Bills

Statutes Amendment (Heritage) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 6 March 2025.)

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Workforce and Population Strategy) (11:01): I am pleased to close debate on this matter. This is in some ways a relatively small bill. It tightens up the way in which we treat state heritage-listed places in order to ensure that should we make a decision, a crucial decision, a difficult decision, to remove an entire piece of state heritage, it will be done in a way that thoughtfully captures all of the information, the values, that are associated with that place, and also that there is appropriate scrutiny, that the community is able to be aware of those details, that nothing would be done in secret, in a hidden way, by any future government.

In that sense, it is a bill that I think has been recognised by those who have spoken at this second reading stage as one that does something useful, if not ever to be used in the future, knowing that it sits there as a protective measure for our heritage. I am acutely aware of the importance of heritage to South Australians. It is a matter that is raised with me all over the state and, of course, I represent an electorate which is replete with both Aboriginal and European post-settler heritage as well. The seat of Port Adelaide is full of both forms of heritage and, of course, an enormous amount of natural heritage with the mangroves and the dolphin sanctuary.

The European-settled heritage is one that is relatively recent, obviously, simply by virtue of how relatively recent the modern nation of Australia is and, in that sense, is all the more precious because there is not very much of it. We fail to look back at our heritage and preserve it and share it at our peril. Heritage could be regarded simply as a relic, a piece of history no longer of any relevance, a hindrance to development, a block to the way in which we might want to shape our built environment, but most people respond to heritage very differently to that. They not only see it as a sense of nostalgic link to the past but, importantly, as a way of understanding past experiences and allowing that to inform our current decision-making.

What was it like for European culture and people arriving here in this land so far from home? How did they adapt to a very different environment and yet seek to retain elements of European culture? What buildings mattered most early on? What does that tell us about what is important when we are building a community?

I know in Port Adelaide some of the early buildings are associated with the judiciary, with the police, with trade and, of course, with enjoying each other's company in the form of many pubs. They are to do with faith, different forms of religious values and expression. That tells us much about what that early community was like. None of those issues have stopped being important to us. None of those virtues, those values that are expressed through the early heritage of Port Adelaide, are irrelevant now to how we live our lives.

So heritage to me is much more than a matter of aesthetic value and much more than a matter of capturing something that existed and no longer is of relevance as a timepiece; it is much more to me about something that can be a source of ongoing conversation and discussion. For that reason, we were a very progressive state in choosing to protect heritage places. I believe in making sure that we have a tighter approach to the way in which we address a question of when a State Heritage Place merits, on balance, being removed; the way in which that can be managed in a more thoughtful, contemplative and respectful way; and also, of course, where at all possible, avoid it altogether.

This bill does useful work. Not least, it ticks an election commitment which, as all politicians know, matters very much to us. But, I think importantly, it reminds us of some important values associated with heritage and the way in which we ought to treat it. I therefore commend it to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr BASHAM: My first question is in relation to the operation in particular around the changes that are going to be put in place to protect the heritage. Would this process that is being put in place here have changed the outcome in relation to any of the buildings that have recently been demolished: the police barracks, the Waite Gatehouse and the like?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: In the case of the Thebarton barracks, no, because in the case of the Thebarton barracks we went through the process of asking the Heritage Council to do a report on the values of that site in order to enable them to be captured for—

Mr Telfer: Posterity.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, posterity. Thank you, sir. I should not second-guess myself. They have been built into the way in which the project has operated, so we have passed all of that on to Health so they are able to respond to that in the form of the new development and the way in which those values are maintained.

So the work that would have been done that would have been tabled in parliament was done without the requirement of the legislation. The decision that was made by the government, which was not an easy decision, required us to balance the overriding, as it became, requirement to have a decent-sized Women's and Children's Hospital located close to the new RAH.

In the case of the Waite Gatehouse, it would have changed matters. As the member would be well aware, with the Waite Gatehouse ultimately the decision was, in a sense, reversed. The original decision was to demolish it and there was a lot of upset within the community and a lot of petitions were organised by the National Trust. The decision was reversed to the extent that for the gatehouse the material was protected and it was rebuilt in Urrbrae.

I was there some months ago for part of the unveiling of the new old Waite Gatehouse. That process probably would have happened more smoothly had this legislation been in place. Had the government had it, it would have been required to go to the Heritage Council and receive a report, which did not happen, as I understand it, with the Waite Gatehouse. It might have, in recognising the values and also the community reaction, made an earlier determination about the way in which that would be handled. You cannot run history twice, but my sense is that, even if it had arrived in the same place in the end, it would have been a different process to get there.

Mr BASHAM: In this whole process, I am just trying to understand the report that the Heritage Council is going to prepare that is going to be tabled. Is that with the expectation that they will make a recommendation, or is it left open that they can leave an open finding about what they see going forward?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is not intended to be a recommendation on the merits of demolition or not demolition. It is intended to be entirely a report on what the values are that exist within that heritage place. Obviously, the easiest way to preserve those values is simply to leave the heritage place intact, but there are other ways of capturing that information and it is important probably to put on record that ideally when a heritage place is put on the register—and this was not so true early on so we have not captured all of the information early on but now the process is far clearer—it is about identifying on what basis it merits the status of state heritage protection.

Is it there because of its architectural uniqueness because of the role that that building played in the social, the economic or the cultural development of the state? We need to look at exactly what the values are, rather than simply assume that it is the fabric of the building as is and it is never to be touched. That is an important part of deciding what then will happen with that building.

Of course, just to go a little astray from the demolition question, it is important particularly when there is adaptive re-use to understand what it is about that building that needs to be preserved as opposed to what could be altered within an adaptive re-use context. Those values matter and it is those values that are being asked of the Heritage Council.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 9 passed.

Clause 10.

Mr BASHAM: I have questions in relation to understanding demolition of the whole of a State Heritage Place in understanding what 'whole' means and how far that goes. If you just leave the foundation stone, is that not the whole? Again, you touched on the Waite Gatehouse. Is dismantling demolition or not demolition?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is a reasonable question but one which has a slightly subtle answer. The eye of the beholder is not quite the right term, but it is a matter of judgement about the whole. It would be hard, I think, to sustain that there would be a reasonable view formed that if you left one stone behind you had not entirely demolished the building, but on the other hand if you were to look at that particular case of the Waite Gatehouse, because it was moved stone by stone and rebuilt, that almost certainly is not a demolition of the whole because many of the values that existed have been preserved but in a different location.

The trigger of the whole is to be determined by the state Heritage Council on a case-by-case basis—on whether or not they choose to do a report. The Heritage Council is an independently minded council that would form a view based on the heritage values that are being removed or not removed and therefore is a safe place for the decision to be made.

Mr BASHAM: So if an owner of a state heritage building was looking to not demolish the whole, in their mind, but to actually remove a significant proportion of the building, would they be required to go to the Heritage Council to have that conversation, or can they then just go and put an application in to remove the half that they want to remove?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is already the case that if a State Heritage Place is going to have some form of development occur to it, whether it is renovation, partial demolition and rebuild or complete demolition, all of that triggers state Heritage Council involvement in development approval. So you could just go to Planning and put in your development approval application and say, 'I am proposing to do this.' Because it is a State Heritage Place that immediately triggers a referral to the state Heritage Council.

It is to the department, sorry. It is to SA heritage; is that the title? Yes. My delegation as minister is given to the department. So technically it comes to the minister and is then of course sent to the department because the delegation sits within the department. That would happen regardless, even without this amendment. What this does is put in an extra layer of requirement should the proposal be for the whole building to be demolished—that there would be an extra level of reporting required and public scrutiny.

Mr BASHAM: I have a question now on the timeframes that are set out. This particular period that I have mentioned in briefings with your staff—and we are coming up to that at the end of this year—if someone is looking to do something after November, it is not until May before they can table it in the parliament. So there is a significant time delay that may be crucial. Is there any other mechanism that can be put in place, in particular for that period of time but also if there are other periods where it may be challenging to meet the tabling requirements in the parliament?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The member is correct that when we have matters that are required to be tabled in parliament there is always the potential of hitting one of the breaks, and therefore a gap in that being able to happen. So while it is required to be tabled within five sitting days, it might be quite some time before you get five sitting days. Legislatively there might be, through happenstance, a report that is received and then a couple of months' break before the report is tabled in parliament.

There will be guidelines that sit around the actual application of this legislation, and my intention is that one of the elements of the guidelines will be that the minister will publish via the internet and provide publicly the report once received, so that gets over the question of being publicly available. It would, in any case, be available under FOI, and I see that it would only be good governance to not have to wait for FOIs but to anticipate people's interest and make that publicly available.

Tabling in parliament is a discipline that we know it is going to be made public but, given the question of timing that you have raised in briefings and now today in the chamber, I think the most sensible approach would be for government to commit to making it public once it has been received, so that there is no question of any development approval having taken place without the contents of that report being known to the public.

Mr BASHAM: Just as a slight follow-up on that, my understanding is that would allow the process to continue in a timely manner, even though it had not met the tabling requirements.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes. There is no link between the tabling requirements and development approval; for example, if the minister or the minister's office failed to table on time that would not endanger the proponent's timeline. It is an obligation on the minister to do that, but it does not interfere with the development approval process. Similarly, should there be a gap in parliament sitting, that would not interfere with the development approval process.

However, the intent of this legislation and the reason it refers to tabling in parliament is simply to be very explicit that not only would a report be prepared but it would be public, and parliament is the most public of the institutions we have for scrutiny. In order to ensure that a gap of several weeks or a couple of months does not interfere with the public's understanding of what the values are in the building, I think a guideline under the Heritage Council would make sense that it would be made public earlier.

Clause passed.

Clauses 11 to 14 passed.

Clause 15.

Mr BASHAM: This is my last question in relation to this bill and it is very much in the circumstances where a piece of state heritage may be gutted by fire, for example. This building burns to the ground and most of the heritage is lost, to the point that the building may be unstable and needs to be immediately demolished. What is the process for a building that effectively no longer has heritage or has heritage that cannot be saved because of structural integrity that requires immediate demolition?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I think the member raises what I would hope would be a rare occasion. This legislation does require that the development application be accompanied by a finalised report. The earlier clauses give the Heritage Council a period of time to do that. My expectation is that they would do that much more quickly in the event of a demolition that was required through urgency. I would not expect that to happen very often at all, that it would be necessary, and therefore would be one that would be treated as an exceptional circumstance by the Heritage Council.

Clause passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Workforce and Population Strategy) (11:28): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I want to thank members for their contribution and my opposite number today for some thoughtful questions about the way in which this will be applied. It will, I expect, be used extremely rarely. We almost never demolish state heritage in this state, which is a good thing. It ought to be something that we shy away from as much as possible but recognise that occasionally there will be circumstances where competing goods require us to contemplate such an action.

Far more serious, of course, is the version of demolition that occurs essentially through neglect, which we have sought to address previously in a piece of legislation last year to be tougher on owners who buy up a bit of property, sit back and wait for it to fall apart. That form of effective demolition, but demolition through simply waiting for the fabric of the building to rot away and for the heritage values to disappear, is far more widescale and is an issue that we need to pay very careful attention to.

We in this state have been contemplating ways in which we can encourage the adaptive re-use of heritage buildings. I do not think either side of politics in government have quite nailed what the right incentives versus disincentives (or guides) against certain behaviours are to get some of those buildings activated in a way that is useful. There are contemplations about whether there need to be different standards to which heritage buildings are held. For example, I am aware that in Customs House in Port Adelaide, when there was a thought about redoing that in order to have it be used properly, the cost to make it earthquake-proof made any sort of commercial proposition very difficult to bring together.

We have this constant discussion within this place and in the community about the very good safety standards that we have that we adhere to for buildings, which we should not resile from, but at the same time there is recognition of the consequences of those standards on the way that state heritage and other heritage buildings and older buildings can be adaptively re-used. While we have made some progress, both with this piece of legislation and the one last year, this is an ongoing discussion that I think should be part of our contemplation about the way in which we continue to build, develop and grow in this state. Preserving heritage, celebrating it, using it and making sure that there is not an easy path for allowing it to fall apart are important. With those words, I thank the chamber for its contributions and ask that the bill be read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.