at the way in which their sheds around their wharf and marina areas have been able to be revitalised and used and they are magnificent. There had been a great deal of hope and expectation that that would happen for Shed 26 as well.

The shed was nominated for state heritage consideration and the state Heritage Council deemed that it was worthy of being listed on the state Heritage Register. Now, of course, it fell foul of the clauses in the legislation that permit the government to remove a place from the state Heritage Register during its provisional listing phase. That is indeed what the Minister for Environment and Water decided to do, to the very great disappointment of my community.

I accept that Shed 26 is no longer, that it has gone now, but before it was demolished it was not officially on the register but had been deemed worthy of being on the register. One of the reasons the people in my community were so concerned about the fate of Shed 26 was that it was one of the few items of state heritage that related to the workers of South Australia. It was not about the people who had significant amounts of money and built grand buildings—which are absolutely worthy of protection—but it was about a place where people worked, where ordinary people earned an ordinary salary, working to build the state to be what it is now.

Port Adelaide is full of that kind of heritage, but Shed 26 was one of the few places where that kind of activity happened and is still there. It was under threat and could have been protected, and we lost that, which was, as I say, a great disappointment. For that reason, my community expects me to take this legislation very seriously.

The other state heritage place's fate that is being questioned is of course Martindale Hall. I will not go into the legislation, as I know that it has already been introduced, but I can say that the National Trust has come to see me and is deeply concerned about the way in which that piece of state heritage will be protected, will be considered, and that the treasures within it will be fully cared for and, importantly, that the people of South Australia will continue to have access.

There is a question mark over Martindale Hall. I accept that that question mark has been over it for a significant period of time. It is not a recent question mark, although it has come back again as an issue, as we will get to when that piece of legislation is debated. However, such a significant building is, in a way, the opposite of Shed 26 in the sense that it was a very magnificent house built by a gentlemen, as I understand it, on the basis that, if he built a really lovely house, the young woman he was very fond of in the UK would come over and live here—and she did not. He built it, and she did not. As I understand it, it is a house of heartbreak and sorrow. Mr Speaker, I would seek leave to have an additional 15 minutes to speak on this matter.

The SPEAKER: It is not available, deputy leader, in accordance with the sessional order.

Dr CLOSE: Not available?

The SPEAKER: It is afforded as an opportunity to the mover.

Dr CLOSE: I understand; thank you. The concern about that and the general concern about the way in which the government is able to make what seem like capricious decisions has no doubt motivated the member for Waite, and we will take this very seriously.

Dr HARVEY (Newland) (12:22): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 25

Noes 21

Majority 4

Motion thus carried; debate adjourned.