MARBLE HILL

The Hon. M. PARNELL (15:13): I seek leave to wish the Minister for Environment and Conservation a happy World Environment Day and to make a brief explanation before asking her a question about Marble Hill.

Leave granted.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I am being distracted by people suggesting I should not ask this question, but it is an important issue. Last Tuesday 3 June, the minister made a ministerial statement regarding Marble Hill. In this statement the minister referred to signing a heads of agreement with Dr Patricia Bishop and Mr Edwin Michell regarding their intention to purchase Marble Hill. The minister stated that '...they have agreed to guarantee public access to the site on at least seven days a year, and construct a small museum as part of the restoration.' The minister also referred to the newsletter of the National Trust of South Australia, and quoted the trust as stating:

...there are two fundamental objectives in relation to Marble Hill. These are to ensure that the building and its grounds are properly conserved and that the house remains accessible to the public.

My question to the minister is: will this guaranteed public access to the site include access to the restored house or will access be restricted to the grounds and museum only?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Minister Assisting the Minister for Health) (15:15): I thank the honourable member for his question and for his interest in this very important heritage site. As we know, the site—once used as the governor's summer residence—was damaged by fires almost 50 years ago. Most unfortunately, it has lain in ruin since then and there has been a steady and gradual deterioration due to the elements as well as to vandals. So, as environment minister, I was very pleased to be part of at least the preliminary agreement. The sale has not yet been finalised but a heads of agreement has been signed, so there is a preliminary commitment, if you like, by the government and by the proponents to completely restore this very important historical site.

The proponents have committed to a range of conditions, including access to the site for seven days a year, and a commitment to its historical restoration that includes input from a heritage architect as well as DEH so that we can ensure any development of the site is closely monitored and supervised. It also includes a condition that the site not be subdivided, so the house and its magnificent grounds will remain in perpetuity—and, of course, the grounds are essential to the whole feel and value of the house so it would have been a real shame to lose any of the surrounding land and gardens. These conditions will be set into the title of the land so that they are passed down in perpetuity, providing a certain assurance to South Australians.

Although some general commitments have been agreed to, the next step is an independent valuation of the site, and we need to wait for the design plans to be developed by the proponents. The exact details of where access will be have not yet been signed off, but I reassure members that the commitment of the proponents, Mr Michell and Dr Bishop, is very deep and genuine. They see it as a civic responsibility to restore the building and that, rather than a commercial focus, is their main driving force. They are very keen to restore the building and be able to show it off to the general public. They are also committed to building a small museum.

I am quite confident that they will be looking at every opportunity possible to showcase the house, the museum and the grounds to the general public.